First Lens

Definitely get the nifty fifty! Best bang for the bucks and at least you'll have a fast lens.
I don't know the price but as many mentioned above the Sigma 24.70 2.8 has good reviews, a very good focal range and a constant 2.8 aperture.
Check the archives of this lens in the sticky of this section.

Good luck!

Why would the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS be better in low light than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS?

jonnythan wrote in post #4997786
Why would the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS be better in low light than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS?

If you are talking about my post, I didn't mean to imply that the 17-85 was any better than the 18-55 in low light. Rather, what I meant was that I would get the 17-85 in order to get a larger zoom range with better image quality and pick up the 50 1.8 for low-light situations. My apologies, I realize that my post wasn't totally clear on that.

You should get a 50mm 1.8, It's a great lens for a fantastic price. It'll give you experience with prime lenses as well.

I got my 40D body about 2 months ago, and i picked up a 50mm the first couple weeks.
I just sent out a payment for a 28-135 USM IS (40D kit lens)

But i am saving up for a 70-200 2.8 IS, i have about half of the money already lol

Definitely don't get the 17-40mm f4 L. You'll be an Lcaholic in no time. Not good for your bank balance. Happened to me when I went digital with the 20D and a 17-40mm f4 L.

mdr wrote in post #5000545
Definitely don't get the 17-40mm f4 L. You'll be an Lcaholic in no time. Not good for your bank balance. Happened to me when I went digital with the 20D and a 17-40mm f4 L.

lol. i was thinking about getting that or the 70-200 f4 L

For landscape I'd get a wide angle lens, +1 for 17-40L, the tamron 17-50 isn't bad either.

70-200L is a great lens for walk around but it definitely won't do for architectural buildings or landscape.

I use the 17-40L as my walk around.

Some others to consider:

Sigma 18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC OS (optical stabilization) $500 new, $450 used on B&H
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 AT-X 165 Pro $600 give or take $20

From my experience I find the Tokina's to have best build quality but, that Sigma lens is mighty impressive for an all purpose walk-around. If you're planning on spending $1000's in the future on glass, I'd say get an L, 17-40 or 24-70.

why not try Sigma 18-200 OS? it's a "good" lense, it's in your budget, and cover pretty much from wide to telephoto, and it has Optical Stabilizer (sort of like Canon's Image Stabilizer).

This is definitely a one size fits all lense. Then after a while, you'll notice which focal range that you use the most, and then after saving enough money, you can go out and get the "great" lense that's made for that particular range.

just my 2 cents

click,

I was asking a similar question several months ago when I recently purchased an Xti (body only). The same day I purchased a 50mm 1.8.

Spend your money wisely. Even with crop body camera's I'd assume a high percentage of your pictures would be taken in the 24mm+ range as a walk around lens.

I'd suggest looking at a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 lens. This lens would give you more reach for a walk around lens and capable of large group shots. Excellent reviews on this particular lens. The money you save can go towards your "speedlite flash" fund. The built in pop up flash doesn't cut it for light. The quality of your pictures will improve dramatically when you use and external flash.

I purchased the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC macro and I'm very pleased with the sharpness. After buying 580EX II the pictures turned out more consistant and sharper due to quality of light. With this 18-50mm I do find I wish I had more reach. Typically you will not shoot majority of your pictures at f2.8 but at least you know you have the option of setting it to that aperature. I also bought a Canon 24-70L so the "brick" usually lives on my camera now. So now the Sigma 18-50 sits in my camera bag BUT when I want to take larger group shots indoors this lens works great. If your a pixel peeper you will notice more detail in the "L" lenses but 4x6 and 5x7 prings I cannot tell a difference in sharpness between my Sigma and Canon L .

I went this route so that I can have fast glass in the 18-50mm (sigma) without spending too much initially. I knew I was going to buy a 24-70L later on (which I did). Next on the list is a 70-200 2.8 IS.

Strategically purchase your lens. If you think you'll be shooting in low light F2.8 Fast glass in the zoom lenses will work well compared to an f4 lens. Even though I have a 50mm 1.8 lens I am just a happy with quality of my images with the 50mm range on my 24-70L (please note I'm on a steep learning curve too but at 100% crop I do not see a significant difference with the 2 lenses). For now if your on a budget dont bother with a prime 50mm 1.8. Use that money towards a flash.

Sigma 17-70 is one to consider as well.

[QUOTE=amyandmark3;499​6495]Low price: Canon 18-55IS. If you go this route, make sure to get the Image Stabilized version, it's under $200 and gets very favorable reviews and it a big improvement over the non Image Stabilized version. With that price, you will have cash left over so you could also pick up a Canon 430ex flash unit for around $215 and the 50mm 1.8 for around $75, all 3 of which will just about take up your budget and give you a very nice starter setup.

DITTO!

For a starter setup...this is a great suggestion for your budget.

vpnd wrote in post #4995601
okay... Look at Canons website at the 55-250mm 3.5-50 IS EF-s mount. its new. It has a kick butt image stabalizer, and the m chart is awesome. (m charts show the sharpness and contrast capabilities of a lens) it is an ef-s mount and should be affordable. The only downside is it's plastic. So if you want to go out and shoot beavers in a slough in a snowstorm like some nat geo photographer then it won't work. Also it won't be a real wide angle lens, and a lot of people around this site will say you need it but you don't..... or just get the nifty and be happy. good luck....

does anyone else think that the 55-250 lens is a good idea?

AlanU wrote in post #5004530
click,

I'd suggest looking at a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 lens. This lens would give you more reach for a walk around lens and capable of large group shots. Excellent reviews on this particular lens. The money you save can go towards your "speedlite flash" fund. The built in pop up flash doesn't cut it for light. The quality of your pictures will improve dramatically when you use and external flash.

wow i've just looked at the image archive for that lens and the pictures look amazing.