typical lens question, what to buy first

[BayAreaJim]

ok, as with a lot of post i have seen here im struggling with lens purchasing angst.

I am looking at the 24-70 L, the 17-40 L, the 10-22, and the 16-35 L,

but now I am intrigued by the 70-200 L, non-IS f2.8, If what I have been reading is correct, this lens has been discontinued and thats why I can get it at a decent price.

I know for sure that I will eventually collect 24-70 or the 16-35, but my question is as a new D20 owner which is the first lens I should get... should i get the 70-200 before they run out (if that is possible)

most of my shooting is with my kids... and some nature shots...i live near the mountains and ocean... but i am really into wide angle with my kids right now...that being said... I have seen some amazing shots of kids with the 70-200... and it will allow me to reach out....

so like most newbys I am anguisng over a rather large exspense and where to throw the money first.

[cactusclay]

I didn't know they were discontinuing the 70-200/4. I would get the kit lens for starters, it is a decent lens to start with and covers wide angles to portraits, for a hundred bucks, then get the 70-200, unless you have a few thousand to throw at expensive L glass right off.

[blue_max]

I don't think I would agonise over a "buy it now or never" with lenses. Chances are it will either be replaced or the more expensive one will reduce in price. The market is overflowing with them second hand and cheap new, so they are not scarce.

Living near mountains and oceans, wide angle seems the logical choice for those beautiful landscapes. Don't stress it. Buy the most expensive first and all the others will seem cheap!

Graham

[cactusclay]

Here is another thought, if you are shooting landscapes at small aperatures, for maximum DOF,then there isn't much point in having 2.8 lenses, but if you want to shoot in low light or you want more control over having the backround out of focus, then 2.8 lenses would be a better choice. According to some of the tests out there, comsumer grade lens at F8-11 have simular results as expensive L glass, with the possible exception of contrast and color.

[BayAreaJim]

I already have the kit lens, and the 50mm. 1.8, and a 75-300 usm, with the exception of the 50, which for the money takes great shots, the quality is better on a disposible camera. occasionally out of 50 shots i might have one that is truely sharp...I have tried the lenses on at the camera store and taken some shots...thay turn out very sharp, so I know it is the lenses and not my shooting ability. I dont have thousands of dollars spend at one time..so i figure collecting over time..like most of you, I am just stuck on which lens will i be happiest with for lets say 6 months to a year along with the cheap lenses i already own..

thanks for the input...

[gasrocks]

You didn't mention what lenses you already have. Though I believe in prime lenses the most - I think the fastest, cheapest way to get coverage for most everything is by getting good zooms. I have 3: 10-22 efs, 28-75 Tamron and 70-200/4 L Great combination. Cost for the 3 was about. $1600. Yes, you still will want to get some good primes as well.

[Mildot]

I just spent some sleepless nights trying to decide which lenses to buy also, I ended up buying the 70-200 f/4 L, the 17-40 f/4 L and the 85 f/1.8 USM. The main reson I bought all three was the Dell promotion that was going on, I got all 3 lenses for $1,272 delivered which I thought was a steal. Then you can take the rebates off that for another $70 in savings. Make sure you check them out when the coupon codes start flying around next time. I think the 17-40 L would be the one I would buy first given your intended subjects.