Which lens trio would you choose for a Canon 50D user?

[djzuk]

I agree with the Tamron option. Though looking at the ISO charts, the VC version of the lens doesn't seem anywheres near the quality of the non-VC. My dad has the non-VC 17-50 f/2.8, and it's super sharp. Unbeatable for the price. At around $450 it compares extremely well with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is over twice the price. Highly recommended for a fast midrange zoom.


Derrick

[Benjamin]

My two cents: buy one lens at a time. Learn it, know it, become comfortable with it. Buy another lens, learn it, know it, become one with it. Use the knowledge from the first to help you pick the second. Use the knowledge from the first two to help you pick the third.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

+1 on this approach. It's a good way to learn and figure out what lenses one really needs.


If I only use a 50D and don't have FF bodies, these are the 3 lenses I'm gonna have:

• Tamron 17-50/2.8
• Canon 85/1.8
• Canon 70-200/4L IS

It should come cheaper as well, but you lose a bit on the wide angle.

[neuroanatomist]

My two cents: buy one lens at a time. Learn it, know it, become comfortable with it. Buy another lens, learn it, know it, become one with it. Use the knowledge from the first to help you pick the second. Use the knowledge from the first two to help you pick the third.

+1 on this approach. It's a good way to learn and figure out what lenses one really needs.

I agree...but then, I don't. I know I'm going to get a macro lens, I know I'm going to get a UWA lens, and I know I'm going to get a 70-200 zoom, in addition to the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 that I currently have. Since a 10-200mm f/2.8 zoom with 1:1 macro capabilities is not going to happen, the questions become which order I get them in and which lens in each class I will choose. What is important is knowing what kind of shooting one does/plans (low light, action, macro, landscapes, wildlife, architectural, all of the above) and picking lenses that meet those needs. Oh - and coming up with the coin to buy them...

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

How about....


EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ($699)


EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($990)


EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM ($1135)


Total = $2824, if this price is too high I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4L IS for now.

[Rob Gardner]

My two cents: buy one lens at a time. Learn it, know it, become comfortable with it. Buy another lens, learn it, know it, become one with it. Use the knowledge from the first to help you pick the second. Use the knowledge from the first two to help you pick the third.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Very sage advice! Heed it well! That being said, try the utilitarian lenses first, like the 24-105 f/4 L. With the high ISO and the IS of the lens, and you'll be well-served with a very sharp lens wide open. This lens is extremely versatile and on one of my bodies over 50% of the time. That, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L, will be all you need for the vast majority of your shooting.