Lenses for my new 20D

Hi Folks!

I stumbled across this great forum a couple of days ago and wanted to get some pearls of wisdom...

I just got my 20D kit (w/ the 18-55 lens) and want to start seriously buying into the Canon line. I am in the position to spend $1,000-$1,500 for the first purchase (1+ lenses). I will then be able to buy more as I sell off my old system. (Manual Contax 35mm with Zeiss lenses)

My interest from photography stems from a fantastic trip to the Southwest where I took a number of landscape shots that looked good to me. Since then, my interest has been nature, primarily landscapes. I recently rented a 10D for wildlife photography in Glacier Bay and decided to convert to Canon. Eventually, I want to have a line of lenses to cover these subjects.

However, my immediate need revolves around taking pictures of my twins that will be born in the next month.

Considerations:

1. I read that the focus array works best with lenses with a maximum aperture of at least F2.8.
2. I am a stickler for quality.

Any advice you would have on a first (and following) purchase(s) would be greatly appreciated.

17-40(landscape), 70-200(wildlife) and a 50 1.8/1.4(shits n' giggles)

Should be around $1300-$1500 if you are a smart buyer and are willing to shop around.

Quality in all 3 lenses are very hard to beat. I dont think anyone one can argue against Canon's L lenses or their 50 mm primes.

Cheers

Thanks for the insights, the posts I have read highly recommend each of these lenses!

When I sell my other system, I should come up with another $1,500-$2,000 in the next month or so. Given this, I was not going to try to do everything at once. This round of buying is purely dedicated to taking pictures of the upcoming newborns.

what about a 24-70L?? not as wide and a bit longer.

You might want to try the new 10-22mm EF-S that just came out. I've seen it one place for $700. But it is an f3.5-5.6 I think.

Hellashot

i'll second Persian-Rice

3rd...

...And I would take recomendations for lenses that no one has used yet with a grain of salt to be on the safe side.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
3rd...

...And I would take recomendations for lenses that no one has used yet with a grain of salt to be on the safe side.

Ditto, I think the 10 mm is great for wide angle, but it comes up leaving a huge gap if you go 70-200.

the 24/28-70 is great, but costly.

Thanks for all of the feedback!

It seems like the 50mm and the 24-70mm are great choices. I just have to decide between prime and zoom. (and the money I am willing to spend)

Something to sleep on... I will let you know which way I go.

4th...

mmartinfan wrote:
what about a 24-70L?? not as wide and a bit longer.

Not as wide, and a lot more money

If you decide to go with the 24-70 range, you may want to try the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Xr Di - it offers very fine optical quality for about 2.5 times less than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. The AF speed and the build quality is not really up to Canon L series, but for about $370 it's very acceptable.

If you have the money You will not beat the quality and the sharpness of the 24-70 2.8 Canon It is the closest that you will come to a prime. I also really like for a wider angle the Sigma 14mm 2.8 and the sigma 20mm 1.8. all of there lenses are great and sharpGreat lenses produce grat photographs I know I read that some where and I am tending to beleive it more and more.

I'd get the 17-85 (the new 'kit' lens) (although I have the 17-40 and it's a fabulous lens, I just don't use it that often), give a definate 'dittos' on the 70-210, and gasp in amazement that anyone would spend real dollars on a 50.

The 70-200 is a good lens, but you'll find it is usually too short for wildlife, whether birds or mammals. You really need something going to around 400 for that (and the 100-400 will blow the budget right there!). Adding the 1.4X TC will help with that as a stopgap.