$2000.00 (US) what would you do?????

Hi! Need some help? I have a 20D, Sigma 17-70mm, kit lens and a 430EX flash.

Here is my dilemma. I have $2000. (US) give or take and looking in to getting some L class lenses.

Thinking of getting the 24-105 L f/4 IS and the 70-200mm L f/4 or the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and a 1.4X.

I am starting out with photography and am having a lot of fun. I am shooting the basic (my kids, family parties, vacations, wild life, the basics)
So if you had $2000.00 what would you get???

Thank You!!!!!! This site has helped me with all the info here.

The 70-200 L IS is an absolutely awesome lens. I think you'd really enjoy it. That's probably what I'd do, were I in your situation. Here's another option, though. What about selling the 17-70 and the kit lens and getting the 24-105L IS and the 100-400L IS?

Hmm!

Or, if you can off the kit lens, and come up with $21-2200, you could keep the 17-70.

i'de say get a 70-200 f2.8+ either 30 1.4, 50 1.4, or 85 1.8 (sigma, canon, canon). should fit your needs just fine (and if you choose the non-is version, you can get 3/4 or them, add 100 bucks and you can get all four)

I don't know if you like primes or not but here is what I would suggest:

Canon 135 2.0L - $900
Canon 85 1.8 - $350
Canon 70-200 f4 - $580
Sigma 1.4x - $165 (I have one and it works perfectly with my 70-200 2.8 IS)

Total before shipping is $1,995.00

How do you like your Sigma lens? If you have no problems with it, then I really see no point in spending the money on the 24-105L.

No need to spend money unless you need to. Either of the 70-200L's would be a good choice.

flyfishsick wrote in post #2086697
Here is my dilemma. I have $2000. (US) give or take and looking in to getting some L class lenses.

Thinking of getting the 24-105 L f/4 IS and the 70-200mm L f/4 or the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and a 1.4X.

It really depends on your shooting needs! The 70-200 IS is about 1699, so that's a chunk of change, but within your limits!

Do you need the 2.8? If so, go for it! It's an awesome lens.

But you asking about the 24-105, do you need something in the standard zoom range without the speed?

My motto now that I have acquired lenses and used them a lot:

Always buy the fastest glass that you can afford!

But that's relative if you need more on the wide side of things. Only you can answer that question!

Put it in the bank until you decide how far you're going to go with this. If you just have lens fever, though, here are some suggestions if you just have to spend money:

• Canon 85 1.8
  
• Canon 50 1.4
  
• Canon 200L
  
• Canon 135L
  
• Sigma 24-70 2.8 (quality varies)
  
• Tamron 28-75 2.8
  

Sigma 120-300 2.8

If I were you I'd get the 70-200 f/4L + the 100-400L. Your sigma handles the rest and you'd have the kind of reach to do just about any kind of shooting.

Actually, with the 100-400 being 4.5 at the wide end, the 70-200 isn't a big advantage. I'd go Sigma 70-200 2.8 and 100-400L IS if anything.

minatophase3 wrote in post #2086724
Sigma 1.4x - $165 (I have one and it works perfectly with my 70-200 2.8 IS)

Do you know if the Sigma 1.4x works with 70-200L f/4?

minatophase3 wrote in post #2086724
I don't know if you like primes or not but here is what I would suggest:

Canon 135 2.0L - $900
Canon 85 1.8 - $350
Canon 70-200 f4 - $580
Sigma 1.4x - $165 (I have one and it works perfectly with my 70-200 2.8 IS)

Total before shipping is $1,995.00

I would get the same thing minus the 135L and sub it with the 17-40L. with the left over $$ I would grab the 550Ex or 580EX flash.

I have the same budget constraint and want to upgrade to some L's

I shoot mostly landscapes (65%), but increasingly more urban and people shots (20%) with some indoor parties / weddings / etc. (15%).

Based on my research here and the opinions and testimonials of many, the lenses that fit my shooting needs best will be:

24-70 2.8 - New walkaround lens. People I spoke to tell me this stays on their camera 95% of the time (I like that - less dust on the sensor!)

& (1) of the lenses below

70-200 f4
70-200 f4 IS
70-200 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 IS

If I decide on the 70-200 2.8 IS, that really obliterates my budget, and I would only be able to get that lens.

The 70-200 f4 is a great value, but I fear its usefulness would be mostly outdoors, and I would find myself selling it in the not to distant future for a 70-200 f 2.8.

That leaves the 70-200 f2.8 Non-IS and the 70-200 f4 IS. Canon priced these two very close together, and if my goal is to be able to shoot in lower light situations when they come up (not a majority of the time) or indoors and I am not shooting fast moving objects, the f4 IS may be perfect for me.

If I have overlooked anything in my "thinking out loud" notes above, please let me know. I have been trying to figure out which ones to get, and my eyes are well glazed over at this time... Your opinions and thoughts welcome!

Bryan

I'd buy probably the 70-200 f2.8 NON IS and a 300 f4 IS used. That would come to $2000. DEMO has the 70-200 f2.8 for sale and a 300 prime is always up for sale on FM.

Sorry I did not see in the OP replies but what kind of photography are you going to do?