Which pair of lenses is the best for 350D?

[alsmol]

Please help with a USD 2000 investment :-))

I am not a profi but photo is my serious hobby.

I take different sorts of pictures - children, landscapes, animals (when on vacation).

Currently I have Canon 300D with a Tamron 28-200. I am not satisfied with "both ends" and decided to byu different lenses - for everyday use and a telezoom. Later this year I want to change my camera to Canon 350D or 20D.

Please advise which pair of lenses is more reasonable in the sense of price-quality-comfort (I do not want to change lenses too often)


1. Total price USD 1800-1900

Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC
CANON EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM 1435 Foto

Is SIGMA quality really much worse that Cannon's lenses with optical stabilization? What attracts me in this pair is that SIGMA must be OK for 70% of shots.


2. Total price around USD 2000

CANON EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS US2. USD 550 - 600
CANON EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM 1435 Foto.ru

Looks great but more changes. But I am ready for it if there is much better quality in this option.

There is naturally another option, i.e. I can buy

CANON EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM

and forget about the wish to have wide 17mm and great 400 mm but enjoy one lense for 90% of shots.

Please help to make a reasonable choice.

And sorry for my clumsy English which is not my native language.

[roanjohn]

Consider the 17-40 f4L, 70-200 f4L and a 50 f1.4. That should keep you within your budget :-)

These lenses are all from Canon.

Ro1

[DavidEB]

No matter which other lenses you decide on, I recommend you start with the canon EF 50mm f1.8 - awesome lens, under $100. Excellent sharpness, bokeh, & keeps you shooting indoors without flash.

Beyond that, I think the answer depends on what you like to shoot.

If you want to shoot indoors sports or concerts, you might benefit from a fast lens (eg, f2.8 rather than f4). Within your budget, the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is good for that (approx $700 -- all US prices). The optical quality is close enough to the canon L that an amateur like me can't tell apart. If you want a sharp, fast general lens, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is excellent ($350). I bought both of these based in part on reviews in this forum & have been very pleased. Only drawback I see to the Tamron is the focus isn't as fast or smooth as canon USM. If you need a wider angle the Tokina 17 is getting great reviews & is on my "to buy" list ($400).

If you value the canon brand, and want "L" lenses, then you have to give up something to stay in budget. If f2.8 isn't so important to you and you want an "L" lens, then the 70-200 f4L is about the same cost as the faster sigma. The canon USM focuses a tad faster than the Sigma HSM. If you're willing to live with a gap in your focal lengths and don't need f2.8 than the 17-40 f/4L could replace the tamron + tokina combination. The 17-40 is a much heavier lens than the Tamron 28-75.

Some people seem to like the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 -- I have no knowledge of it. It could replace the Tokina and the Tamron, and leave you enough to buy the canon 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS version). Or you could stick with one of the $700 dollar 70-200 lenses (canon f4 or sigma f2.8) and add the 85mm f1.8 which looks like a great lens.

If very long telephoto is your need, then the 200mm might not be enough. Another lens I have my eye on is the Sigma 80-400mm -- would be great if you need longer telephoto lens, about $950. The 80-400 is getting great reviews, has stabilzation and isn't push-pull. The canon L equivalent blows your budget. Start with the Sigma, add the tamron 28-75 the tokina 17 and of course the 50 -- you're still under $2000.

Or you could do as Drisley does and just use primes. You could duplicate his lens set for maybe 2k. I'm currently struggling with the idea that he gets better photos than I because he uses primes, but I recognize that he's probably also got more skill.

[DocFrankenstein]

What David said.

Forget 28-200... Your tamron is an ok lens for it's zoom range.

Get 50/1.8 for sure
For "normal" zoom it depends on what you want to do.
17-40 L
17mm tamron prime
16mm fish (cheap, but not autofocus)
24-70 L if you like portraits
Tamron 28-75 DXR whatever. You can get it, but if it were close to L quality, then Tamron would be selling it for a grand just to undercut the L.

For telephoto... you can't really advise cause I don't know what you shoot. For birds/animals you want a fast long lens. It means money, weight and inconvenience.

Shooting animals when on vacation... is hard compromise, because shooting animals is work and vacation is fun. ;)

For birds and any other animal that doesn't let you get close... You need focal length. If/when I get into bird photography, I wouldn't even bother with a 400mm prime, I'll just get Canon 600mm f/4 and a TC.

Good luck with your choices. If I had 2 grand, I'd get:
50/1.4 = 300 bucks
24-70 = 1150 bucks
17-40 = 650 bucks

Right now I have the 18-55 kit lens and sigma 70-200 :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Be sure and take a look at our -=TOP 10=- lens section. One of the polls is for "best starter lenses" ... you may find some other ideas for you two lenses.