Please help to choose which lens to buy!

[olga_breton]

<p>Thank you so much to those of you who responded to my previous question. <br>

I am hoping to get a zoom lens that will be great for shooting primarily portraits but it would be nice if it was kind of universal and took good shots of landscapes and close-ups as well. If you think I should get separate lenses for all of the above, please let me know which lenses you would get. I have 3 runner ups now, please advice on which one is the best in your opinion: 1)<a id="ttl_250462123445" href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=250462123445" > Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens, </a><br>

<a id="ttl_360168651114" href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=360168651114" >2) Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG </a><br>

<a id="ttl_360168651114" href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=360168651114" >3)</a> <a id="ttl_120445399840" href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=120445399840" >Tamron AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II</a><br>

Thank you!</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>The tamron is good but it you listed the L lens, why not the canon ef-s 17-55.</p>

[simon_t1]

<p>Or the 24-70 f2.8 its stunning. Pro quality build and pro quality output incl f2.8 to blur nicely the backgound in portraits.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>What camera? What do you do with the photograph? Are all of these things - a huge range, by the way, for one lens - equally important? What lenses do you already own?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The L lens is simply in another class altogether than the other two listed. If you can afford it, it's a no-brainer.</p>

<p>I am presuming that this is the discontinued Canon EF 28-70mm L lens described in Wikipedia (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_28-70mm_lens">link</a> )</p>

<p>It does not have image stabilization, and it leaves you with no wide angle on a APS-C camera like the 450D.</p>

<p>I'd get the 450D, and the older L zoom if you get a good price (don't confuse it with the newer 2<strong>4</strong> -70mm lenses).</p>

<p>Otherwise, you'd be well served if you just got the camera with the kit 18-55mm IS kit lens and maybe the 55-250mm IS tele-kit lens.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>On a crop body, the 17-55 is hard to beat.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>If I get to pick one of the three for free, I pick the EF28-70/2.8 any days especially when picking a portriat lens. </p>

[bard_fosse]

<p>I second everyone on the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM it is an awesome lens on crop body, I got it and I love it. If you're in that budget zone get it, has IS, f/2.8, UD glass extremely sharp. You'll love it for sure...</p>

<p>The 24 - 70 has no IS and you loose the wide, unless you pack a 10-22 you'd be locked to around 40 mm and up, I tend to use my 17 - 55 a lot in the wider than that end. The older 28-70 has even less wide, so I would not go for any of those. Leaving you to the Canon 17-55 or the Tamron 17-50 what you get is up to you the Tamron is much cheaper, but no IS of course so it's up to your budget really. If you can afford the Canon get it, if you find it to dear get the Tamron...</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>If you really want a zoom "for shooting primarily portraits" you might want to consider Tamron's 28-75/2.8. You will loose the wide end of course but gain some reach compared to their 17-50. At $380 new it's a steal. Other than that, why not a cheap 50/1.8 -- with superior sharpness and contrast -- for portraits and a more "general" zoom, such as Canon's 17-85 or similar, for landscapes and close-ups?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The wide variety of "recommendations" is further indication that a) there is no one right answer, and b) the context of your use and expectations is critical, and c) we don't have that.</p>

<p>Yes, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a great lens - but is it the best choice for you? We can't say. Third party lenses like the Tamron can also provide great service for many users? Are you one of them? No way to tell. Yes, L lenses are generally very fine. Would you see any concrete benefit from the additional expense in your photography? Can't answer that.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Olga, I got your email with some additional explanation. If you would post that information into this thread, I'll be happy to respond here.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>