Which lenses should I purchase? Zooms? Primes? A combination?

Has this been asked before? Yes. Yes, it has. Ok, now that that

As you mention groups and landscapes you don

Unless the IS is the must, I

For your intended purposes a zoom will work great, as David said you don

Generally, I like to encourage people to get primes (I shoot all primes myself). But in your case it seems like a zoom would be more useful. Group shots and landscapes are often f/5.6 or narrower, so you don

For landscapes I'd definitely consider the 15-85mm. The extra angle of view makes it more appealing for landscapes IMO, I have one and my favourite shots with it have all been taken at the wide end.

+1 on the 17-55mm - IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for a crop body. At the wide end, the 17-55mm has the least barrel distortion of the three (17-55mm, 15-85mm, 18-135mm). Sharpness is similar between 17-55mm and 15-85mm (both better than the 18-135mm), and the 17-55mm has a bit less chromatic aberration.


One combination that I found very useful when starting out was the 17-55mm plus the 85mm f/1.8 for portraits (the 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of IQ for price). That combo would keep you under $2K, and provide a versatile, functional kit for the types of shooting you like to do.


The Tamron 17-50mm non-VC is a decent lens, altough not quite as good at f/2.8 as the Canon 17-55mm (stopped down to f/4 and beyond, the Tamron is just about as sharp, although the CA at 17mm is pretty bad). For half the price, though, it comes quite close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJphoto

Unless the IS is the must, I'd go with Tamron 17-55mm 2.8 non IS version and Canon 35mmL 1.4( or 24mm L prime) combo, but like David has mentioned, a 17-55mm zoom should be good enough.

---

If budget is indeed the deciding factor (and you're going with the Tamron), get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 instead of the 35L. I came *this* close to getting the 24L II, but ended up buying the Sigma instead; I have never regretted that decision. The Sigma lacks nothing that is worth spending the extra $800-$1000 on the Canon, aside the from weather sealing which was unimportant to me.

I agree with you, Sean. I didn't think about that lens. I am a prime guy, but sometimes I do miss the zoom especially when photograph something not that important(like kids everyday activities which not need thin DOF). a Tamron 17-50mm2.8 plus the sigma 30mm 1.4 prime does sound a very good combo( I already have the 85mm 1.8) since both lenses have very good reviews and saving money always important part for me when decide purchasing a lens.

I am also a prime guy, my general perpose kit consists of the; MD 24mm f/2.8, FD 35mm f/2.0, MD 50mm f/1.7 and MD 70-210mm f/4. If I were to add anything to this kit would be a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 by Minolta or the Samyang 85mm f/1.4. I also have the MD 100mm f/4 macro and extention tubes, which is a lot of fun!


Joihn.

Thanks, everyone. I really appreciate the suggestions/advice.

I usually recommend zooms to those with 1-2 cameras, and primes to those with 3+ cameras. Obviously, what you

I own 3 primes and 3 zooms. For my current shooting style (90% portraiture driven), here are my lenses in order from most to least used:


1) Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS


2) Sigma 30mm f/1.4


3) Canon 50mm f/1.4


4) 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Mk I


5) Canon 85mm f/1.8


6) Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

I

I own the 17-55mm. LOVE the lens. Have used it extensively for landscape pictures (including landscapes with the milky way), Group pictures, full body or above the knee portraits with some bokeh (@55mm).. enough background blur to make a difference anyway. My MAIN portrait lens was a surprise to me, because I didn