Confused newbie with 1500 dollars!

[Hall]

Hi!

I live in Norway and will be visiting the States in a couple of weeks. I will spend approx. 1500 dollars on lenses for my new Rebel camera since they’re much cheaper there than in Norway.

I’ve posted questions in forums asking for advice for which lenses to get. I’ve gotten a lot of good advice, but I still find it hard to make up my mind. Here are some of the alternatives:

Alt. 1:

Sigma EX 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 Aspherical DG DF
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di
Canon EF 70-200mm f4,0 L USM

Alt. 2:

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f4,0 L USM

Alt. 3:

Sigma EX 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 Aspherical DG DF
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di
Canon EF 70-200mm f4,0 L USM

Alt. 4:

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

Alt. 5:

Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS

Alt. 6:

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM

Alt. 7:

Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.8 AT-X
Canon 50mm 1,8 mk2
Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX
Sigma 105 2,8 EX macro

I’m new to photography, and needless to say: I’m confused! I need some help finding out which alternative that would be best for me. Which alternative would you recommend and why, and which alternatives would you not recommend and why?

I got my camera last X-mas and I’ve so far been using it mostly for portraits, landscape, flower pictures and sports events. I would also love to shoot macro pictures, but I realize that I would probably have to make more purchases in the future.

I guess I need lenses that also can shoot pictures in low light conditions. My sons play basketball and I will take a lot of indoor sports pictures. In addition, my wife is involved in dance. I will probably also take pictures during dance performances. Will I, for instance, be able to shoot pictures like that with a Canon 70-200 F4,0 L lens if I use ISO 400 or 800? I’ve also heard that IS will not help when shooting moving objects. Is that true?

I leaning towards spending all my money on the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS. However, I’m a little concerned that the lens will be too big and awkward to use for all my shoots if this is the only lens I have (+the 18-55 lens that came with the camera) for the next year or so. What do you think?

[IanD]

Hall,
For low light, indoor sports it is very hard to beat the 70-200 IS. The 70-200 F4 will not perform to your liking for the majority of indoor work unless the lighting is very high.
The kit lens on your Rebel will cover the wide to mid range very nicely. The 70-200 F2.8 IS will cover the majority of your indoor shooting. Something to consider is adding a Canon 1.4TC to the lens. You would then have a 35mm equilivant of a 156-448 auto focus zoom. (1.6 crop factor with the DRebel)
Yes the 70-200 IS is a large lens and it is a little heavier than your kit lens :lol: but it is a superb piece of glass. My money would go to the 70-200 IS and 1.4 TC.

[roanjohn]

I think you can still squeeze a 15-30 Sigma in Alt. 6.

Ro1

[WestFalcon]

I really like your #4 group. I have all three of them and they are among my favorite lenses. None are fast lenses however and this may not be the answer for you. I wouldn't want the 70-200 IS as my only purchase though. It's a wonderful lens but also a monster to carry around and not very good for everyday type shots. I would stay with canon lenses though since they hold their value and never seem to wear out. The 28-135 IS is a lens that I would buy for sure. I use that one as my everyday lens. The zoom range is fantastic. I would also highly recommend the 17-40 L...that is a favorite of people on the forum. You are at about $1000 with these two lenses, so what do you want to spend the last $500 on? I'd get the 100 mm 2.8 usm macro...a fantastic lens and a fast lens. That will wipe out your last $500 but you will have a tremendous set of lenses. You are lacking a bit on the long end but you will use all of these lenses a lot more than the one huge zoom (in my opinion). I'm half Norwegian, so I won't lead you astray!!!!! :D

[ScottJE22]

Alt. 4:

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM


This would pretty much be my "dream" setup. I am a decent amateur and I think this kit would prepare you for just about any situation.

I won't be buying all three at once, but my order of preference would be the exact opposite of the order you listed. I'd put the 17-40 last on my priority list since the kit lens covers this range adequately (not exceptionally).

I'm sure you'll make a good choice -- and don't forget to come back and share it with us...along with some photos!

[defordphoto]

I also vote for Alt #4. Then the first lens I'd get after that for low-light would be the 50 f/1.8.

[Cadwell]

Go for Alt#4 but substitute the Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di for the EF 28-135mm. I think you will find the 28-135mm lens disappointing when compared to the two Canon "L" lenses.

[saikidesign]

After all these years buying lens I'm love with my new Canon 70-200 f1:2.8L IS USM. It works well in low light condition and the Image Stabilizer really works. It is a heavy lens and it is pricy but you can find good deals on the internet (B&H in New York is one). You will be very happy with the images out of this lens. Also you may want to add a 28-70mm lens, a Tamrom XR Di 28-75mm f/1;2.8 is a good choice but you will be out of your $1500 budget (but not too much) but you will have 2 great lens. If you are not in NY area you can buy on line and have your lens delivered at your hotel. You just pay shipping and no sales tax. Good Luck.

[Hall]

Great feed-back from you guys! Can't wait to sit down, look them all over and make my final decision! Here's a couple of newbie portaits taken of my 17 year old son with my lens kit.



http://skaara.smugmug.com/photos/4913465-L.jpg

http://skaara.smugmug.com/photos/4913852-L.jpg

[ScottJE22]

Interesting thread so far --

I'm curious which would be a better purchase --

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

or

Canon 70-200 f/4 L

Hmmmm.....

[Sonex305]

Another vote for #4

Craig

[Mthorpe_Davies]

I vote for alt. 4 but ditch the 28-135 and replace it with the tamaron 28-75 f2.8. The other canon lense are excellent and I have both of them, if you are comparing the 28-135 to these the quality will diassappoint.

Where abouts in Norway are you from? I'm moving there next year.

[drisley]

I'm 100% with Cadwell, and Mthorpe...

#4 but replace the 28-135 with the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. It's supposed to be better quality than the canon, plus the 28-135 has alot of overlap with the 70-200F4L.

If you can, perhaps add the 50mm F1.8II to the list, or replace the Tamron 28-75 with it. It depends on what type of shooting you do.
for the types of portraits youve show here, the 50mm F1.8II would be perfect (and it's cheap ($80US, L quality optics)).

I am a big fan of the primes. You say you like shooting landscapes, portraits, as well as indoor sporting events.

I would probably recommend the following:

-Canon 17-40L(landscapes, walking around)
-Canon 50mm F1.8 (low light and portraits, cheap, L quality lens!)
-Canon 85mm F1.8 USM (low light, portraits, and AWESOME indoor sports lens, perfect for basketball, L quality (even exceeding L zooms!), fast quiet USM focus, solid L quality build). Check sample 85mm F1.8 shots here. You will see alot of basketball shots: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_85_18u
-Canon 70-200mm F4L(one of the best zoom lenses made)

For macro, get a Canon closeup filter, either the 250D or 500D.
They are inexpensive, dont lose any light, and quality rivals dedicated macro lenses!
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/18_500D.htm

[CyberDyneSystems]

ALT 4.5

Alt 4.5

ALT 4.5 :)

Either the "Cadwell Alternative" or the "Drisley Option"


:)

[drisley]

Either the "Cadwell Alternative" or the "Drisley Option"
:)

The Cadwell Alternative is one of my all-time favourite bands!
:wink: :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

:lol:

Ahh yes,. I especially loved the Vinyl LP "I Robot" :wink:

I had the Drisley option on my Pancakes this morning... :lol: 8)

[hmhm]

I think you'd probably be well-served by the kit lens and the 70-200/4 for now. Hold off on the rest until you have more experience (so you know your needs better). Given your stated applications, I'd be tempted to consider a 70-200/2.8 or throw in an 85/1.8, but for now, you can buy your speed with ISO.

If you have your camera now, you might try shooting in your intended "venues" to see if there's enough light for f/4 and ISO 800, otherwise you'll need to go to faster lenses.

You can think of IS as "making your hands less shaky", it has no relevance to freezing subjects moving through the frame, it just reduces the effects of "shaky hands".
-harry