Soon to owner of a 30D...What lenses?

Sounds like it's definitely worth waiting for. I'm looking to get the body plus 2 (maybe 3) lenses. But it's gonna be a long wait cuz I got the itch real bad :^) Thanks again,
--
Wilbur

No prob.. i still had the the 2005 rebate in my desk drawer.. Sorry that you have to wait... just dont come looking for me if the rebate program is delayed or the items you want aren't on there.. but I would be kicking myself to find out a week after i bought all that stuff that i left $500 in their pockets... not to mention losing out on that bottle of scotch!!!

Last year i got a Pixma IP6600 printer, 70-200/4 and 85/1.8 for a sizable $195 rebate. Wish i'd have had the $300 rebate when I bought the 20D.

I started researching the rebates, and thought you would find the below link interesting.

Good luck!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Rebates.aspx

You said the magic words – under $750 and 30D.

As I started in DSLR, I read the forums and the reviews quite a bit. I decided that I would have enough problems with my capabilities without worrying about the weaknesses of my lens, so I decided to skip the kit lens. Now it’s back to the reviews.

I wanted a fairly versatile lens – preferably about 10-800/f1.4, sharp at all apertures and all ranges. Oh, and it should be ‘L’ quality for under $500. I couldn’t find it.

Initially I was very impressed with the range of the Sigma or Tamron 18-200 lenses, but if they won’t focus properly and are soft at many areas, what good are they? Back to the reviews . .

Since I wanted a range of views from wide-angle to telephoto, I quickly narrowed my search down to the Canon 17-85/4-5.6 ($510), the Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($450), and the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 ($389). All of these lenses do well on the reviews on image quality, focusing accuracy, and solid lens construction.

The IS on the Canon was very attractive, and the constant f2.8 of the Tamron looked very useful, particularly for indoor events. But I finally decided on the Sigma 17-70. For me this lens has a very nice everyday range, from medium wide-angle to mild telephoto (effective 27 mm-112 mm on a 1.6 crop camera). I like the wide aperture at the wide angle, where I’m most likely to need it – close quarters indoors. I also liked the idea of the semi-macro capability – 1:2.3, which I’ve found quite satisfactory for a LOT of wildflowers. Although I have additional lenses now, the 17-70 stays on my camera 75% of the time.

And let’s not forget portraits – get the Canon 50/1.8. It costs about $80, and is an under priced jewel. Great for low-light, such as museums which don’t allow flash, and quite nice for portraiture. It’s effectively 80 mm for the crop cameras, and shooting at wide aperture does an excellent job of fuzzing out the background, emphasizing the subject quite well.

Note – please take a few minutes to think about your long-term plans and how the lens you purchase now will fit into that plan. I determined that I wanted to be able to cover from extreme wide-angel to medium telephoto. With additional lens purchases, my focal length coverage is now from 10 mm (effective 16 mm) to 300 mm (effective 480 mm) with no gaps (10-20, 17-70, 70-300). I honestly don’t think I’d miss a small gap here and there, as I would have had if I had chosen the Tamron 17-50, but there is a pleasing symmetry knowing that if you’re stuck in a particular position, such as a zoo railing, you can still frame as you want.

--
BJCP National

Thanks for shedding some light on the differences. I will probably go for the 70-200 f/4L lens. You mentioned the Tamron lens being good for wide angle, so I looked it up, but could only find the SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD [IF]. Is this the lens you are referring to?

Current price is $15. But it does give me ideas...

sjprg said:

PTLens software corrects a lot of
problems for $39.00

Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked what my main insterests are in photography...mainly nature shots, both long range and also some macro, so the need to two lenses. I do some portaits, by I already have a 50mm F1.8 for that. I do appreaciate all the comments.
--
http://www.shado1.shutterchance.com/

I’d recommend 17-55/2.8 IS for wide and 70-200/2.8 IS for tele.
I use both and have no claims.
Upcoming 70-200/4 IS also seems to be interesting – smaller and not so costly.

--
http://www.pbase.com/mariush

Personally, I have the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM lens. It is great and I highly recommend it. Secondly, I did have the 17-40mm f/4L USM, but I traded it in for the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS USM. This one is great for what I shoot (family, sons' events, births of children, etc.). I would like to buy the 17-40mm again if I start to take my camera on trips to the Grand Canyon, Hawaii, etc. This is not a concern for me, since about to have twins sons on Tuesday (scheduled Caesarian!). I think that is a very useful lens for things like that. If that is your boat, then get the 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. If you need a some zoom for family things, etc., then get the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS USM. I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM and love it. I plan on using this for the birth of my sons next week! For all of the folks who love the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM lens, I agree it is better in lowlight and at wide open (24mm). I won't argue that, but I like the 24-105mm lens nonetheless for what I do. Personally, I don't have a problem.

As others have said, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is outrageously wonderful! It is an EF-S lens and that is the only reason it is not an "L" lens. If they were to make this with an EF construction and a bit of weather sealing, then it would be absolutely one of the best "L" lens in that range (if not the best!). I have heard about dust issues, so if you do the outdoors and dusty sort of thing, then go with the 17-40mm in my humble opinion. I will probably get it again!

In any case, I think you have some great options. Take lots of pictures and have fun!
--
Robert (Phoenix, AZ) - Canon EOS 30D

Since the beauty of this world is merely a reflection the Creator's brushstroke, then my hope is to capture but a glimpse of that exquisiteness. This is my passion and endeavor, though my skills in photography are limited.