A beginner with high aspirations

[Jon Ruyle]

If you plan on being indoors more often then the 2.8 may work better for you than the 4.0.

Rather than indoors vs outdoors, I would say the question is moving vs non-moving. For moving objects, the f/2.8 gives double the shutter speed, and thus allows pictures in half the light. But for non-moving objects, the IS gives a two stop advantage (three stops for the IS, minus one stop because of the f/4) thus allowing hand-held pictures in 1/4 the light of the f/2.8.


For portraits in good light, I would prefer the faster lens for the option of a narrow DOF, especially on a crop body.


The 24-105 IS is truly amazing for hand-held night photography.


I guess that settles it


I agree with John- I would think again about how soon I plan to go full frame. If it is a far off idea, you might consider getting the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, then selling it when you get the full frame camera.

[Lars]

I agree that the best choice would be 17-55mm + 85mm. I have the Tamron 17-55 (far much better than the canon kit lens) and a crop sensor (400D) and use the 17-55 almost all the time. If I had the money, I would probably go for the canon version with IS, but my experience with shooting kids (with camera [:P]) is that fast lens is more important than IS. Remember that the IS does not stabilise the kid, only the camera. So if I had to choose between 2.8 w/o IS and 4 w IS, I would go for 2.8 without.


Also, I see a lot of people being extremely satisfied with the 7D, which has crop sensor. If you are not 100% sure that your next body will be a full size, I suggest 17-55. Anyway, if you choose Canon's top quality lenses, I am sure you will be satisfied whatever you end up with.