PLEASE: Need lens advice for 20D package

[golfnut]

I am brand new to this forum, referred to me by a Canon rep. Now that I have read a few of the strings of messages, it seems clear that this a good place to get some advice from some seasoned photographers. I am an amateur photographer who enjoys photography as hobby, currently using Elan 7e. Through the years, I have taken a wide range of shots, often of my kids, destinations, etc.

Though I have decided to purchase the 20D, my bigger challenge is deciding which combination of lenses to buy. The drivers for me (in order) are quality, versatility, convenience and price. I'm willing to spend up to $2K USD on lenses to get started. However, before I make the big plunge, I would greatly appreciate your advice. Another way to look at it would be... if you could do it all over again, what package would you put together?

I'm torn between the virtues of "L" glass, fast aperature, IS versatility and compactness. Here are some of the options I was thinking of:

Option 1:
17-40mm f/4.0L
70-200mm f/4.0L
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
(L quality lenses, not fast, IS capability- in a third lens though)

Option 2:
17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS
70-200mm f/4.0L
(good range, not fast, L quality on the tele-zoom, IS)

Option 3:
24-70mm f/2.8L
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS
(L quality on the "wide zoom", fast walk around lens, little on wide end, compact tele-zoom, expensive)

What do you think? Other options that I should consider (e.g., Tamron 28-75 2.8, Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8)?

Many thanks. Help me Obi-Wan...

[merrrrjig]

option 1 seems to be there best for me!

[phili1]

For me starting out my first lens was Tamron 28-75 and Iuse it for my Portrait works. It is sharp. My second lens was the Canon 70-200 F4L and it is a grerat choice. I alos use it for portrait work. Sharp results hand held even without IS.

I think you have 2 choices
1 - Tamron 28-75 & Canon 70-200 F4 L
2- Canon 17-40 L & Canon 70-200 F4 L

Depends onb the bucks you have but either choice is a winner.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Option 1,.
Forget the DO for now... concentrate on good solid high quality optics as opposed to such a specific use "spy lens" like the DO.. (i'm not knocking it,. it has it's place,. it's just very pricey and would not be a prioroty item for me.)

I know nothing of the 17-85mm IS but it does not appeal to me,.

The only recomendation I would make would be to look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR as an alternative to the 28-135mm...

Your list mentions "not fast" often,.. this lens would fit right in the middle of your two Ls,.. it would offer near L optics,. and it would offer the speed you are lacking.

...and isn't the Tamron cheaper in price than the Canon 28-135mm?

[Citizensmith]

You can't go wrong with the 17-40 4L or the 70-200 4L. Personally though instead of adding the 28-135 in there I'd go for the 85 f/1.8 and one of the 50s instead (the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 together are cheaper than the 28-135). Both are so much faster than the 28-135 that IS becomes irrelevant, and optically they leave it dead by the side of the road, its IS motor twitching as it hangs on to its last grip of credibility.

I carry the 17-40 and 85 1.8 with me and it covers almost all my photography. I've got the 70-200 for when I need to go longer, and the 24 2.8 for when I want to travel light.

[golfnut]

Thank you for your responses thus far. I'll keep checking to see if more have chimed-in. I'm intrigued by the idea of swapping the 28-135 IS in Option 1 with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Since I have never had a lens with IS, I'm not sure how critical/valuable it would be versus having a lens with f/2.8. Please enlighten me.

[tim]

I like my Tamron 28-75 but sometimes (mainly on holidays) I wish I had a 28-135 IS. Of course the F2.8 is great, I don't know if i'd like to give that up.

The 70-200 F4 sounds like a good lens, everyone who has it loves it, it's on my list to get some time. If it had IS i'd have it already. Im also interested in the 70-300 because of the 300mm end. There's probably a pictorial comparison of the two somewhere around the net, I did see a comparsion a few months back but I forget where.

[cactusclay]

I like option 4) 17-40L 24-70 L, 70-200L

[HJMinard]

I'm on the option 1 bandwagon ... with the Tamron 28-75 replacing the 28-135. I haven't used the 28-135, but by most accounts it appears the Tamron is significantly sharper. With the 70-200 you don't need the extended range the 28-135 offers.

[golfnut]

I like option 4) 17-40L 24-70 L, 70-200L

I would tend to agree with you except for one problem. I wish I could afford option 4!

[Pyromaniac]

LOL, I wish I could afford option 4 to.