Just got my EOS 500D need Lens recommendation.

[lacrosix]

Hi all new here and need help,


Seekin a standard Zoom lens, as I will be usin my camera for people/background shots, some landscape, and action shots.


I am stuck between these 3 (considering price, size, aperture, and focal length)

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (double thinkin on these coz of price but loving the aperture)
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (good all rounder?? if not wrong?)
EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (good price and good focal length for my zoom ins?)



Also would I be waste my money if I got the 17-55mm first then next month get the 18-200mm purely for the focal length??? Again this is considering average price and great sharp/crisp images.


Thanks in advance guys,


Lac

[elmo_2006]

Between the three....I'd opt for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens, it has great reviews and is considered of "L" glass worthiness. I personally do not have this lens but haveread great reviewsand seen this lens used at a few weddings and baptisms.


The 17-55 is considered more of a portrait / landscape lens so I'm not sure how this lens will do for action shots as the focal length is not there, unless you plan on getting in real close to the action...


As for the 18-200 focal length, it all depends on your requirements. I would recommend looking into some "L" glass as your possible next purchase, but this is only my opinion and is to be taken with a grain of salt! [:P]


Hope this helps...

[Sean Setters]

I'm with Elmo on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS recommendation. I own that lens and absolutely love it. The 17-55mm is my workhorse lens--I do more shots with it than any other lens in my bag. Take a look at my photostream ("http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=17-55&w=22336705%40N08&s=rec) (the link takes you to images made with the 17-55).


As for a longer focal length, if price is indeed a restraint, take a look at the 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS). For the money, I don't think there's a better performer out there. It won't be very good in dimly lit gymnasiums, but it'll shine wherever there's a decent amount of ambient light.

[lacrosix]

Cool alrite made my choice goin to get the 15-55mm IS USM booyahh!!!


down the track safe more $$$ get a great focal lens 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM ($1300)


hehe getin excited now [:P]

[peety3]

Also would I be waste my money if I got the 17-55mm first then next month get the 18-200mm purely for the focal length??? Again this is considering average price and great sharp/crisp images.





My advice to anyone and everyone regarding the 18-200/18-250/28-300 superzooms is simple: this should only be on your wishlist if you have a definitive need to carry and use only one lens, such as a weight/space-limited vacation/hike. Optical quality on a 10x zoom is (almost) never what a 5x zoom, 4x zoom, 3x zoom, or prime lens can be, but size/weight can trump that in certain scenarios.

[Fast Glass]

Whatever you get, DO NOT GET THE 18-200MM! It's image quality lacks big time, and it's slow apeture for focal length ratiooffer only modest bokeh at shoter focal lengths. You will MUCH happier with the other lenses that you mentioned.


John.

[neuroanatomist]

TheEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a great lens - I love it and highly recommend it. TheEF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM has a very useful focal range, but will not perform well indoors with ambient light. If you decide to go with that lens, I'd suggest getting a Speedlite 430EX II (provides focus assist without blasting the flash). The combo of the15-85mm and the Speedlite will run slightly less than the 17-55mm f/2.8, and might work for you as long as you're willing to use the flash indoors (although as pointed out above, the background blurring is not as nice with the 15-85mm.

[lacrosix]

Rite no more 18-200mm. Note get other lens





And thanks for the tip for speedlite 430EX II for 15-88mm.