Tell me what lens to buy.

I currently have an Xti body with the kits lens and a cheap Quantaray 70-300.

I do mostly landscape type work, but go to lots of sporting events and concerts so keep that in mind as well.

I want something with major clarity and sharpness which I seem to be lacking a bit with my current lenses.

I'm thinking of a wide angle as well as one of the mid-range IS lenses.

Money isn't a huge issue, but would like to stay middle of the road-ish.....but I would spend more if its necessary for the clarity/sharpness factor.

Thanks in advance!

This one is going to be tough. Landscapes and sports are pretty far apart when selecting a lens (in my opinion). For landscapes, the Canon 10-22 is the King (for an Xti). But for sports and concerts, we need a little more info. What sports do you want to shoot and how close are you in the concerts?

Bryan

I would usually do basketball or football.

And the concerts are usually pretty close cause they are smaller shows for the most part.

Maybe just gimme a few different ideas instead of trying to pick one lens for two types of work...

It is very much appreciated.

If you landscape a lot, I suggest you go with an ultra wide angle -Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 10-22. The Sigma will run you about $400ish and the Canon will probably be in the low 600's.

It's hard to get a all in one lens that can meet your needs (landscape, sports, concerts is a pretty big range).

If money isn't a issue, and you intend to keep your XTi body (or any other crop body), I think you should go with the 10-22 for landscapes, 24-70L for concerts/portraits and the 70-200 f2.8L for sports.

Or if you want a mid range zoom with IS, maybe you can go w/ the 24-105 L IS (it sure has been great to me =] )

Landscape: Tokina 11-16
Sports/events: 24-70 2.8L (you should have the long end covered I suppose, though you'll probably want to get a 70-200 2.8L IS or f/4L IS later). If that is too expensive. Try a Sigma version or something. You might also think about the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS (if f/4 is fast enough for you).

General lens that will cover both (yet is still very good):
Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS.

i'd say 85 1.8 for sports...seems to be good for basketball shots
then one of the UWA for landscapes, and then try and replace your quantaray with a 70-200 f/4 maybe if you can swing it

If money isn't an issue, I'd go with 10-22 for landscape and 70-200 f/2.8 for indoor sports and concerts. Or 85 f/1.8 for the latter categories...

I'd say:

Canon 10-22 for landscapes
Canon 85 1.8 for indoor sports (excellent lens for the price) ($340)
And for football...the skies the limit there. In a perfect world, I think I would want a 400 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 IS, but since you probably don't want to spend $8,200, perhaps just the 70-200 would do ($1,500ish)

Bryan

RDHPhotography wrote in post #6815071
I currently have an Xti body with the kits lens and a cheap Quantaray 70-300.

I do mostly landscape type work, but go to lots of sporting events and concerts so keep that in mind as well.

I want something with major clarity and sharpness which I seem to be lacking a bit with my current lenses.

I'm thinking of a wide angle as well as one of the mid-range IS lenses.

Money isn't a huge issue, but would like to stay middle of the road-ish.....but I would spend more if its necessary for the clarity/sharpness factor.

Thanks in advance!

middle of the road...

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for general-purpose & landscape

Canon 70-200 f2.8 L (non-IS) or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for concert & sports

best combo if money is not an issue would be the...

Canon 17-55 IS + 70-200 f2.8 IS L

if you want to go ultra-wide for landscapes, your options are...

Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 & 12-24

Just a note.

The Tokina 11-16 is sharper than the Canon 10-22 generally. It is also f/2.8 so it is a bit better indoors etc.

It has slightly worse flare control than the Canon though and cannot focus as close as the Canon can.

FYI.

The 85mm is OK for sports, but IMHO something like the 135mm f/2L is a tad better focal length. But it's really a matter of your style and how close you can get (indoors, right near the action it could be a little long). The 85mm f/1.8 is faster and cheaper though.

I'm against a UWA as the primary option for landscaping. UWA lenses are very particular and limit a lot the effective compositions you can create from the landscape. Most succesful UWA pictures are near-far compositions with an object in the foreground and the landscape as the background.

A Tamron 17-50 2.8 is my first suggestion for landscapes, the 17-50 range in the XTI gives you enough room to be creative and capture different kinds of landscapes, the Tammy is a fast lens at 2.8 in all the range so it might be used with some success for wide angle shots of sports.

A great partner to the 17-50 is the Canon 70-200 f2.8, that is a superb lens for sports and is also very interesting for landscape photography, many intimate landscape compositions and compressed perspective shots are taken with a telephoto lens.

There is a lot more to landscaping than what the 10-22 range can offer.

Luigi

Thanks for all the info and opinions folks.

Keep them coming...

Its a huge help after reading so many reviews online and literally being worse off than when I started reading them.

So many options.

So what exactly is your, "middle of the roadish" budget?" Middle of the road to you may be totally different than someone elses.

I like the Tamron 17-50, Canon 70-200 2.8, 85 1.8 combo. Add a 1.4TC for football and you are set.

kevinmcdade wrote in post #6815261
So what exactly is your, "middle of the roadish" budget?" Middle of the road to you may be totally different than someone elses.

I like the Tamron 17-50, Canon 70-200 2.8, 85 1.8 combo. Add a 1.4TC for football and you are set.

I meant middle of the road for the lenses themselves.

So take your cheapest possible and your most expensive possible and find one in the middle I guess.

10-22, 17-55 IS, 35 f2, 50 1.8 mkI, 60mm macro, 85 1.8, 70-200 F2.8 IS and a 1.4 extender.

well, that was my crop kit on the xti I had