Which lenses for a beginner?

blam wrote in post #2046819
will it be alright for hockey games?

the 70-200 is a MUST then and it HAS to be f2.8 to let enough light in to stop any action

i just went threw this with my old lens and hockey and i had to upgrade to the sigma f2.8

and no the 85 wont be enough lenght for hockey

basicly its this (old lens f5.6 @ 200mm with PP including sharpening and brightening underexposed pictures)

crazy....that sigma 2.8 does wonders vs the first shots.

I really want the canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM, but 2200CDN is a tad steep =(

I might save up for that one.

blam wrote in post #2047098
crazy....that sigma 2.8 does wonders vs the first shots.

I really want the canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM, but 2200CDN is a tad steep =(

I might save up for that one.

if i had the money i woulda bought the IS

you can get a realy nice used 70-200mm APO EX DG in the 6's off ebay, mine was $650 ands was like brand new, still had the protective coverings on teh stickers, i highly recommend it, but would have bought the canon version if i had the money

Blam.. why don't you listen to me. haha I am not misleading you or anything really! Don't you trust me?!?! =*(

and are you sure you want the 70-200 2.8L IS? or is that me talking? LOL.. I also want the 100-400 too....

lakiluno wrote in post #2045477
the 28-75 is a completely different lens - don't get it for a 1.6 crop.

I disagree. I have it and lots of people with a 1.6 crop have it and love it.

When I go out for a walk, or visit an event, and I can take only one lens, it's always this one that I use with my 20D. It's versatile, light and fast.

If you want something wider, the Sigma 24-70 is also a good lens. Or the new Tamron 17-50, though that one only works for crop cameras.

P.

Fobby_Monkey wrote in post #2047358
Blam.. why don't you listen to me. haha I am not misleading you or anything really! Don't you trust me?!?! =*(

and are you sure you want the 70-200 2.8L IS? or is that me talking? LOL.. I also want the 100-400 too....

haha bastard stalker!!!!!

I made this thread before I talked to you last night. and you know which lenses I'm getting now.

I just dont know which zoom lens to get. I want something I can use for Hockey games and climbing trips like the pictures posted above

I'll probably end up with the non IS version that Canon put out.

and if I didn't trust you, I wouldn't have messaged you last night. lol

peterdoomen: I think I;m going with canon 17-85mm f4 IS USM, it's got good coverage vs the tamron and sigma

I won't be using the wide as much as I would the telephoto.

I'd avoid the EFS 17-85 iS, if I were you. Had that lens for almost a year and never really bonded with it. The iS can help, but it's still not a low light lens and it's Barrel D and C.A. is beyond substandard.
At the wide-zoom end, I'd recommend the new Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma AF 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC, Macro which is a workhorse and will do everything in it's range. As for lower cost telephoto, I'd go with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Canon EF 70-200 f/4L which is a very sharp lens. Hope this helps.

John

blam wrote in post #2044294
A couple lenses I want so far are:
50mm f1.8
17-85mm IS
and if I ever have the money, a 70-200 F2.8 IS ( not anytime soon )

yeah the extra 10mm from the canon 17-85 IS vs the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 isnt much, and if your REALY need it, you can always crop, and the tamron is sharp enough to do some good crops and its cheaper and better for low light

the f2.8 on teh tamron is pretty appealing. I will look into that some more.

how is tamrom for quality??

edit:
after a quick search, it seems the sigma and tamron are pretty much the same price as the canon here in Canada (after shipping etc)
so of the 3, which has the best:
PICTURE QUALITY
a) canon 17-85 IS USM
b) sigma 24-70
c) tamron 28-75
BUILD QUALITY
a) canon
b) sigma
c) tamron
LENS QUALITY
a) canon
b) sigma
c) tamron
RESALE
a) canon
b) sigma
c) tamron

thanks everyone for the help!!

BassBiggieD wrote in post #2050067
yeah the extra 10mm from the canon 17-85 IS vs the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 isnt much, and if your REALY need it, you can always crop, and the tamron is sharp enough to do some good crops and its cheaper and better for low light

I couldn't disagree more. I find myself shooting wider than 28mm, and often all the way down to 17mm quite often because I need that wide angle to catch what I am shooting. Cropping is the last thing I would want at that point. It all depends on what you are shooting and how far away you can get to frame the picture. Add 10mm to the long end as well, and you are talking about quite a bit more focal range with the 17-85 versus the 28-75. The constant 2.8 aperture is however quite appealing, and I do wish the 17-85 was a faster lens. You really need to decide what focal range you feel you need first, and then fit the lens around those requirements. I think the Sigma 17-70 or the Canon 17-85 have much more useful ranges than the 28-75, but for you 28-75 might be perfect.

or you might want to completely over look the 17-85 EF-S and get the EF-S 10-22.

and I am not stalking you. I signed up in March.

DaveSt wrote in post #2050513
I couldn't disagree more. I find myself shooting wider than 28mm, and often all the way down to 17mm quite often because I need that wide angle to catch what I am shooting. Cropping is the last thing I would want at that point. It all depends on what you are shooting and how far away you can get to frame the picture. Add 10mm to the long end as well, and you are talking about quite a bit more focal range with the 17-85 versus the 28-75. The constant 2.8 aperture is however quite appealing, and I do wish the 17-85 was a faster lens. You really need to decide what focal range you feel you need first, and then fit the lens around those requirements. I think the Sigma 17-70 or the Canon 17-85 have much more useful ranges than the 28-75, but for you 28-75 might be perfect.

i was talking about the long end... the short end is a bit different and 10mm does make more of a difference

also

blam wrote in post #2045793
I imigine I won't be doing much landscape..and if I do, i'll be wanting the 17-40L

I would get the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 if you want something on the landscape side (or the tamron if you dont plan on very wideangle shots at all) and save for a 70-200mm f2.8 for your long end

blam wrote in post #2044294
hy guys and gals

I will be purchasing a Rebel XTi mid next month (near my 24th birthday too!) and was wondering what lenses you guys recommend I start with?

A couple lenses I want so far are:
50mm f1.8
17-85mm IS
and if I ever have the money, a 70-200 F2.8 IS ( not anytime soon )

Should I bother with the kit lens?? I'm thinking of getting the body + 50mm f1.8 instead of the kit lens. (I am currently shooting with a 50mm f1.8 on my Canon AE-1 and I love the narrow DOF on it)

I will mostly be shooting cars, some animals and people (parties, BBQs, outings, vacation kind of thing.)

is the zoom on the 17-85 enough? I currently have a canon A620, how is the zoom compared to that? (I am VERY new to zoom and the XXmm numbers)

Thanks in advance.

if you are getting 17-85is then you should pass on the kit lens.

Hey blam,

I'm in the same boat as you. I'm picking up a 400D/XTi in Korea (I'm a fellow Canuck teaching English here) and I've been considering three lenses to go along with my 400D/XTi body. It's come down to:
1. 17-85 IS USM
2. Sigma 17-70
3. Tamron 17-50 f2.8

I've done a search and there are tonnes of threads regarding which lens to get. It seems like there is a big Sigma 17-70 following here. I've seen the pics and they look awesome. For the Tamron 17-50, I've only seen a few pics and the reviews have been great. But it seems like people get more excited about the 17-70??

The Canon is a bit more pricey but it has IS. I am wondering if having a faster lens would compensate for the lack of IS? I would like to stop action (like those hockey pics! ). I think for the price of the 17-85 IS USM, I could buy the 17-70 plus a 50mm f1.8!

Man, how the heck do you guys decide on which lens to buy? I'd like to get a good all around lens to start out with, instead of purchasing the kit.

Anyways, good luck with what you decide on. I'm having a crazy hard time figuring out what to do. Cheers!

http://thedailykimchi.​blogspot.com

dailykimchi wrote in post #2051158
Hey blam,

I'm in the same boat as you. I'm picking up a 400D/XTi in Korea (I'm a fellow Canuck teaching English here) and I've been considering three lenses to go along with my 400D/XTi body. It's come down to:
1. 17-85 IS USM
2. Sigma 17-70
3. Tamron 17-50 f2.8

I've done a search and there are tonnes of threads regarding which lens to get. It seems like there is a big Sigma 17-70 following here. I've seen the pics and they look awesome. For the Tamron 17-50, I've only seen a few pics and the reviews have been great. But it seems like people get more excited about the 17-70??

The Canon is a bit more pricey but it has IS. I am wondering if having a faster lens would compensate for the lack of IS? I would like to stop action (like those hockey pics! ). I think for the price of the 17-85 IS USM, I could buy the 17-70 plus a 50mm f1.8!

Man, how the heck do you guys decide on which lens to buy? I'd like to get a good all around lens to start out with, instead of purchasing the kit.

Anyways, good luck with what you decide on. I'm having a crazy hard time figuring out what to do. Cheers!

http://thedailykimchi.​blogspot.com

like i said earlier, i would take a fast lens over IS anyday, IS cant stop action, only camera shake, so its worth it if your shooting non moving objects... ive been looking at all these lenses to as i need something for the shorter end of the range... i got my long end

im personaly torn between the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and the sigma 18-50mm f2.8