Nov 11, 2010
I'm a DSLR newbie who has been shooting good quality point and shoots for years. I recently bought a body with a crop sensor. I like taking pictures of my family, which includes a newborn with lots of indoor, crappy lighting shots. I also like landscapes, though at this point, almost all of my shooting is done hand held. I could see that changing in the future. I'm not interested in wildlife.
I have borrowed three canon lenses to date: a prime 50/1.8, the non L 70-300 IS USM, and 24-105L f/4. I have to say that I love shooting with the prime. Not knowing much about any of this stuff, I was also surprised that the 70-300 gave me some great portraits of my wife outside with surprisingly nice bokeh. I just got the L lens, and haven't played with it as much yet.
I'm trying to figure out what makes most sense for me in terms of a lens lineup. I'm in no hurry to buy, but this is what I'm thinking, and I'd love to hear opinions.
I'm pretty much sure that I will get a 50/1.4 prime. Then it gets confusing. I like the idea of having a long zoom, but frankly the size and weight of a lot of the Canon telephotos are scary to me. The 70-300s seem manageable, and my inclination is to get the $500 IS USM one rather than the new L for an extra grand (my budget is about 2k).
If I do this, I wonder about getting possibly the 17-40 f/4 L versus the 24-105 f/4L, or perhaps a different standard zoom altogether. Should I be worried that the 17-40 doesn't have IS? Will the 24-105 not be wide enough with my crop sensor? I assume the IS lets you shoot with a smaller aperture , so the 24-105 would be more versatile than the 17-40 when they are in the same range?
Thanks for any thoughts.