Please help me choose a lens combination for an amateur.

[kwphoto]

This is my first post and I'm looking for advice on which combination of lenses to buy. I am an amateur photographer and haven't done anything as a business, but might some day on the side. I'd like to get a couple of lenses that are good enough that I don't feel like I need to upgrade them in a couple years, yet at the same time don't cost $1,000 apiece. I currently use a Digital Rebel EOS300, but envision upgrading to higher end Canon DSLR in the future.

Here is mostly what I shoot, and I will use a tripod whenever feasible:
--Landscapes (mountains, etc. mostly during the day, but occasional sunrise or sunset)
--Portraits for family or friends, some outdoors and some indoors. I have no lighting equipment for indoors.
--Occasional outdoor sports (no indoor sports requiring a REALLY fast lens)
--Up close flowers.

For a general use lens with some wide angle capability, I have been considering:
Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM ($500)
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II LD ($450)
Here I am juggling the IS of the canon lens for the low fixed aperture of the Tamron lens. Is either one clearly the better choice and what is the feeling toward the aftermarket lenses like Tamron with their internal surface coatings for digital use? This is rare, but what if I'm on a large ferry offshore and want to photograph the Seattle skyline at night? With the movement of the boat, is this possible to capture with either lens considering the long shutter speed required? Does the f/2.8 have an advantage over the f/4-5.6 using IS? Any thoughts would be appreciated. I can't really affor a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM ($999) and don't know if it would get me much more benefit anyway.

For a telephoto lens, I have been considering:
Canon 70-200 f/4L USM ($560)
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ($540)
Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM ($190)
I am not sure if the IS is something that I'll really need or not. For sports, the shutter should be fast enough to negate the camera movement and I don't do indoor sports, so I shouldn't need anything faster than f/4 (I think). I'll use a tripod whenever and wherever I can. Is there enough optical difference in jumping to L-series lens to justify the cost? Will I feel like I need a 1.4 extender for another $200-300? Do I need a tripod collar for another $120 with any or all of these? Just trying to figure in the extras at the same time.

Thanks for any advice you can provide and I just don't want to buy something and find out later is wasn't enough!

[Pete]

Your first choices in either list appear to be the best bet for your list of activities. The 70-200 is very good, and it'll stand up to a modicum of use without falling apart. It'll also give you very good images. It's also good for portrait work. and yes, it'll be significantly better than the 70-300 and 75-300. A 1.4 TC is also a useful extender for that lens (but you'll lose the ability to auto-focus).

The 17-85 is a very capable lens both for landscapes, and for close up flower shots (I was very happy with mine for both those kinds of subjects).

I very much doubt that IS will be able to cope with boat roll though, you'll need a moderatly fast shutter speed for that.

What you could consider is also getting a 50mm f/1.8, which is relatively inexpensive and is a great deal faster than the other lenses.

[picturecrazy]

You can't go wrong with the 70-200L. There's 4 versions and all 4 are spectacular.

I had the 17-85 and I loved it. The only problem was indoor evening shots. When zoomed you're at F/5.6. But for the most part it didn't bother me too much and I've gotten MANY excellent images from it. IS is awesome.

I've also heard great things about the tamron 17-50.

[Pete]

As above (regarding the 17-85). It's a good case for investing a small amount of money in the 50mm f/1.8 (or Nifty Fifty as we call it)

[Scott_Quier]

With lenses, I learned a very expensive lesson. Buy quality - buy once.

Think about these:

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - I have this lens, love it. I've read that it's an "L" in consumer cloth. But, not cheap. B&H has it for just shy of the US$1K. On a 1.6 crop body, this makes a very nice portrait/indoors lens. It's wide enough for a nice group shot in the living room, long enough to single out a single person. And it's fast and has IS. Sweet.

The 70-200 f/4 is a dream lens. This is a very good choice you have listed. As stated above, the 70-200 L comes in 4 flavors. All are excellent. You can't go much wrong with any choice here. If you know you don't need low-light capability, get the f/4. Consider your type of us against the IS. IS is nice to have if you can afford the $$.

For very wide, the EF-S 10-22 is very nice. It, also, has been claimed by some to be an "L" in hiding. I don't know about that, I just know I love my copy.

I don't know if this has helped much, but I tried.

[Wilt]

IS is meant to handle the 'micro shake' of your hands, it is not able to counter the prolonged rolling motion on a boat. So in the example of your night shot, f/2.8 wins over f/4-5.6 IS hands down. Remember this...IS handles shakey hands, it does not handle moving subjects (or moving boats).

The Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 have gotten sterling evaluations by all, in terms of image quality. You hear only individual critiques of 'build quality', the manual focus not being full time but requiring a switch, rotating focus ring, 'slow' AF, 'noisy' AF...but all of these are subjective issues that not all users have problems with! I have the Tamron 28-75 and love it. I also have Canon lenses, and the differences (so-called disadvantages of the Tamron) do not arise as issues for me even in switching lenses a lot.

Go for the 70-200 L. I have read too many disappointing reports on all of Canon's 70-300 lenses of various vintages. It probably illustrates that 3:1 zoom is good performer whereas any 4:1 and higher has more fundamental IQ issues that a lens of lower zoom ratio!

I owned the Canon 17-85, and the only issue (for me) was the relatively slow max aperture size...but I grew up with fast prime lenses on my film SLR in photojournalism! The Canon 17-85 gets an unfair rap on image quality...sure the 17mm has some issues, but you don't always shoot at 17mm! At the long end of the focal range, it would compare to my L lens or to my Tamron lens in IQ!

[Dchemist]

Hi Kwphoto,

The information in this sticky might be of value to you:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86975

[Tee Why]

Out of your choices, I'd go with the Tamron 17-50, much sharper, less CA, and faster than the Canon 17-85IS. Another option to consider is the Sigma 17-70.

As for the telephoto zooms, out of your choices, I'd go for the 70-200 f4L, the Caon 75-300 is not a very good lens and the 70-300IS is nice but not as pleasent to use as the L lens. If you really want IS or 300mm, then it's another question. Don't forget to consider the Simga 70-200 f2.8, although this is more expensive than the other zooms you have listed.

Good luck

[mcminty]

As Scott said - buy quality, buy once.

Recently I purchased the 24-105L, but I'm my research I was also looking at the 17-85. At the store, I tried both lenses.The feel and quality of the 24-105 proved to be superior. I also plan to eventually upgrade my camera body somethine in the future. If I upgrade to full-frame, I will not be able to use the 17-85 because of its EF-S mount.

As for the telephotos, get one of the 70-200L's. I have the 75-300 that came with my camera, and it is nothing but slow (F-stop and autofocus). Above 200mm it is crap for image quality, it is very soft.


Andrew.

[kwphoto]

Thanks for all the great recommendations.

Let me make sure I understand the EF vs EF-S lens difference. On a 1.6 crop camera (digital rebel is one, right?), is the equivalent 35 mm focal length determined by multiplying by 1.6 for both the EF and EF-S lenses? Then what's the difference other than the EF-S lenses cannot be used on the full frame cameras? I read the FAQ concerning EF vs EF-S, but I'm still confused.

Would someone please list for me which cameras are 1.6 crop and which are full frame.......thanks.

[Wilt]

Let me make sure I understand the EF vs EF-S lens difference. On a 1.6 crop camera (digital rebel is one, right?), is the equivalent 35 mm focal length determined by multiplying by 1.6 for both the EF and EF-S lenses? Then what's the difference other than the EF-S lenses cannot be used on the full frame cameras? I read the FAQ concerning EF vs EF-S, but I'm still confused.

Understand, rather than memorize:
For any format, the diagonal distance across the frame is usually considered the 'normal' lens. So on a 24x36mm film, the diagonal is 45mm but convention has made the 50mm the 'normal' for this. On a 22.5x15mm frame (the APS-C format, which is your Rebel) the diagonal is 27mm. So the 1.6x is (roughly) the ratio of 27mm:45mm.
So know you know that converting between 35mm and Canon APS-C dSLR, the larger format to smaller format is to divide by 1.6; and converting from smaller format to larger format is multiply by 1.6

EFS lenses will not fit on cameras not made to accept EFS mount. EF lenses fit on everything. EFS lenses have an image circle which is just large enough to cover the APS-C dimensions, but will not properly fill the full frame (24x36) dimensions. EF lenses cover the FF size just fine.

The only Canon dSLR which currently do not convert (the sensor is 35mm film sized) is the 5D and the 1DsII. Canon also manages to mix things up by also having a 1.3x format! (I can't list all the models of this!) And the 1.6x format is the Rebel XT/XTi aka 350D/400D, and the 20D/30D. Other older models, someone else will have to fill in the blanks on which body is which format.

[Aidenswarrior]

I have the tammy 17-50 and the canon 70-200 F4 and I love the combination of the two. I dont miss the gap of 20mm at all.