If only 2 lenses....which combo?

Check out The Digital Picture for good information on what lenses are available, and suggestions about lenses for various purposes.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

My choice of 'Two lenses' was the 17-40 L ( I got this first, to replace the kit lens) then the 70-200 f/f - I sold my 75-300 USM II to help fund this one.
I am a very happy person with these lenses. Both great value for money and excellent handling, build and image quality.
I don't really count my EF-S kit lens, nor the 50mm 1.8 - as I don't like 50mm on a crop body anyway, but that's just my taste, loads of people rave about this lens and its big brother, the 50 f/1.4

WaterLily wrote:
Heck, just the kids alone is a group shot lol (there are 8 of them )

for the 70-200...will the f/4 perform well enough in low-light indoor conditions like recitals, plays etc and at soccer or basketball games? Or would I be better off selling one of the kids to fund the 2.8? I wont be able to use a tripod at these events if that makes a difference in your suggestions....
thanks!

Wow, thats a lot of kids.

As for the 70-200 f/4, it is not very good in low light without a tripod or flash especially if you'll be on the longer end of the zoom. I was at a wedding where the lighting wasn't horrible but it wasn't enough. I was at 1600 iso at f/4 and still only getting shutter speeds of about 1/100. So unless you have rock steady hands, it'll be hard to pull it off without camera shake.

I'll sway from the crowd on this one... Here's what I'd do for the XT two lens combo.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigma 100-300 f/4

Get a 1.4 teleconverter to go with that Sigma and you'll be set.

JRJay wrote:
Wow, thats a lot of kids.

As for the 70-200 f/4, it is not very good in low light without a tripod or flash especially if you'll be on the longer end of the zoom. I was at a wedding where the lighting wasn't horrible but it wasn't enough. I was at 1600 iso at f/4 and still only getting shutter speeds of about 1/100. So unless you have rock steady hands, it'll be hard to pull it off without camera shake.

Thats what I was thinking...it seems like I am going to have to find a way to afford the f/2.8. Of course I have a lovely Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 that was used on our 35mm Nikon....but I want to switch to Canon for the dslr as Ive been happy with our canon p&s digitals.

Yeah, in that case I would say get the 24-105 and the 70-200 and get a better wide angle later on.

24 2.8 and a 50 1.4.

Sigma's 70-200 2.8 is fairly well regarded, no?

It's just a heavy sucker, according to the specs. But then so is canon's.

And as for wide angles, 24mm on a crop camera is pretty much as wide as most point-and-shoots go, and you rarely hear aunt beryl complaining about group shots (but then, you know that's just me trying to convince myself I don't need 17-24)

WaterLily wrote:
Heck, just the kids alone is a group shot lol (there are 8 of them )

for the 70-200...will the f/4 perform well enough in low-light indoor conditions like recitals, plays etc and at soccer or basketball games? Or would I be better off selling one of the kids to fund the 2.8? I wont be able to use a tripod at these events if that makes a difference in your suggestions....
thanks!

I prefer 2.8 or faster for the indoor events, but that was not in any of your choices. I'll stick with my original suggestion and throw out the possibility of adding a couple of fast primes - EF 100 f2, EF 85 f1.8, there are more.

No question a f2.8 zoom is a help - I really like my "Magic Drainpipe" (EF 80-200 f2.8) for that, but it is a load to carry. If you can afford a fast zoom go for it. But I think we are straying from the original question.

Have Fun,

I'd get the 18-55 kit lens, the Tamron 28-75, and the Sigma 70-200. The kits lens isn't too bad if you stop it down to f/8. The Tamron midrange zoom is good at f.2.8 and really excellent at f/4 or above. I have one and have a difficult time telling whether or not the shot is with that lens or my 70-200 f/4L. The Sigma zoom is a good one for lower light conditions and would be good at kids' sporting events if you pair it with a 1.4x teleconverter. I'd also get a 430EX flash to round out the kit, as every photographer ought to have a decent flash for portrait shots.

If you're not interested in the midrange Tamron zoom, that new Tamron 17-50 is really excellent. It will probably be one of my next purchases. Someone recently posted shots taken with one, and they are great.

Hope that's helpful.

I would (and did) go for the 17-40L plus the 70-200mmL. The constant f/4, the outstanding image quality, outstanding build quality, are all reasons that you can make this purchase once and not have to feel the urge to upgrade.

what seemed to work well on my slr (not digital) was a 35-70 f/2.8 and an 80-200 f/2.8 (although that sucker is HUGE). All I ever did though was use the slr in auto mode and take pics of the kids and never tried landscapes, wildlife etc (yes thats embarrasing to post on a camera forum that I only used the auto mode )......
so Im thinking a similar set up with lenses may be a good place to start...and once I actually learn what Im doing I can alter to fit my needs etc

17-85 & 70-200.

You just can't beat the 17-85 for an all round lens on a crop camera and any of the 70-200 are great lenses.

Although this point of view is contradicted by every 2nd thread on this forum - all the f/4 owners craving an f/2.8 or an IS or both.

If I could afford them, it would be the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

I love the 50mm f1.4 , but for practicality I guess you would be better with zooms.

The 50mm works really well in low light / indoors.....incredibly fast for "stopping" zooming kids. The 24-70 2.8 is big and heavy but works well indoors...the 24-105 is better outdoors and is lighter. It all depends on what your going to use the camera for.

Did I say I love my 50mm?