Last week I bought Canon EF 100mm f2.8 MACRO USM lens (with Hoya Super HMC UV 58mm filter), and it so great, I simply love it! In first week made over 100 new macro images for stock.

In few days I am expceting another lens to come - Canon EF 70-200 f4L IS (with Hoya Super HMC UV 67mm filter). Cant wait! It sure will fit great on my also new EOS 50D

Got Lowepro Micro Trekker 200 backpack to put all that equipment

Just to share excitement....

The only thing I need to find some replacement for my Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II.

It has low vinjeting, and very low CAs. But it is not very sharp at the side of the image.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

I considered 24-105 f4L, it is sharp OK, no vinjeting, but produces a lot more CAs (which is not acceptable).

Then I considered EF-S 17-55, it is sharp OK, but do a lot vinjeting, and a bit CAs.

Also 17-40L, not sharp enouh (more like my 28-105), and do a lot of CAs also.

do you have any suggestion for "walkabout" lens to shoot landscapes and portraits at the same time.

Something in range 17-80mm. (it can be 17-50 or 30-80, never mind), that is sharp and do as less CAs as possible?

hi peter...

congrats for your new staff ;-)

i have the 100 macro is super it was my first ugrade

and the second one witch i sugest you

is 24-70/2.8 canon it's 2 X SUPER

i have the 17-40 and its razor sharp and spectacular

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

They both beat 17-40 in sharpness by far.

I would choose tamron, for f/2.8. Also, lower distortions. You can get portraits okay with it.

Wow. You guys are finding the 18-55 IS good? I removed mine because it was not sharp. Maybe I should send it for a service?

Peter, how is the 50D?

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

They both beat 17-40 in sharpness by far..

would you mind telling us  if your statement based on first hand experience or just based on reviews I use canon 17 40 L and I just love it it's tack sharp and produces beautiful colors.

eta:and those who aren't fortunate enough to get a good copy would complain,which is understandable.

Quote from: Xalanx on November 13, 2008, 14:50

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

They both beat 17-40 in sharpness by far..

would you mind telling us  if your statement based on first hand experience or just based on reviews I use canon 17 40 L and I just love it it's tack sharp and produces beautiful colors.

I don't quote reviews, you can find them on your own. I have photos with 17-40, 17-50 and 18-55 in my portfolio. I used 2 copies of 17-40, both equally sharp (okayish...). However, on FF you will get better results than on APS-C. And I can shoot anytime with 17-40, I just choose not to. Because even though it has beautiful colors, it's not as sharp as I like and it's a slow lens. It's good money-wise if you have FF, but if you really want something good then get the 16-35

arrived today! Sweet!

Congratulations! 70-200 f/4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses in canon's lineup.

Be careful not to smash it on anything. It happened to me and I accidentaly and unpleasantly discovered that "L" lenses are not rock solid. Mine doesn't focus closer than 2 m now. I have to set the limiter to 3 m all the time.

Congrats again, there's a whole new world for you now. When I got my 70-200 I just wanted to re-shoot everything I shot with other lenses

tnx all.

@litifeta :  50D is OK. I got used to it. Shoot over 2500 images with it now. Overall happy with it, but when 60D comes out (possible with lower noise LOL!) I wont wait a minute, and buy a new camera. On the other hand, I dont have plans to go for FF.

no plan for full frame???  how come?

congrats on the new toys.