Starting Out - My Lens plan?

Yeah, I know, age old question...

I'm starting out in digital photography. For years, I've had Contax equipment, SLR and G series, so optical quality is important to me. I've decided on Canon over Nikon and plan on purchasing a XTi body as soon as available. Beside the normal home/family photography, I mainly enjoy landscape and nature (close/macro) work. Not real interested in wildlife at this point so I don't think I will need a long telephoto.

So here is my lens plan, 17-40mm f/4 USM L (first zoom that I'll ever own but I'll get over it ), EF-S 60mm F/2.8 USM macro and 135mm f/2 USM L. I'm still lamenting the loss of my Contax 21mm G lens but not sure how I will replace it using a 1.6x body.

So, I'm looking for comments, suggestions or alternatives based on this selection of lens. Thanks in advance.

17-40mm, 135mm looks good. what about the canon 100mm macro? or Tamron 28-75. hard to say, we all use lenses differently. good luck with whatever you decide on.

If you plan a lot of outdoor photography the 17-40 will do you just fine. If you are considering shooting inside, in lowlight, you have to look into something with f2.8 or wider. The f4 is not going to be good enough without a flash indoors. Also, the suggestion about the Tamron is a good one. For the money, that lens is a favorite here.

I fancy you'll find the Canon horribly plasticky after the Contax. I would get a 30D over the 400 specifically for the much improved handling. If you had T* lenses then you can get adaptors for EOS crop bodies and use them MF. Other than that the 17-40mm L is a very decent lens. I would also be tempted to get the 100mm Macro and then see if you really need the 135mm. Of course, the 60mm can cover you a tad better where the 17-40mm finished.

The 17-40 is nice, I'd personally would prefer a 100mm macro vs the 60 macro.

Don't rule out sigma for lenses, either. I haven't ever seen a bad review for a sigma EX lens.

Amazing amazing lens choices. I love my 17-40L. The EF-S 60mm would be an extremely sharp portrait lens, and amazing macro lens. The 135L is amazing for longer portraits, lower light photography when you need the reach....

1. Welcome to POTN.
2. You'll think this odd, but the Sigma 15mm fisheye f/2.8 is a fast max aperture wide lens, with wonderful color, that does not show much fish distortion on an APS-C 1.6 body, focuses close, sells for $350 used, and has about a 21mm field of view on a 35mm camera when the distortion is cropped out.
These crap hazy day non-edited or non-cropped images are just instructive play. This is bending horizon of the fish distortion handheld: http://postit.rutgers.​edu/uploads/Handheld%5​FFish.jpg
Now put the camera on a tripod, with a double bubble level, and shoot the same shot from same spot: http://postit.rutgers.​edu …d%5FDbleBubble%​5FFish.jpg
When the APS-C 1.6 camera is level, the image shows little distortion, and has better corner sharpness > Canon's 10-22mm zoom. I do not like ultra wide zooms, seem to "invite" composition errors. There are many other 15mm fish photos with this lens on my web site like: http://aesop.rutgers.e​du …s/BlewFamilyFar​mSolar.htm

3. Some words of warning.
While digital is still photography, making the transition to the "digital darkroom" is different. Slow. Frustrating. More costly in time and computer software than imagineable. It saves no time over film. But, the results are great. Canon's new Picture Styles make it easier to get good photos with less digital darkroom than previously. Once you GET the digital darkroom, it rekindles excitement for photography.

4. While I use a 1-D camera at work with a 16-35mm and 70-200mm and macro lenses, for home/casual/travel use I have a APS-C 1.6 30D with a lens selection not far off from what you are contemplating. I have:
- 30D (I like the Canon ergonomic Quick Control Dial for fast on-the-go reportage, and the consumer bodies don't have it).
- EF-S 60mm macro because this is an amazing lens. The contrast and color rendition is just like best of old Kodachrome 64 slide film. I decided to build my whole travel lens kit around this lens.
- 15mm Siggie Fish f/2.8 to cover the wide side. I manually focus this.
- A normal zoom. I sold the 17-40 after a couple years, and got the 17-55 IS. Costly, yes. But, 55mm reach, IS, and f/2.8 enabling focus in lower light were valued. With shocking good Canon high ISO performance, we no longer need fast lenses so much to maintain shutter speed, but they are needed for accurate autofocus. Maybe you can check the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the expected Tokina f/2.8 normal zoom due out.
- On the long end, any good tele or tele zoom will do you. The 135 is stellar. I like IS long zooms for convenience.

5. Depending on your age, you may not like the small dark viewfinders on these APS-C 1.6 sensor cameras. Dim compared 35mm viewfinders.

Other than the ultra wide, your choices are similar. Just watch out coming from film and transition to digital darkroom. Go to the http://luminous-landscape.com/new/inde​x.shtml and read some of essays and tutorials on digital darkroom.

Best wishes. Jack

BrentBoshart wrote:
Yeah, I know, age old question...

I'm starting out in digital photography. For years, I've had Contax equipment, SLR and G series, so optical quality is important to me. I've decided on Canon over Nikon and plan on purchasing a XTi body as soon as available. Beside the normal home/family photography, I mainly enjoy landscape and nature (close/macro) work. Not real interested in wildlife at this point so I don't think I will need a long telephoto.

So here is my lens plan, 17-40mm f/4 USM L (first zoom that I'll ever own but I'll get over it ), EF-S 60mm F/2.8 USM macro and 135mm f/2 USM L. I'm still lamenting the loss of my Contax 21mm G lens but not sure how I will replace it using a 1.6x body.

So, I'm looking for comments, suggestions or alternatives based on this selection of lens. Thanks in advance.

Don't know why you want a 1.6x. Based on your background, I'd go straight for the 5D. You don't need the speed and the additional capbility of the D line over the Rebel line is something you'll quickly wish you had.

i have the tamron 2.8 and i love it
+1 for tamron

I have two of the lenses you've chosen and they are both optically excellent. I use the 17-40 for almost all my landscapes...the 135 for all my portraits. For what you want to shoot, they fit nicely. I went with a 90mm Tamron macro though, just because it rounded out my lens selection better. The one thing I will say, if you ever go to one of the pro bodies (5D or 1D series) you won't be able to use the 60mm EF-S lens...that might be something to think about in your plans (since you've obviously thought out your lens choices very thoroughly).

CondyK is right though "I fancy you'll find the Canon horribly plasticky after the Contax. I would get a 30D over the 400 specifically for the much improved handling." Have you checked out some of the xti photo tests that have been posted here?
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=213574

For someone who's coming in from a world of photography (and not new to everything) the xti may not be the best choice.

I have the 17-40L and love it on w/ my 350D. It has become my walk about lens. I think it will be a fine choice for you.

Wow! Thanks for all the great replies! I'm thinking the best thing about choosing Canon is this forum!

Lots of reading today, and yes, I'm starting to lean towards the 30D instead of the XTi. The 5D is tempting but probably out of budget. The 17-40 seems to be "legendary" so I think its a definite. Will consider the recommendation of the 100 f/2.8 macro instead of the 60mm, except it leaves a big gap between the 17-40 and 100.

The "digital darkroom" will be interesting. I actually did my own color darkroom enlarging (anybody want to be a good color enlarger :lol. I'm getting ready for it, have an Apple Powermac and Photoshop.

Thanks again for the replies.

Brent

Several reasons for the 100mm over the 60mm macro
1.for small creature macro. Increased distance from the subject = less likely to scare creatures away!
2.It will also mean that should you decide to upgrade to a full frame camera then you'll still have use of the 100mm but you would have to sell the 60mm.

If you are likely to stay with 1.6x sensor cameras then you could consider the 17-85mm lens rather than the 17-40 which will reduce your gap

Doesn't sound like a bad plan at all