phil_tuften

<p>I use the 50mm 1.8, 35mm 2 (not the IS version), both produce good images. Tele have a 85 1.8 and the ef 70-200 f4 L is pretty good, cheapest L lens, you may want t with IS. When I bought my copy Is was not invented. The primes will let you go low light, and the bokeh (out of focus blur) on the 85 f1.8 is great, helps to isolate your subject. Oh, and get a good tripod for the low light stuff. The 85 is good outdoors, will the 35 is a great cheap all round prime. You could sub the 50 1.4 for the 50 1.8 if you wanted.<br /><br />Normal zooms: There is the efs 17-55, or alternatives sigma 17-50 OS or the Tamron 17-50 I have. If you want need macro the ef 100 2.8 is pretty good, I use this it is sharp. </p>

<p>Stefanie,<br> Many consider the efs 10-22 to be just as good as the L lenes (well not in terms of build). It's my only efs lens. I tried hanging out for an L but tried this lens and took it home. </p>

<p>Stefanie,<br> <br />What I tried was the efs 10-22. Reasons:<br> 1) its a good lens, its sharp enough for me<br> 2) It's reasonable priced<br> 3) I like the 35 mm (22 mm) on FF therefore i use this as my standard lens most times. Yes I do have an assortment of primes, 24, 35, 50, 85 and the 100 mm macro. But I just like the 22 mm look on crop. If I were you I would go in and try one, see if you can live with that. Besides the lens goes down to 10mm (16mm on a full frame or film camera). This would meet your other requirement of wide. <br /><br /><br> The 16-35 F4, would be the same reach as your Tamron, just the canon version which may be better. I have not used the Tammy. I would try the 10-22 out or the sigma equivalent, which I have heard is good. <br> Hope this helps</p> <p> </p>