lens options with 60D

Hello... I have been recently been posting over at the camera body sections when I was trying to decide between the 60D vs 7D. I've now decided to get the 60D.

I think I want to order through the CLP and figure this would be a good time to get a new lens because I can also get another 20% a refurb lens when I buy a refurb body, so instead of paying a few extra hundred dollars in 6mos for a new lens, it makes sense to get one now.

Currenly I have an XTI with the kit lens 18-55 (non IS, it's an older model) and the canon 50 1.4 and a quantaray 70-300 tele-macro lens (came with my camera kit 5 yrs ago), 430 EXII flash. I don't use the flash much as I prefer to use natural light when possible and adjust camera settings to avoid the flash.

I'm still in the beginning stages of learning manual, and that's all I shoot these days. What I shoot is my kids (indoors and poorly lit house, and outside), at school events (possible future plays, etc), simple sports (child aged baseball, soccer games), family bday/holiday gatherings, travel (ie Disney, ocean, lake, camping), I'd like to get alittle landscape in there too, flowers... basically alittle of everything. Like I said though, I am learning still. But like the ability to be creative.

I can purchase the 60d body prebundled with the 18-135 IS kit thru the CLP.
I can purchase the body only thru the clp.
I can purchase the body with a different lens...I was thinking either the 17-55 IS, the 24-70, 24-105.

I like the range of the current 18-55 kit, but sometimes wish I had more reach. But, I am leaning towards the 17-55 because of f2.8 and the fact that I do shoot indoors alot too.

I don't want to be changing lenses too much (hard with the little ones around), and alittle concerned the 17-55 won't be long enough in some situations, but I want a lens that will be good in low light and give me some flexibility. It's hard to catch he kids when the are active and I want all 4 of them in the shot (ages 1 thru 10), so with my 50 mm prime it can be tough.

I'm also wondering that the 17-55 paired with the 50 1.4 is overkill, but I do like the artsy ability that is there using it down to f1.4-1.8.

I have concidered the 24-70 2.8, but I think I may miss the wider angle of the 18-55 kit lens I have now, plus I hear it's called the "brick" and think this could get alittle heavy. thus why the 17-55 2.8 is what I'm concidering. I've also concidered the 24-105 4.0, but concerned about low light (and not having the wider angle too). If the 18-85 was a 2.8 I'd have gone that route, shucks!

Or should I just get the 18-135 IS that it comes bundled with and keep learning for a year or so and then upgrade (at a higher price though obviously :/ )

I keep going back and forth on the lens choice, I need to get this figured out so I can order the cameara I guess I can make due with my crappy 70-300 that I have for when I need the reach for plays or sports since right now it's the least of the photos that are being taken now.

Thanks!!

Take a bunch of pics. See what focal lengths you seem to be mostly using. I have a 24-70 and while it is a good lens, it's neither wide enough or long enough imo for what I am doing most of the time. I would look at the 17-55 before the 24-70 for short work and the 24-105 if some more reach appears to be what you need. Have exactly what you want on one end of the focal range if you get my drift

If you need 2.8 then the Canon 17-55 is or 3rd party version. Another lens to consider is the 15-85 equal to IQ as the 17-55 but has a varible f 3.5-5.6 is. Both lens are great lens in there own right.

Check both out in the lens samples archive here on POTN, and decide.

If you shoot indoors with poor light, you will really enjoy the 60D and your 430ex becuase you can now get it off camera and really do some cool things BTW. I think I would get the 17-55. Some other options would be to get the 15-85 and a 28/1.8 for about the same price which would help a lot more in freezing children's movement in poor light than a 2.8 zoom. Another option would be to go Sigma and get the 17-50/2.8 and 30/1.4 which is what I have.

I would probably sell the Qray 70-300 now too and get a 55-250. That or spend a little more and get the Tamron 70-300 VC or better yet on of the 70-200L options.

I'm back. Cheapest for your needs is probably a 60D with 18-135 kit through the CLP plus a 55-250 (white box) from Adorama for $199.00 plus a $20 hood. That totals about $1,100 if my math is correct. This covers a good range and many of your needs. Low light action and even a moderate telephoto is a different world and can get very expensive.

I mention the 55-250 (day time) because a lens that zooms to at least 200mm is important for youth sports. I would not worry about lens speed because recreational youth athletic fields nearly always have terrible lighting. I can't photograph night sports at several of our fields with the lens at f/2.8 and the camera at ISO 3200.

I know exactly how you feel in deciding which general purpose /walkaround lens to get. My choices were the same as yours, 17-55, 24-27 or 24-105. The process of deciding could best be described as agonizing. Aperture of f/2.8 or f/4.0? Which focal length? Get IS or no IS?

Biggest decision seemed to be f/2.8 or f/4.0 I used an old film camera set at ISO 1600 and the lens set at f/2.8 to determine I would still need a flash in my home. I actually need a flash with a lens at f/1.8 so f/2.8 was not not nearly as important as I thought. That experiment eliminated the 24-70 lens.

Which focal length is a personal decision. Wide is not nearly important as length to me.

Almost everything I shoot is moving or has potential to move at the worst possible time (children) so IS has not been an issue for my style. I don't know that it has ever been needed in three years.

I suggest you do something similar by using your camera at ISO 1600 and your 50 f/1.4 lens set at f/2.8 to see if those settings work for you. The resulting shutter speed is really important. Quality does not matter for such a test, a 60D will be much better at higher ISO settings than your XTi.

Do you use you use the 18-24 length with your current lens? If yes then get a lens that includes that focal length. If not then something longer might work.

If shooting indoors is your forte, 2.8, although not fast enough for some, is perfect for others. With a flash, even better. And you having a prime, will probably make it onto the body if 2.8 isn't enough.

If you can swing it, i'd go with the 17-55.

Good luck with your decision! It will be a tough one.

would the 18-135 be good enough indoors? I was thinking no. I won't need the 55-250 with that lens since I do have the 70-300 (although not a very good one).

If I got the 17-55 I was thinking maybe the 55-70 to go along with that.

I'd like to keep it cheep and do just the "kit" with the body= 881.24 (includes tax)

arg, I just don't know what to do. I really want the 17-55. the 60d with this would be 1478.22 with tax plus the 55-250.

An option would be to get a less expensive zoom and a fast prime, like the 35F2. You will get better image quality with the 15-85 or the 17-55, but they do cost - especially the 17-55IS.
once you stop these lenses down to F8, you can get sharp photos with the 18-135.
I recommend waiting before putting a lot of money into an expensive zoom until you have more experience with the camera. I have a 60D and like it, but I would suggest getting more glass for your camera before picking up another body. This will give you more time to learn exactly what will work best for you.