Right - I know this has been done before in various guises but people's views do move on, including my own.
I currently have a crop sensor 60D, which I like v much. I may, however, move up to a full sensor in the next few years (not right now for sure).
I currently have:
Canon 70-200L f4 for long stuff, v nice, lightwieght etc
Tamron 15-55 f2.8 (non-IS) v nice indeed for the price, sharp, fast but noisy and a little slow AF
Canon 10-22 EFS pretty good ultra-wide, though soft at the edges
Though I have loved the Tamron 17-50 (superb value and probably my best lens purchase), I am considering getting something a bit better for the mid range area and perhaps with more reach. So started thinking about a 24-105 L IS as a general walk about with a lot more reach than my tamron. I think partly what appeals is that I use my 70-200 a lot but at the short end, probably up to 100 or so (often for portrait shots) and the 24-105 shoudl be better for that sort of easy shooting stuff. And would then work well with a full frame body.
However, once I start thinking about L series lenses I drift towards a 17-40L for landscape and some climbing shots. Or should I just bite the bullet and getting a canon 17-55 f2.8 IS dedicated for crops and good reviews (but it's not cheap and wouldn't work with a full frame body).
Historically, I have done a lot of landscape stuff, which tends to be towards the wider end of things but by no means exclusively. I would also like to take more climbing shots. Plus I do a lot of just general walk about/holiday shooting. No sports/action photography. I might like to get back into macro but I would probably get a specific macro lens if I go in that direction.
I suppose this is the classic conundrum with using full frame lenses on crop bodies - 17-40 (64mm equivalent at the long end) arguably short on reach and 24-105 not quite wide enough (38mm equivalent at the wide end).
If I was a bit more impressed by the 10-22 I'd almost certainly go for the 24-105 but sadly the IQ on the 10-22 just isn't good enough (unfortunately given the price) to be my normal wide lens (for me it is just a superwide). The Tamron gives better results at the 17mm+ end of things. So if I get the 24-105 I have a suspicion I will find there's a real gap at the wide end of things and I'll end up having to use the tamron 17-50 to plug the gap which is a great little lens but then I'll be changing lenses every 5 mins.
Thoughts?
