Which lenses to buy?

[snajczuk]

Ok I know I'm a newbie to the forums here, but I have been stalking the threads for quite some time now. I am a fanatic about research before buying anything (yet, I seem to do lot of buying so I must be doing a ton of research...). Anyways, my current setup is:

Rebel XT with grip
EF-S 17-85 IS

Short list I know, but I'm looking to upgrade this summer and this is what I'm thinking about:

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro - I really need more length than the current 85mm I have now, and after much consideration I have decided this lens is the best buy for the money, and I just don't have the cheese for L glass. Also I think I would add the 1.4x or 2x TC, but which?

Sigma 10-20 OR Canon 10-22 - I have read lots about both of these, but cannot decide which. I'm leaning heavily towards the sigma after reading an entire thread (I like distortion on the wide end)

Canon EF-S 60 f/2.8 OR EF 85 f/1.8 OR EF 50 f/1.4 - this is the one I am most uncertain about. Do I really need the prime since my lens and the 70-200 would be too redundant? I like the idea of macro because I absolutely love flowers. At the same time I like the idea of the fast glass the other two primes offer. Does anyone have any experience with either of these two and extension tubes for macro?

That's all for now. I should add that I am big with flowers/gardens and landscapes. I also love dogs and would love to get into some birding (thus the need for length). I respect all opinions anyone has to offer. It seems like there are many extremely knowledgeable photographers here.

[snajczuk]

Samples of what I shoot: Enjoy! Comments and contructive criticism more than welcome.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5808/img5461il3.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/7193/img4248ip8.jpg

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5408/img2809oc3.jpg

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7036/img2719lb2.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/4518/img12831hh7.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/5452/img1188nw8.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1166/img0837qb4.jpg

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4606/img0624lo2.jpg

[snajczuk]

no more i swear...

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8524/img0070bc3.jpg

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8749/img5376zc4.jpg

[T Kubik]

Judging from those pics, I'd say you don't really need a fast prime. I'd go for the 70-200.

[timbop]

I don't really have an opinion on the wide end, but if you really want to do birding the 70-200 is definitely not long enough. You can add a 1.4 and get good results, but that is only 280mm which is still pretty short for birds or wildlife. A 2xTC will not give you very good results, so I personally wouldn't go there (I tried it and came back). A sigma 100-300/4 would be a good choice, used you can get one for $650 or so AND you can add a 1.4TC to get 420mm. It is also a high quality lens, and you will see it in your images. An 85/1.8 is a great indoor sports and performance lens (if you can get relatively close). The Focal length isn't the important reason to get the 50 or 85, it is the really wide aperture. You will see a vast difference in creativity (blurred backgrounds) and low light capability.

[snajczuk]

timbop - I agree that the 70-200 is not enough for birding. I like your thinking about the fast prime though. I do some portraiture and I think it would be of great use for that. My love of bokeh has also come to fruition lately, and I'm sure something as wide as 1.8 or 1.4 would only further that.

[kidpower]

I can only speak for the 60 macro and 85 1.8 on an XT. I'd reccommend both in a heartbeat, if they fit your shooting needs and you are happy with the focal length.

The 85 1.8 is plain and simple a great all around performer, indoors and out. As mentioned it excels indoors especially at capturing movement. It's perfect for indoor sports, plays, fashion shows, events, dance stuff, music recitals, and anything associated with kids. I call it the "kid lens" because I've used it for baby births to college graduations and everything in between as they are growing. Beautiful for portraits. Just as good outdoors as in. A little long for some at times, but it fits me perfectly.

The 60 macro is also a great performer indoors and out. Not as good as the 85 1.8 as far as action is concerned, but overall sharper and a great general purpose and macro lens. I like it because of its focal length, small size, and performance. If you are really serious about macro, the 60 is a great choice, but also check out the other available macros. All are top notch and may or may not be a better fit for you.

The 50 1.4 is sort of like the 85 1.8. A great lens with a little more speed. It's strengths are similiar to the 85 1.8.

Just some food for thought. Your photos seem to indicate a want for a wide-end lens for sure. You also indicate a need to go longer. And you mention fast and macro. I'm sure you'll get many suggestions here. Move slowly and good luck.

[Freddy Flash]

I love that first picture :)

Buying new lenses is fun once you've decided which you want. Sorry, I don't actually have anything to contribute to this thread. But I had to say something at least semi on-topic, you know? lol

[kram]

The tele you are considering is highly rated. The only downside is that all the 2.8 teles are heavier than the f4 canon. If you can hold them all before you decide which one is better. And yes, the 70-200 even with a TC are short for birding.

On the wide angle, go with what your budget dictates. If you can squeeze in the Canon, go for it. Else, the Sigma is anyway a worthy alternative.

Cant add much on the prime bit. I am not too much into macros and decided to get the 50/1.4 as the only low light lens in my kit.

[KevC]

Wow. You sure are talented. Here are my suggestions:

You seem to have a knack for macro. EF-S60mm can NOT be beat on a crop body. It will also double for a nice telephoto for portraits.

70-200 is a sweet range but quite limiting IMHO on a 1.6x. It's too long to do portraits (for ME, it may not be for YOU) but too short to do any wildlife/birding. However, if you decide to pick one up, any of them will do great. I'm in love with the cheapest one 70-200/4L =)

I will also suggest the 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4EX. A normal low light prime is a must in every photographer's lens bag.

Sigma 10-20 is an awesomely sharp lens with fast USM. I don't see why you shouldn't save a few bucks and go with that.

Good luck!

[byronling]

Either the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 will make you happy, both are good, but I think the Sigma may be the better value.

[snajczuk]

kidpower - thanks for the advice. I have heard great things about the 60 macro, and I find myself a little torn between that and the 85. The 60 would seem to serve both macro and some portraits inside (I forgot to mention I have a 430EX). The idea of going natural light indoors with something as fast as the 85 is very appealing. I definitely find my lens to be way to slow at 85 and I seem to be using that end more and more.

Thanks for the input so far.

Freddy Flash - here's another of my favorites of that same cleat but open wider:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6513/img5456ml1.jpg

[snajczuk]

Ok, after more research I am sold on the primes, and I don't think I can save fast enough for the WA because I am just itching to have one on my camera. I have one more question though. Is the 17-85 worth selling for something faster? ie: Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5? If I were to pick up the fast primes (both the 50 and the 85) and kept the 17-85, would a "standard" prime such as the sigma 30 or a canon 35 be necessary?