Question about some lenses

I'm looking into buying the Canon 60D (body only) and I wanted to upgrade to some better lenses and was wondering which one you guys think would be best.

I do equine photography (which I need a lens that will focus quickly and that has a decent zoom) and I also photograph people (engagements, kids, and portraits).

These are some of the lenses I was looking at:
Canon- 55-250mm f/4-5.6
Sigma- 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (I know I can't do my equine photography with this lens but I thought it would be nice for portraits)
Sigma- 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon- 18-200mm f3.5-5.6
Tamron- Di II 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon- 70-200 mm f/4L USM
Tamron- A001 70-200 F/2.8 (I always wanted a large aperture lens)

Avoid all of these super zooms. From the lens you listed I'd only consider Canon 70-200/4L... preferably IS if you can afford.

As general purpose lens consider Canon EF 24-105/4L.

For starters, I think the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS will fit the bill nicely for the latter part of your needs. I have no idea what equine photography is...

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14012634
I have no idea what equine photography is...

Ah c'mon - quit horsin' around.

xarqi wrote in post #14012660
Ah c'mon - quit horsin' around.

What's your budget? The 70-200 f/L USM would be a good start.. but the IS version might be better for family stuff, etc.

xarqi wrote in post #14012660
Ah c'mon - quit horsin' around.

Equestrian photography?

DB4L90 wrote in post #14012600
I'm looking into buying the Canon 60D...These are some of the lenses I was looking at...Canon- 18-200mm f3.5-5.6

Pictures from a Canon 18-200mm IS lens.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

DB4L90 wrote in post #14012600
Tamron- A001 70-200 F/2.8

Pictures from a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I think that starting with a superzoom is a good begining point. Learn your camera on a used tamron 18-200(180usd) so you dont have to continuously swap lenses. Then buy a 50mm... Fall in love with primes, accumulate an 85mm, wide fl prime, etc. Let the super zoom sit in the bag.

That worked for my hobby.

Get the best 70-200mm lens you can afford. The 200mm length is minimum for the horses. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8 for photographing children. The zoom range allows enough distance to the children allowing them to act natural. Children are notorious for being either camera shy or silly when close to a camera. A 70-200mm lens is great for portraits. I know absolutely nothing about anything wedding related.

I use f/2.8 a lot to blur the background. I don't know when IS has ever been needed. Almost everything I shoot involves action or potential for action (children) where shutter speed is much more important than IS.

The 24-105mm lens is my general purpose/walkaround lens, 24mm is too long for some people, never for me. I do use the longer end very often. The Sigma 17-70 you listed or something like the Canon 18-135 would be nice for general purpose, I have never used either. I could never be happy with a 17/18-55mm lens - too short on the long end.

Superzooms are not nearly as bad as some people try to indicate, they are actually extremely versatile and very good for conditions when carrying multiple lenses is not desired. My nephew uses a Canon 18-200 which is wonderful to have ready at all times for a quick shot when his children are playing indoors or outside.

Don't think for a minute that an f/2.8 lens is the be all/end all for lower light photography. An f/2.8 lens is not fast, it is just faster than most lens. My 70-200mm f/2.8 lens was the slowest lens I had ever used when it was purchased. It is not fast! Plan on getting a good flash for lower light photography.

It's equine/equestrian photography- probably means a lot of light- as it is typically outside-and probably for the most part- daylight. Any of those lenses will be fine for outdoors daylight. For faster focusing, you will want to research which lenses have USM/HSM/PZD - ultrasonic motor driven AF. Most of those will be fine otherwise- because as long as it is sort of close to focused in the beginning- it's not going to take long to get it the rest of the way there (to focused).

Sometimes, superzooms are what is called for. Sure, they aren't for low light taking pics at night type of action shots- but they do have a place in the world..

I think you'd be very happy with the Canon 70-200/4L for what you say you need.

DB4L90 wrote in post #14012600
I'm looking into buying the Canon 60D (body only) and I wanted to upgrade to some better lenses and was wondering which one you guys think would be best.

I do equine photography (which I need a lens that will focus quickly and that has a decent zoom) and I also photograph people (engagements, kids, and portraits).

These are some of the lenses I was looking at:
Canon- 55-250mm f/4-5.6
Sigma- 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (I know I can't do my equine photography with this lens but I thought it would be nice for portraits)
Sigma- 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon- 18-200mm f3.5-5.6
Tamron- Di II 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon- 70-200 mm f/4L USM
Tamron- A001 70-200 F/2.8 (I always wanted a large aperture lens)

I would choose a longer prime for portraits - 85mm or 50mm 1.8 etc. and for equine shots maybe a longer telephoto like the 100-400 (but I've never photographed race horses!)

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14012735
Equestrian photography?

Equestrian would refer to a horse being ridden, equine is just the horse.

DB4L90 wrote in post #14012600
I'm looking into buying the Canon 60D (body only) and I wanted to upgrade to some better lenses and was wondering which one you guys think would be best.

I do equine photography (which I need a lens that will focus quickly and that has a decent zoom) and I also photograph people (engagements, kids, and portraits).

These are some of the lenses I was looking at:
Canon- 55-250mm f/4-5.6
Sigma- 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (I know I can't do my equine photography with this lens but I thought it would be nice for portraits)
Sigma- 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon- 18-200mm f3.5-5.6
Tamron- Di II 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon- 70-200 mm f/4L USM
Tamron- A001 70-200 F/2.8 (I always wanted a large aperture lens)

As you can see from my signature, I own 3 of the lenses above. The Canon 18-200 has lots of CA and barrel distortion, especially at 18mm. Stopped down it not too bad. Its definitely sharper then the Tamron. You seem to be referring to the older Tamron. I have the new version, the PZD, which is much better. Good color and contrast, but a bit soft around the edges, especially when zoomed in. Both will run you around $600. The Canon 55-250 is dirt cheap by comparison with IQ beyond it's modest cost. CA and barrel distortion seems lower than either super zoom. It's really a bargain. Its an inexpensive lens with a modest build. But you can spend the money you save towards a good prime or a Canon 15-85 to cover the world closer in.

i can't tell if you already have a camera set up now or not...if so...what lenses do you currently have, and how much are you looking to spend?