Pick one...

[bulletsalvador]

Camera: Canon Xti (no lens)

 

1)Canon 17-55 f2.8 ($900)

 

2)Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 ($490) and Canon 70-300 f4-506 ($550)

 

3)Tamron 17-50 ($440) and Canon 70-200 f4 ($550)

[bulletsalvador]

Also if I do decide to get (1) would it be unwise to purchase a 50mm 1.4 for ($240)? Is the image quality of the 17-55 also as good the prime? Thanks again for your time.

[gdanmitchell]

No one can give you an intelligent answer without knowing more about your photography:

what subjects you shoot, what conditions you shoot in, what you do with the photographs.

 

There are good arguments for all three of those choices - and others - but they are

contingent on knowing what you are trying to do.

 

Take care,

 

Dan

[mendonphoto]

3

[bulletsalvador]

Good point Dan. I posted an "ideal beginner setup" a couple days back (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LXq3) regarding which setup is ideal for my use. I said I will be using my camera for family parties (usually indoor), however i would like to be able to take some landscape and museums. Moreover my budget would be around $1000-1200 on the lenses.

 

A person commented about getting the Canon 17-55 instead of the two lenses. Though it is expensive I am willing to do that if it really is that superior and worth getting. That is where you guys come in. What would you do given the particular subjects and budget. Thanks again.

[beauh44]

Hi Bullet, (Great name!)

 

It's a tough call. The 17-55mm has Image Stabilization which is very nice but it's not very fast aperture-wise, so available light shooting indoors might get a bit noisy as you'd need to crank your camera's ISO up or use flash quite a bit.

 

Another combination to think about that's a wee bit over your budget but not a lot: 17-40 f/4L (Excellent lense for landscapes) an EF 50mm f/1.8 which would work pretty well in low light and is only $70 or so, brand new. And then the 70-200mm f/4.

 

I have a slight variation of this (17-40mm f4L, 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS) that covers pretty much everything I need in 3 lenses. Optically there's little if any difference in the $70 50mm f/1.8 and the $250 f/1.4 - the build is just cheaper - but the f/1.8 is still an excellent buy and a decent low-light lens. (I like avoiding on-camera flash if possible)

 

I think the 70-200mm f/4 is sharper on paper than my f/2.8, but I love having the faster aperture, but obviously the f/2.8 is much more $$ too. Good luck!

[emre]

The bad thing is the (1) has IS where it is not needed and (3) does not where it is (70-200mm). (2) just sucks.

 

I have a better alternative: Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-22 + Canon 70-200 f/4 + Canon 50 f/1.8

[jeg]

Where is the fast (and lightweight and small) prime lenses option?

 

At least I agree with Emre, (2) is the worst choice. I'd check out the lenses in your local photo store and see how they handle on your camera (e.g., weight-wise etc) and get the one(s) you feel most comfortable with. Image quality should be pretty equal in most real life situations, but at least try one or two prime lenses for comparison.

[gdanmitchell]

"I said I will be using my camera for family parties (usually indoor), however i would like

to be able to take some landscape and museums."

 

For these situations you are extremely unlikely to need a lens longer than 55mm on your

400D (equivalent to about 85mm short telephoto). You are also unlikely to use a tripod, so

the IS feature will likely be valuable. (IS is useful on shorter lenses with a crop sensor

camera than it might be on full frame.) Combined with the high ISO performance of the

400D and image stabilization, f/2.8 should generally be a large enough maximum

aperture for you. (If not, there are inexpensive primes that could fill in here, or you can

use flash.)

 

My hunch is that you are the type of photographer for whom the 17-55 f/2.8 IS EFS lens

would be a great performer. In addition to having the features I described above, it

reportedly has excellent optical quality and is well constructed.

 

If you use this lens for awhile and feel that you need to add something longer - and I'm

not convinced you will have that need, given the uses you describe - you could always add

a relatively inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 prime.

 

The 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS EFS lens is an interesting possibility, but since much of your

work is going to be inside I think you would feel constrained quite a bit by the relatively

small maximum apertures. On the other hand, by itself it provides a bit more reach at the

long end. (There are other issues with this lens that I won't go into right now.)

 

Judging by how different your three proposals are, I think you need to back up and not

begin by asking "how many lenses can I get for X amount of money" or "how wide of a

focal length range can I get for X amount of money." Instead ask, "what features fit best

with my intended use?"

 

With that in mind, it is hard to imagine how you could go wrong using the 17-55mm

f/2.8 IS EFS lens to shoot "parties," "landscape", and "museums."

 

You also asked if the image quality if the 17-55mm is as good as a prime. One answer is

"that depends on what prime?" Another answer is, it probably IS as good as some primes -

even when you pixel-peep. The most important answer includes a) you'll never see the

difference unless you closely inspect a very large print, b) the prime gives you a great deal

of additional flexibility.

 

Dan

[colinsouthern]

Have you ever thought of "going for it" and grabbing something like the new EF 16-35 F2.8L USM lens? - it's going to give you the best quality for all of your wide-angle shots, and yet on a 1.6x crop factor camera it wouldn't be too bad for general walk-around (albeit with perhaps a little cropping).

 

Yes, it is a sizeable investment - but having made it it'll provide many many many years of great IQ, and hold it's value superbly.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[t1deman]

I'm not going to pick from your list, I'm going to offer some lenses you should consider.

 

The 50mm f1.8($80), I think everyone that owns an EOS camera should own this lens(or the f1.4/1.2). It will take good pictures with little light.

 

The 100mm f2.8 macro($470). One of the sharpest lenses Canon makes. Great for portraits and family shots. This was my primary lens for many years, all the other lenses sat in the bag.

 

The 70-200mm is a good all around zoom. Although the f4 version may not give you enough light inside. You may want to consider pairing it with a good flash such as the 430EX($240) or 580EX($450).

 

I would avoid any of the cheap zooms that have a f4-5.6. Beginners often fall into the big zoom trap. The optics aren't there with the cheap zooms.

 

Primes are going to give you a sharper picture, more light for less money and weight. Use your feet to frame with a prime. Generally you'll know what you'll be shooting and can pick the right lens for the occasion.

 

Look at flashes, don't count on the built in flash. The built in flash gives harsh light close close to the lens, and often not enough. If you are going to be shooting indoors even 40% of the time, put some money into a flash and pop a 20 dollar diffuser on it.

 

If I had to pick from your list, for what you are planning on, I would take option 1 with a 430EX flash. (OK, I did pick)

[JDMvW]

With all respect to Emre and others, No. 2 option is quite viable. Both lenses have good reach, have IS, and will perform wonderfully. They are not the 'sharpest' lenses ever made by Canon, but they are still very good. The 17-85 is the small sensor equivalent of the classic 28-135 film lenses, and you can do nearly all your shooting with this one lens. Don't forget the image stabilization will give you the equivalent of a couple of f/ stops on these. You don't have to spend megabucks to get good lenses. These are, after all, Canon lenses not some fly-by-night Outer Mongolian lenses.

For the low light stuff, for practically nothing you can add the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 AND the 35mm f/2.0. These are really cheap, but as primes will give a good run to zoom lenses even of the L class.

[ric c sydney]

Bullet,

 

this is easy! If you are shooting family a lot, with young kids that is, you will need 17-55 2.8. Shut the gate. 17-85's slowness indoors and low light will drive you nuts unless you light up the place like a Xmas tree or invest in a AA battery company and then proceed to tick everyone off with continual flash at these family parties/events. A blended approach of flashless candids and flash lit posed shots is best I would suggest and try and limit intrsuive flash at these informal events. Primes are nice, I use them a lot, but if indeed u are a beginner changing lenses whilst trying to capture the shot at the decisive moment will also drive you nuts. Primes become very useful later on, once you can anticipate the moment better. I would then suggest your next lens after this would be the long zoom for outdoors events you are looking at.

 

A note on the Tamron, sharpness-wise you won't notice much diference to the Canon. However, out of focus highlights on sunny days will drive you crazy with ugly agitated Bokeh comapratively speaking to the Canon. A good way for you to look at this problem is by shooting a subject that has backlit tree branches in the background...Ugly on the Tamron. I have owned it.

 

All the best...Ric.

[jacob_brown]

Your answer depends on what you shoot. If you don't know what you shoot, or you're a beginner, you might as well stick with the basic kit lens until you realize what you need.

 

If you do know what you shoot, you don't really need to ask the question asked above, since your choices are all over the map.

[james_sigle]

Bullet,

If you are new to digital (or a new photographer) don't be misled by snob appeal and spend money for something you don't need. I would suggest the 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS. This will give you a chance to learn what you really need and have some good pictures while you grow into the new camera. As you need more you can add other tools.

 

For porfessionals it is easy. You ask only what will make more money. An enthusiast asks what will make me a better photographer. A gaget collector asks what is the newest, coolest, or most prestigious.

 

What ever your interest, happy hunting.

 

Jim

[eos 10 fan]

For a 1.6x (30D, 400D) starter lens kit [given subjects of: family parties (usually indoor), landscape, vacation trips and museums with a budget of ~$1200] I'd say give a good look at a 17-55/IS & 85/1.8 combo.

 

--

[tom_cairns]

Why isn't the Canon 24-105L IS + Canon 50 f1.8 a possibility?

[david_wu6]

<Why isn't the Canon 24-105L IS + Canon 50 f1.8 a possibility?>

 

Finally, this combination showed up!

 

This set up seems the best fit for what you are going to do.

[tom_swanson]

Because the 24-105 is traditionally an odd focal length range on a crop camera.

 

The tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an awesome lens. By all accounts the canon is better. You can't go wrong with either lens.

 

I've both the 70-200 and the 70-300 IS. If I was only getting one I'd get the 70-300 because of the IS and between 70 and 200 they are very similar.

 

If I knew that I was going to be in low light working within the 17-55 range most of the time I'd get the 17-55 IS and a canon 55-200 USM II (the II is very important. the first one sucked bad.) to cover the gap.

[tom_cairns]

"Because the 24-105 is traditionally an odd focal length range on a crop camera."

 

That makes sense if you mean that it still leaves you missing a real wide-angle capability. I think my 24-105 is great, but I do have a 5D.

[ernest_ferraro]

How about the 28-135 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Relatively inexpensive lens (~$400) with decent optics, IS and good range. Downside is it's a little slow.

 

The great thing is that no matter what you buy - if you change your mind you can sell the lens for 90% of what you paid for it on eByay. I'm amazed at how much lenses sell for used... I'd personally go for the new lens but that's just me.