I got a big Lowepro.. this one, or quite similar:
http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Back...r_Classic.aspx
maybe a bit smaller, but good enough to carry around the camera + 2 L lenses if needed (+ all the other accessories and a tripod)

I just swapped my shoulderbag (Crumpler Geekstar) for a Crumpler Pyjama Pride L backpack. So far I think it's great! I'd really recommend having a look into the Crumpler-backpack's.

OMG 3490 francs? That's a lot of money :| But I guess it's worth it!

You've got a D50 too right Sameerao?

Ive got a Nikon backpack. Ill have a look if I can find it online.

Looks great to me Martijn, I will have to look at something like this soon, I really need more space, I use a Lowepro bag at the moment, and it's completely filled.

I payed €189, Crumpler lists it for €220. Considering the value of the contents of the bag, I think that it's not a wise idea to cheap out on a bag. ;)

http://www.h6.dion.ne.jp/~h-kai/lenses/lense_bag.jpg

Image of the bag I have

Here's a pic of me with my backpack:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~akoevoet/GoT/DSC_2336.jpg

I just weighed it, with the stuff in my signature (except the EOS 600, IXUS and the Nikon SB's) it comes at 8.3kg.....

Martijn, the others, I need some inputs: I fear I'll have to buy a wide angle lense sooner than expected since I will cover a couple of events this year where a tele lense would simply be too much for many situations and since now that I have the big ass 70-200, I can't stand the 18-55 anymore. today there was a nice AMV8 parked in a nice way, but I had not enough room to use the 70-200.. well, I just walked away because really, I don't want to put the 18-55 on my camera anymore LOL

So there are three options:

17-40mm F4L
16-35mm F2.8L
24-70mm F2.8L

The latter is probably not "wide" enough, as simple as that. Darkel is VERY happy with his 17-40, but I am wondering if 2.8 could come in handy every now and then..

Fact is the 16-35 would cost pretty much as the 70-200 costed, maybe a bit less, but the 17-40 is half the price..

any thoughts?

I warned you!

I think that the 17-40 will do just fine. The difference in DOF on a crop-camera is hardly noticeable and it should be less flare-prone than the 16-35. The one-stop-difference doesn't matter that much in shutterspeed at wideangle anyway.


My other advice: 10-22! Sure, it doesn't have metal tube, but that's the only difference. True wide-angle, and on my 30D it used to be sharper/have more contrast than the 17-40!


(btw: the 24-70L is awesome, but I will post about that later :))

MartijnGizmo you are talkin about Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ?
You wanna say it is as good as 17-40mm F4L ?

I don't know much about the Canon lenses but based on my experience with the 12-24mm Nikon lens - I found the 12mm angle of very limited use for shooting cars. It is great for creating distortions but it gets painful to edit out in Photoshop when all you want to do is take a normal image.

Honestly 17/18 mm seems good enough to me at the min and perhaps 40-70mm as max. I think F2.8 will be awesome for the bokeh aspect but you need to check if it allows you take a picture close to the car. F4 should bemore than enough I think. An IS feature will be awesome and be the useful aspect as you can skip the tripod.

Thanks guys. Yes, 10-22 is definitely no use for me.

I am pretty sure I'm gonna buy the 17-40, just need to find the time to pay a visit to my trusty store, which is in Lausanne where I won't be before february

If you plan on staying with a crop-camera you could also consider the EF-S 17-55/2.8. Havn't tried it myself, but it should be really good. Quit pricey though.

Yes, I tested it at the store, seems fine, but quite expensice. For now the price of the 17-40 is really a good deal for what it offers, and well, in an year time or so I could sell it for a good price and upgrade to 2.8 if I really want to, or just wait some more and get the 24-70 2.8L to fill the gap between it and the 70-200