If you had 600 or more dollars, what lens would you get?

Say if you want to take some landscape/nature photos and portraits, have good quality photos, some wide angle and maybe abit of zoom range, what lens would you buy? Hopefully under $1000.

I am going to read through the threads already posted here for tips on where to go with this as well. I am going to sell my 18-55mm and my 100-300mm and get good quality glass.

What lenses do you already have? What body are you using? Wide landscape and portrait are 2 different things.

The landscape is just for fun, the portraits is what I am more serious about. I use my 50mm for portraits and my kit lens (18-55) for that 'all use' kinda thing. I also have a 100-300mm. I want to sell my kit lens and my zoom and get something good quality and also something faster than the kit lens (which is 3.5-5.6 I am thinking off of the top of my head). I would like something with abit of wide angle for the portraits (I actually like the ability of the kit lens to go out to 18mm).

I have the Canon XS/1000D

Tammy 17-50 2.8 non-VC fits that bill, and you can put 200$ back in your pocket for lighting gear!

gasrocks wrote in post #11147018
What lenses do you already have? What body are you using? Wide landscape and portrait are 2 different things.

These questions are important. If it's limited to under a grand, and you had no other lenses on a crop body, I'd buy a 15-85, hood, and a great polarizer. Unfortunately it's a little slow, so portraits aren't ideal (unless you have a good flash somewhere in the budget?). The other way you could go is a used 17-55 with a good c-pol, and start saving quick for a fast prime in a length you like for your low light stuff. I like a 28 1.8 for campfire, indoor party shots etc., but a 50 1.8 for short money can be a great portrait lens too.

Edit: ah, I'm too slow. Look for a 17-55 of some variety and you should be pleased. If your body was capable of cleaner high iso, I'd suggest the 15-85, but not on an XS. 15-85 would be too slow.

Tamron 70-200 2.8, that is what I would get for portraits if I had a budget of less than $1000. If you look, you can find a used Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS, but the Tamron is very comparable in IQ. The only downside to Tamron is they won't AF as fast as a Canon will and they will hunt more in low light.

Yeah, don't want something too slow. Would even prefer a constant aperture. Is a budget of under 1000 too little for a good lens? I could maybe spend that or abit more, but really don't want to go over that.

TiaS wrote in post #11147097
Yeah, don't want something too slow. Would even prefer a constant aperture. Is a budget of under 1000 too little for a good lens? I could maybe spend that or abit more, but really don't want to go over that.

Only becasue I think you need two lenses, and you are already concerned with quality. A great landscape lens on a crop camera might cost you $600- tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22, sigma 10-20, and a nice, fast portrait lens (for which I really recommend a prime) might be a 50 1.4 of some variety, maybe an 85 1.8? For this scenario I would keep that 18-55 (it won't fetch that much anyway).

I am not really concerned about landscape as I take that more for fun. What I really want is a good lens that I can use for portraits, that will pull off good quality photos. For this I don't want a prime (I already have the 50 mm- 1.eight)

What do you find lacking in the 50mm 1.8? The 50 is a good starting point for portraits, if you want something a bit longer get the 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 which are both very good and reasonably priced. Good portrait lenses are usually not zoom lenses, although you can definitely use a 700-200 2.8 if you want a longer zoom lens with a fast aperture that will still work for portraits.

Since you are selling the kit lens you should get a general purpose zoom like the 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 Tamron.

15-85 and a 50 f1.4 or 85 f1.8 for portraits if you're not happy with the 50 f1.8, i know I hate that plastic piece of crap (mostly the slow and inconsistent focus)
You can do very well if you don't mind used stuff.

I would get for the wide end the newer Sigma 17-55 OS (or was it 17-50, can't remember), and the long end a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 non-OS or a Canon 70-200 f4

Tamron 17-50 non-VC + Tokina 50-135....Used 50 1.4 That may be slightly out of budget, but you'd be happy with the results.

17-135/2.8 with two lenses is nice....and a fast prime.

oh don't get me wrong, I like my 50mm and am happy with the results. I am not selling that one. I want to add to it, with a lens where I can adjust my focal length without moving around so much

17-40 definitely