Lens advice

[RdRdrFan]

Okay, my in-laws gave me my first DSLR for Christmas and I am now looking to spend a little bit of cash on a lens or two. They gave me a Rebel XSi kit with one lens. After messing with my brother-in-law's 50D I have decided to trade the XSi kit in on a 50D body. I am looking to spend in the neighborhood of $2,000 on lenses but that needs to cover me. I plan on taking a couple of classes so that I can get the most out of the equipment that I will have. I really am thinking that with my budget I can end up with two really nice lenses that can cover pretty much anything I want to do. Am I way off base with that assumption? Anyway, advice from any of you Canon folks on which lenses you would recommend for that price range would be greatly appreciated.

[Casey]

If it were me, I'd get a good, wide angle zoom to be my daily walk around lens and then add a quality zoom. Take a look at either the 17-40 f4 L or the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I have the 17-55 and LOVE that lens. Either of the two would be a great lens.

For a zoom, get either the 70-200 f4L, 70-200 f4L IS or 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Depending on how close you want to get to the 2 grand, you can't go wrong with any of these. I think you'd really like the 70-200 f4L IS. It is reported to be the best lens in the 70-200 series for Canon.

Toss in a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 depending on where you end up within your budget. You can have a lot of fun with the narrow depth of field on either of those lenses. I have the f1.8 an enjoy playing with it.

[Full curl]

What Casey said. The route I took was the 17-55 2.8, 70-200 f/4 and 10-22 f3.5-4.5. At Canoga Camera that would put you $174.82 over budget but I think you would be very happy with the set-up.

[Kevin]

I would recommend

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
Canon 100-400 L IS

If you buy them both slightly used off fredmiranda.com you could get them for under your budget along with a prime 50mm F1.8. If you buy new, $150 over budget (the 100-400 has a $100 instant rebate right now).

[RBOutdoors]

why the 17-55 2.8 and not the 24-70 2.8L?

why not the 100-400 4.5-5.6L?

I am sure that would put you over you budget but if you are going to spend $2000 why not $2500

[Kevin]

I don't find 24mm wide enough for my walk around lens. IMO 24-70 is a great walk around for a full frame sensor. I agree with you on the 100-400!!

[RdRdrFan]

Thanks for the advice guys. I have been away from a computer since last Wednesday and this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to check this thread since it was posted. Now I am more confused than ever. My brother-in-law is a freelance sports photographer. He recommended that I go with the 50D kit that has the 28-135mm lens and then add a 70-200 f2.8L IS. He said that for a walk around lens he really likes the basic 28-135. The 70-200 will be used primarily when hunting (low light situations) so that is why he recommended the f2.8L in the 70-200. Thoughts on that setup?

[Casey]

28mm would not be wide enough for me and my 50D. The 70-200 f2.8 L IS is a great lens for low light (I have it myself) but given your budget of $2k on lenses, it would have been all I could have suggested (it's $1500).

I think most will disagree on the 28-135. It's just not wide enough, in my opinion.

[Gerald S]

My 28-135 hasn't been out of my camera bag in well over a year. I agree with Casey. There are some other great walk around lenses you should take a look at. I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 that I love, stays on the camera 90% of the time and you can pick one up for under $500.

[Full curl]

28mm would not be wide enough for me and my 50D. The 70-200 f2.8 L IS is a great lens for low light (I have it myself) but given your budget of $2k on lenses, it would have been all I could have suggested (it's $1500).

I think most will disagree on the 28-135. It's just not wide enough, in my opinion.

X2

[RdRdrFan]

If it were me, I'd get a good, wide angle zoom to be my daily walk around lens and then add a quality zoom. Take a look at either the 17-40 f4 L or the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I have the 17-55 and LOVE that lens. Either of the two would be a great lens.

For a zoom, get either the 70-200 f4L, 70-200 f4L IS or 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Depending on how close you want to get to the 2 grand, you can't go wrong with any of these. I think you'd really like the 70-200 f4L IS. It is reported to be the best lens in the 70-200 series for Canon.

Toss in a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 depending on where you end up within your budget. You can have a lot of fun with the narrow depth of field on either of those lenses. I have the f1.8 an enjoy playing with it.

Okay, I've made one decision. I think that I will go with the 70-200 f4L IS instead of the 70-200 f2.8L IS. I just can't seem to justify the extra $$$ when (from what I've been told) I'll get extremely good low-light performance with the 50D/70-200 f4L IS combo as long as I am working at high ISO. Now for the next decision.

In the above post you recommended the 17-40 f4L or the 17-55 f2.8 IS. The first lens is $230 cheaper than the second lens. I guess I'm wondering if there is $230 worth of difference in the two lenses? I don't mind spending the $$$ if I will receive the value in a better lens.

[mmcaleer]

X2

Agree.

I would go with the 70-200 f/2.8L. You will appreciate the extra stop over the 70-200 f/4. Especially shooting animals in low light or if you put the 1.4 extender on it, which would cause it to lose a stop.

Then I would look at either the 17-40 f/4L or the 17-55 f/2.8. I have the 17-40 f/4L and love it. Sometimes I wish I had the extra stop. The 17-40 is about $650 and the 17-55 is about $1k.

I used to use the 28-135 on a full frame film camera as my walk-around lens. With the cropped bodies of the 30D, 40D and 50D it is not wide enough. The only time I put it on my 30D is when my wife uses it.

Pick up a 50mm f1.8 also. It is a great, inexpensive lens.

Mike

[RdRdrFan]

WOOO HOOO! Just got my 700-200 f4L IS in. Can't wait to try it out.

Now time to order my 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Then, well, I get the feeling that it won't end anytime soon.

Thanks for all of the help.

[AtTheWall]

Congrats Rdrdrfan!!! Yes you started out right and yes you have just tested the water.....the madness is now on!

I'm a little late in posting but I would like to chime in on the Canon 50D if I may.

Previously, before the 50D was released, emphasis on a lens within the F/2.8 or better aperture performance zone, was literally the only way to snag low light shots. But after shooting my 50D for a couple of weeks, using f/4 or higher settings (test mode), using my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens, I've come to the conclusion this new Canon has raised the bar. You can get away with low light murder shooting a 50D!

Here's what I mean.

Camera: Canon EOS 50D
Exposure: 0.1 sec (1/10)
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal Length: 18 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Handheld with no Image Stabilization



My 2nd generation Canon DSLR, D350 XT, would have absolutely choked with this same shot configuration. I would have been forced to use a tripod or push the ISO up to 800+ and pray....and that doesn't factor in potential graininess within that final pic.

Sure I would love to own a bunch of high speed lenses...across a broad spectrum like everyone else but.....low light performance is gaining new ground within Canon's Digic 4 Processor's world. You might find shooting a 50D just may relieve some low light stress within your current lens collection.