Best compliment to XT & 70-200 F4L?

[ghunter]

I've just bought a Digital Rebel XT w/o lens hoping to add a few higher quality lenses instead of moving up to the 20D and the default lens to get better (lens) quality, more versatility, and have great lenses when I inevitably upgrade the body in a few years. The XT will see a wide range of uses, but mainly pics of my one year old son, family, and the odd landscape/wildlife/astronomy here and there.

I've found a local 70-200 F4L for a good price, so I'd like to ask what
*one* lens would best compliment this for my purposes? I'd like to stick in the $200-$500 range.

I've read a lot of good things about the 50 1.8 II being a cheap versatile lens, so that might get thrown into the mix as well (unless the 50 1.4 USM could work as my "one other lens")

Thanks!

Graham

[tim]

Tamron 28-75 F2.8, or since the Tamron is so hard to find right now, the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is meant to be as good.

I sold my 50mm F1.8, it's an old cheap design that doesn't focus accurately on my 20D, even after calibration. The tech told me to get the USM 1.4 lens, I did, and it's much better.

[ghunter]

So if I wanted to stick with Canon would you say the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is the closest to those? My last film SLR was a Minolta and I loved the Tamron lens I had hooked up to it, but with the digital world and all the potential problems I'd rather stay with one manufacturer for support reasons.

I've also read that the 50 1.8 II may have a cheaper plastic feel but better digital compatibility. Was yours a mkI or mkII?

[blue_max]

Originally Posted by ghunter

So if I wanted to stick with Canon would you say the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is the closest to those? My last film SLR was a Minolta and I loved the Tamron lens I had hooked up to it, but with the digital world and all the potential problems I'd rather stay with one manufacturer for support reasons.

I've also read that the 50 1.8 II may have a cheaper plastic feel but better digital compatibility. Was yours a mkI or mkII?

Whilst I would prefer Canon lenses myself, if you buy a new lens, then there is no real reason not to buy third party. Even a second hand lens can be checked with your camera. I don't think that I would worry about the support issues.
If you are buying the 70-200L, that sets a pretty high standard. If you consider the consumer range, I think you may end up comparing and feeling dissatisfied.
The 50mm lenses are optically, extremely good. Both are pretty fast and very useful in low light conditions. The 1.8 is rather cheaply made and the 1.4 is rather more expensive – your choice.
If you like to use the wide end – do consider the 17-40L, which gives a fairly good spread and might do you at a pinch. It is not a cheap lens, but will compliment the 70-200 very well. A walkabout lens in the 24-70 region is also very useful, but you don't even want to know what Canon charge! There are cheaper alternatives as has been suggested.
I would probably suggest you take the time to get used to the 70-200 and see what it is capable of, whilst saving for a good quality lens in the mid or wide angle range.

You will be impressed with the 70-200!

Graham

[ed rader]

everything because of price. it's a great lens but a portrait lens. sure it's fast for indoor use but it's also long.

and my tamron 28-75 does portraits just as good if not better.

since you have a small camera the tamron 28-75 and 17-35 would be a better fit than most other zooms because they are about the smallest and lightest going.

and a quality zoom does not limit you in range like a prime and is just as sharp (in many cases).


ed rader

[condyk]

The SIgma DG Macro Tim mentioned would dovetail nicely and give a few useful extra mm's on the wide end. If you want to stick with canon on this range you will either have to pay a LOT more or accept poorer performance. You could also buy a Kenko Pro 1.4x for your 70-200mm to give some extra length. The Tamron Sp 1.4x is the same. Go for Canon if you like again, but it will cost more for minimal performance gain, if any.

The 50mm II 1.8 is a great around the house snapshot and portrait lens, at least for the money, and so why not have it in your bag for the times when you need the lower light performance or just want a super lightweight lens on the camera. They lose minimal value on resale so you can't go wrong.

[Andrea_T]

I'd highly recommend the Tamron 28-75mm as a perfect mate for your 70-200 f4L.

[ghunter]

Hmmm, some very interesting perspectives here. Thanks to all of you - this is great info.

Right now I'm thinking of just picking up a 50mm Canon lens now. I'm still unsure between 1.4 and 1.8 but not for lack of info out there. Then I'll start exploring my options a little more. The Tamron and Sigma lenses are looking better all the time unless I can find a good deal on a used L...

[Jwreich]

Do look at the Tamron, it was purchased instead of the "kit" lens with my XT. I love it and it is VERY sharp. I also have the 70-200/4 L and it is nice however I'm learning how to put the lense to good use. I'm a huge fan of my 50mm /1.8 (Can you tell I read this forum a lot and take their advice?). All I can say is these guys and gals won't steer you wrong.

L is nice, but my Tamron ROCKS!.

--

[EOSAddict]

I bought a 50mm 1.8 Mk 1 13 yrs ago on a whim in the US. IT sat in my bag for years waiting to be used and I considered selling it many times. On a recent visit to an aquarium which allowed cameras but no flash pghotography I used it to great effect (with ISO400/800) to get some great pics. Its going no-where now! For size/price you can't beat it in your bag.

[skyphix]

I find the 50mm to be too long for my "one other lens". It doesnt leave my camera, mind you, but I'll soon have something a bit shorter that wont leave my camera.

If I were to get one other lens besides the 70-200 you've got now, it'd probably be the 17-40L, or Sigma 18-50 2.8 (more likely because Im poor).

I am going a different route, 17-40L, 50mm 1.8 (1.4 eventually), 85 1.8, 135 2.8 SF, then the 70-200F2.8L and 1.4TC

I like primes.

[ghunter]

The camera arrived today and I've been playing around with the 70-200/f4. What an amazing setup! I've ordered the 50/f1.4 and it can't arrive soon enough.

I'm now giving some serious thought to the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 and the Canon 17-40/4L. Completely different lenses, to be sure, but I'd like to see what I'm missing with the 50+70-200 combination before moving on another lens. Saving money and wanting more flexibility, I'll go for the Tamron. Better quality and craving better wide angle shots, I'll get the Canon.

My wife is also a little sick and tired of seeing packages arrive... not that anyone else here has that problem I'm sure

[rklepper]

I am thinking about ordering the 70-200f/4L today. Can you post something as I also have the XT.

[ghunter]

What would you like me to post? It's a phenomenal lens, with amazing clarity across its entire range and incredibly quick focus. Of course, it's limited when used at anything closer than 5 feet but you have a 28-135 for that.

I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending it.

[93octane]

Yep same here I'm not a pro but you can't go wrong with Tamron 28-75,Canon 70-200 F4L if you are getting a zoom and don't want to spend for the 2.8 IS this is the best bang for your buck, 50mm F1.8, and the Kit lens 18-55mm, With these 4 lenses you are pretty much covered until you find out you need more ZOOM