I'm losing my mind Lens questions

I already decided on my body. Canon 30d.
Now for the lenses. I was looking at 17-40L for awhile and my conclusion is its a good walk around lens, great quality, bad in low light shots because its only f4. My gripe is I will not be upgrading to a FF anytime soon. Therefore the 17-40 is not the best choice to make for a 30d.
Second lense I was considering was the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Great lens, pretty pricy, L qualities, and my huge gripe it collects alot of dust.
Third lens would be the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4. It's super wide, takes great pictures, but no zoom.

I plan to buy one lens for now and use it until I can save up for another. (est 6 months) My criteria:
1) Wide angle
2) Good at low light and outdoors
3) Some kind of zoom
4) Build Quality and Image Quality
5) Ceiling price of 1200

or maybe i'm going about this all wrong. Should I just buy one zoom lens and a prime?

Thanks

$1200 is a fairly big budget. If you dont mind the hassle of multiple lenses, you can look at many lenses covering the range.

To start,
- a 10-22 Canon/12-24 Tokina / 10-20 Sigma for the really wide angle
- a 17-50 2.8 3rd party or 28-75 2.8 Tamron or 24-70 2.8 Sigma
would set you back only by around $800 or so. A little stretch and you can even get a telephoto to complete the set. Or a 50/1.4 as a designated low light lens.

I wonder why you would need a wide angle lens that can be used in low light. Would you be using it indoors? If you are shooting landscapes, you are better off using it with a tripod even if you have a f/2.8 lens.

The 17-40L is my obvious choice. I am impressed with its quality.

What am I missing here? the 10-22 is most definitely a zoom, and the widest one you're going to get on a 1.6 crop factor. It is a great lens and capable of extreme closeups giving very interesting/strange perspectives.

If low light is you're concern, look at the 16-35 f2.8. Perhaps just a bit more than $1200. Consider it used. Probably exactly what you are looking for.

Or, if you can do without the extreme wide angle, the 24-70 f2.8 fits the bill nicely.

mark

about the 10-22 it doesnt offer the zoom i want

speedracersong wrote in post #2074075
about the 10-22 it doesnt offer the zoom i want

what zoom???

It's not wide enough? not long enough?

long enough
i want a lens that will offer a slice of everything. I will start to purchase more lens as I become more interested in a particular subject.

consider a used 16-35

17-85 EF-S IS I know it is not good for FF but I still regret selling mine

Tamron 17-50. With the money left over you can buy one or two extra lenses.

If you are going to spend near $1200 on a lens:

I think I am with Tee Why, a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70 could fulfill your expectations and also buy in the same bag a EF 70-200 f/4 L just for start. So you are more or less decent covered from the focal point of view ... and even you have about $150 spare (for x1,4 TC for example).

If ultra wide is not needed, alternatives are also Tamron 24-70 and Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX + EF 70-200 f/4 L

Unless you are Canon & Lmaniac from the beginning ....

Juan Zas wrote in post #2074780
If you are going to spend near $1200 on a lens:

I think I am with Tee Why, a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70 could fulfill your expectations and also buy in the same bag a EF 70-200 f/4 L just for start. So you are more or less decent covered from the focal point of view ... and even you have about $150 spare (for x1,4 TC for example).

If ultra wide is not needed, alternatives are also Tamron 24-70 and Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX + EF 70-200 f/4 L

Unless you are Canon & Lmaniac from the beginning ....

Tammy 28-75

canon 17-55EF-S IS also outstanding lens

Easy choice >> Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM .. its a great general purpose lens, the 10-22 is great lens but only suits certain situations.

Canon 70-200mm F4 L, Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, and Sigma 10-20mm EX
$589 + $350 + $499 = $1438
Ok, so a little over $1200, but 3 great lenses for about the price of 1...