Name 2 must have lens on a crop body...

17-55 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8 IS

If I could pick a third I'd include a prime but if I am limited to JUST two I would choose versatility.

I take 24 f1.4 ii and 50 f1.2

BJenk wrote in post #12230151
Definitely 2 ends of the spectrum there with nothing in the middle.

True BJenk but then that's the way I prefer to shoot. Birds and landscape. If I can save enough I will go for a 24-105 in future. There is no one size fits all in this. It entirely depends on who the individual is and what type of photography one does.

100 macro and 17-55.

For my 5DII, the "must have" lens is the TSE24.

See, it just depends on what you're shooting. There are no "must have lenses" for any body. Sorry to say it, but it's a faulty concept, and if one looks at the variations posted above it's quite obvious.

I'd pick a Sigma 30 1.4 myself and probably call it a day

I say whatever you need. I shoot at lot of candids, sports, and head shots so for me
Fast 50
70-200 2.8

obviously depends on what you're shooting but i'd go for

10-22mm + 17-55mm f2.8 IS
or
17-55mm f2.8 IS + 70-200mm f4 IS

In the beginning 18-55 and 55-250
In the middle 18-135 and 55-250
In the end probably 15-85 and 70-200 F4 IS

in the beginning... 18-55 and 55-250

later on, depending on your shooting needs, either..

17-55 2.8 OR 15-85 variable aperture OR Tamron 17-50 2.8 (Non VC is preferred for sharpness)

AND

70-200 F4 L IS OR 100-400 L IS OR Tamron 70-300 VC

AND

fast primes... 50mm F 1.4 OR 50mm F 1.8 OR 28mm F 1.8 etc.

Just asking..... WHY nobody mention 16-35 2.8f??? Is there anything wrong w/ using this lens in a crop camera?????

I sold all my zooms..
Now i have 30,50 and 85.

(sorry thats 3)

when i was using on crop; sigma 30, and canon 85 f1.8

ernestoqr wrote in post #12267949
Just asking..... WHY nobody mention 16-35 2.8f??? Is there anything wrong w/ using this lens in a crop camera?????

Because for a similar price you can get a 17-55 f2.8 that also has IS. The build quality is a bit better on the 16-35, but for 500 dollars more?

17-55 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f4 IS

The 17-55 is such an amazing lens. It doesn't feel as solid as I would like for the money, but after using a friend's extensively, I regret picking the 24-105 over it.

gasrocks wrote in post #12219943
You cannot name 2 without knowing what the subject will be. One might be EF 800/5.6 or a fish-eye.

Newbie would like te be it the presence of the EF 800mm & hopes that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM I just bought will be a "must have."