Help with Lens choices

Good morning/afternoon everyone,

This is my first post here, and I hope to be posting a lot more in the future. I'm currently an almost-amateur photographer, meaning I've read a ton, and have taken some decent pictures with my P&S Olympus, but haven't been able to afford an SLR yet. With the way things are going, I'll be able to afford a body and a lens (maybe two) sometime in the next month or so. I've looked over some reviews, and I'm having some trouble deciding on which "walkabout" lens I want.

Currently, I don't have a ton of spare time, so most of my shooting will be done in the evenings or at night, aside from my days off. I'm still experimenting with what type of photos I'd like to take, so I would love to have something versatile, that can do mostly street and some landscape photography. I've found so far that I lean less toward extreme wide-angle photos, and try to find something to focus on in an image, so super-wide angle performance isn't terribly important to me at this point. I do enjoy low-light & night photography as well (fireside out camping in the mountains, I'd also love to do some star trails).

I'll be purchasing the Rebel Xti body, as I've read that it tends to show less noise on longer exposures (is this correct?) than other brands. It's about perfect for my price range, and certainly offers enough features to keep me busy for a while. On the topic of price range, I'll have probably $500 to spend on lenses initially. I've been looking mostly at the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS so far, but I know that there's also a 28-135 out there, along with a few others. I plan on picking up a 50mm 1.8 in addition to the walkabout, so I have something a little more suited for low-light.

I'd certainly appreciate any advice you all can give me; over the last couple of days reading the forums I know there's a wealth of knowledge out there!

Thanks in advance,

Greg

Choice between the 2 lens go w/ the 17-85. You should also conider the18-55 Kit lens for less money then the 17-85 and pickup a 24/28-70/75 f2.8 by Sigma/Tamron. They are fast and better suited for walk around lens, but warn the sigma 24-70f2.8 is a little heavy. Sigma also make the 24-60f2.8 which is also a good consideration. These lenses are all under $500.

i'd also suggest the 17/18-50/2.8 lenses by sigma and tamron. you get less reach, but on a crop body, it gives you just wide enough angle.

Would it be worth getting a 17-50 if I'm already going to have a 50mm prime?

In general, how do Sigma/Tamron lenses stack up against Canon? Specifically, with the lenses in question?

Also, with my current P&S, I run into problems with blurry pictures because of camera shake. Would an extra stop of light be better than the IS?

nebular wrote in post #3292411
Would it be worth getting a 17-50 if I'm already going to have a 50mm prime?

In general, how do Sigma/Tamron lenses stack up against Canon? Specifically, with the lenses in question?

sure, you get the convenience of zoom!

canon L > sigma/tamron. in terms of value, sigma/tamron rocks tammy's IQ comes up pretty close to canon, and some sharp copies have been known to match or even do better. sigma's better on the build side and has some pretty decent IQ.

Eventually I'm going to want a telephoto as well, and it sounds like the general consensus for a good quality, reasonably affordable one is the 70-200 f4L. Are the optics that much better on the L than, say, the 70-300 4-5.6 IS...as in, worth giving up IS and 100mm for, since they're around the same price?

I like how the Tamron 28-75 fits up right with the 70-200, so I don't have a big gap there that I'm missing. I feel like I'd miss 50-70 if I went with the 17-50 Sigma instead. Though on the same thought, I'll probably miss 17-28 too... argh.

First of all regarding the 17-85 IS vs 28-135IS. Both are consumer grade general purpose walking around lens. The 28-135is for full frames and the 17-85 is pretty much the same range for a cropped sensor like the Rebel. So between the two, I'd go for the 17-85 as it's range is more versatile.

If you are talking about shooting in dark settings hand held, then I'd definitely would recommend a faster lens like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I don't know if getting the 50mm f1.8 would be worth it with this lens though. I'd hold off and see, you can always get the 50mm prime later. If you intend to use tripods and such, having a faster lens is not a big deal.

Good luck

nebular wrote in post #3293393
Eventually I'm going to want a telephoto as well, and it sounds like the general consensus for a good quality, reasonably affordable one is the 70-200 f4L. Are the optics that much better on the L than, say, the 70-300 4-5.6 IS...as in, worth giving up IS and 100mm for, since they're around the same price?

I like how the Tamron 28-75 fits up right with the 70-200, so I don't have a big gap there that I'm missing. I feel like I'd miss 50-70 if I went with the 17-50 Sigma instead. Though on the same thought, I'll probably miss 17-28 too... argh.

i think you should just get yourself the kit lens and shoot a few thousand pictures first. see what your needs are and figure it out from there. no point in spending $500 on a lens you're not sure you need. you can find the kit lens for $50~$65 USD on the market section here or other sides like fredmiranda.

i used to think a lot about focal length and what i thought i needed and not needed, and bought one under what i thought i needed. needless to say, after a few thousand shots, i got a feel for my shooting patterns, and realized i should've bought a different lens.

besides... you can sell the kit lens back at literally no loss, so u can think of it as a free rental. since you're not doing this professionally, you dont necessarily need the high image quality, and i find the kit lens takes good enough pictures. certainly better than a P&S (if your skill is up to par).

Thanks for the input, everyone!