In a real mess with lenses duplicating each other - arggghhh!

[DavoMrMac]

OK, so I have a 50mm 1.8 which I am really happy with.
I then bought an 18-200mm Tamron (couldn't decide if I needed the Tamron 28-300mm so got annoyed trying to decide and bought this as my general walkaround lense).

Now, I really want to buy three more lenses.

A macro lens - I need no help on this, I am getting a Canon 100mm Macro.

A general purpose lense - for doing studio work, portraits, model shots, plus landscape photography where I am getting very interested at present. Now I know I could use my nifty fifty, but need to know if this is the right choice, or should I look at something like the 17-40L?
I would also like to use this lense choice for the odd concert I attend.

A wildlife lense - my 18-200 Tamron would get me quite close, but I found it a little lacking in reach today. So am I best looking at a 200-500 Tamron or similar long zoom from someone else, or a prime of say 300 or 400mm?

[tommykjensen]

As a prime I would recommend the 300 mm f/4L IS which is a supurb lense which You can also use with great advantage with a 1,4x extender giving You a 420 mm f/5.6 IS.

[Kennymc]

Since you are using a 20D I would go for at least a 17-40 f/4L for your landscapes if not even wider... As already suggested a 300 or even the 100-400 would give you excellent coverage with the 1.6 crop factor...

[DavoMrMac]

I am beginning to think my Tamron purchase was a mistake.

Now maybe the 17-40L would be a good walkaround, with the 70-200 on my belt.

And for my wildlife outings, the 100-400 on my belt.

hmmmmm...

[MDJAK]

I don't find the 17-40 as a good walk-around lens. I much prefer the 24-70, or the 70-300DO.

[ggibbs1971]

I am having a similar problem, I have the Sigma 18-125 and 20/1.8. I thought these would satisfy my wide, walkaround and low light. The zoom seeems to hunt too much and is slow. While with the prime I have to get very close up. I thought the prime would have been good for landscapes or low light, but I think I can use my 50/1.8. The zoom has an AF problem and at 5.6-6.3 is slow even at 800 or 1600 iso.

So far my indoor shots have been at my church, using no flash if possible. I am thinking about selling these two and buying the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 & 28-75/2.8. I think this will cost me about $200 more, but this will give me better low light capability.

Am I right, or is there a better deal based on quality and price.

Geoff

[johnbs]

I am having a similar problem, I have the Sigma 18-125 and 20/1.8. I am thinking about selling these two and buying the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 & 28-75/2.8. Geoff

You could also consider the Sigma 18-50/2.8 instead of the Tamron 17-35. I find this a great walk around lens (approx 28-80 after the 1.6 multiplier). I then switch to primes indoors (Sigma 20/1.8, Canon 35/2 or Canon 50/1.8)

John

[poke]

You could also consider the Sigma 18-50/2.8 instead of the Tamron 17-35. I find this a great walk around lens (approx 28-80 after the 1.6 multiplier). I then switch to primes indoors (Sigma 20/1.8, Canon 35/2 or Canon 50/1.8)

John

I agree with the sigma 18-50 f2.8, i have had it for a while now, and it has performed very well. I use the 70-200mm f2.8L IS for the longer stuff, and I'm about to aquire the 1.4x converter.

[Kennymc]

I use the Tamron 28-75 and think it's the next best thing to the Canon but for a great deal less... I don't think you would be disapointed with that lens...

[Jesper]

I don't find the 17-40 as a good walk-around lens. I much prefer the 24-70, or the 70-300DO.What is a good walk-around lens depends on your personal style of shooting. If you use the 24-70 and 70-300DO most of the time, you probably like zooming in and shooting details.

For me, the 17-40L is the lens I have on my 10D most of the time.

I also have the 50 f/1.8 II, and for concerts it's good because it's a fast lens, but I find the angle of view often too tight - so I use the 17-40L to get a wider angle.

[Marshall]

I use the Tamron 28-75 and think it's the next best thing to the Canon but for a great deal less... I don't think you would be disapointed with that lens...

Agreed.