Is this reasonable or am I crazy?

[nathangardner]

<p>Maybe you don't like zooms b/c the 18-55mm isn't all that great. I'd get a 24-70mm f/2.8L. The f/2.8 should allow you to shoot in fairly well lit indoor scenes and the zoom gives you versatility. Other than that, the 85mm f/1.8 would be my choice.</p>

[unangelino]

<p>Hi Kate</p>

<p>I'm gonna go the other way on this. I'd say buy a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Why? First because it will remove the taint of your old non-IS kit lens. Second is because it will do more toward meeting all of your needs than a bucket full of primes.</p>

<p>The very thought that you were considering the Canon 17-55 points out the wisdom of this move: The Tammy is lighter, so it's more Rebel-Friendly and it costs way less. My guess is that you'll almost never feel the need to take it off your camera.</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[hal_a]

<p>Hi Kate,<br>

<br />Your lens choices are very sensible, and perfect for what you aim to do. Since you are planning to shoot indoors without using flash, I would (echoing an earlier comment) recommend the Sigma over the Canon because of its newer design.</p>

<p>Do you notice the poor AF at all apertures or just wide open? It may be an issue with your camera or it may simply be due to shallow depth of field at maximum aperture. This is something that will plague you with any fast lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>I had the 28 1.8 for my 40D and it was ok not great. It really wanted to be stopped down to 2.8 or smaller to get acceptable results. Good news is that it's a great "normal" focal length on your APS-C camera. I would second the post that mentioned the 430EX speedlite. It will take your indoor photography to the next level if you use it right. I use a Fong lightsphere on my 430EX and 5D and get awesome lighting for shots of my baby indoors and outdoors. If you don't mind the added weight of the flash then I'd strongly recommend it. </p>

[kate_oneill]

<p>I loved all of the responses! Thanks so much!</p>

<p>I made the purchase. It's the 28 1.8, the 85 1.8 and I bought the 18-55 IS to update my kit lens. I think I'm only going to use the zoom for when I need that really wide angle. It's such a great deal from what I've read. I really wanted the Tamron 17-50 2.8 but that was pushing the budget and by buying the 18-55 I feel like I won't feel guilty upgrading in the future since I didn't pay a ton on this zoom.</p>

<p>We'll see - the only thing I'm not 100% sure about is the Canon 28 1.8 over the Sigma 30 1.4. I made the decision though and I'll try out the Canon when I get it to see if I love it! I'm excited. :)</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

[steve_walker6]

<p>I have the canon 85 1.8 and it is a wonderful lens. I use it when I photograph people and can not say enough good things about it.</p>

<p>I also have a manual focus 28 2.0 and enjoy it for wider angles. I find it relatively easy to focus the 28 2.0 by hand, especially if I stop the lens down. A used manual focus lens is very inexpensive and a way to try the focal length. I think I paid about $30 for it.</p>

<p>Here is an example of the manual focus 28 2.0.</p>

<p><img src="http://stover98074.smugmug.com/Other/Sharing/IMG5810/865358936_3pm8C-M.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[tdigi]

<p>Kate I think you made a great choice. Don't listen to all the bad reviews of the 28. Many people rip on this lens based on what they read on the web and not from actual experience. I tested mine against my 17-40 and 24-105 and I could not see a difference in real world examples. If you look at those test charts hard enough you wont by anything. Its a really fun compact lens that focuses fast, I just avoid using it wide open, I notice if I stop down to just 2.0 or 2.2 its much sharper. Its even more fun on full frame ( the sigma will not work on full frame ).</p>

<p>The 85 is excellent and I hear the new 18-55 is much better then the old version and will come in handy when you need a decent zoom that will give you some wide angle coverage. </p>

<p> Enjoy your new lenses and post some shots when you can. </p>

<p> </p>

[anthony_bridges]

<p>Hi Kate,</p>

<p>I would have to agree that you made some good choices. As previously state, real world applications differ from theoritical models. Just shoot and enjoy. :)</p>

<p>I own the 28 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.8, the 85 f/1.8 and the 100 f/2.8 macro. The focus is really great in low light on the 85. The 28 focuses similarly for me. I thought the 28 was a bad purchase at first but I have grown to enjoy it. It is sharp at multiple apertures and easy to focus on my XTI. </p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I have and love the Sigma 30 1.4, it does a decent job in low light. I used it during a concert cruise and it produced some nice pictures.</p>

<p>The thing I've found about indoor light is that even though a lens is fast, you may have to crank up the ISO and/or go with a slow shutter speed to avoid the flash, which can lead to disappointing photos of children (and can risk camera shake, if you are using a telephoto). Unless it's not permitted or impossible, I'll use flash indoors now, as needed, with a nice diffuser to soften. Fast shutter, ISO 100, and a range of available apertures make for better photos than being stuck with a lens wide open and super shallow depth of field just to avoid underexposed images.</p>