1. Hold back a bit until you're sure you know what you need (in
terms of focal length). Don't assume you need to cover 20-300mm,
at least not at first. Your style will dictate what you need.
Some of the best advice. Keep in mind that you are investing in a system rather than a camera. Many of my Canon lenses are over 10 years old and have seen a variety of Canon bodies. I find it humorous that people have no trouble dropping $2-4k on a body and then quibble over a few measly bucks for a lens.
Besides, the lenses will hold on to value much better than the body will. Case in point: D60 bought 6 months ago is worth about 1/2 its value. A new 70-200L f2.8 would have decreased less than 10% and will depreciate much more slowly.
2. Get the best you can afford, even if that means 2 lenses
instead of 3, or 1 instead of 2. Or 1 instead of 3. LOL. You'll
have the lenses longer than your 10D.
Yup. See 1
3. Consider primes instead of zooms. The 50/1.8 ($70) is often
mentioned. The 28/2.8 (well under $200) is rated well, as are the
85/1.8 ($330) and the 100/2 ($370). Keeping in mind the 1.6 crop
factor, those would give you, in 35mm terms: 45mm, 80mm, and 136 or
160mm. All at top quality for between $600 and $700.
Absolutely. I started in photography before high quality zooms appeared and learned with primes. Admittedly, who doesn't like the convenience of a zoom lens, particularly outside of the studio? Still, one of the beautiful aspects of DSLR is its ease with which you can crop and manipulate, images. Consequently, it is much easier to use a prime and crop out distracting elements than it was in film.
If I had to recommend two primes for a beginner (I know this is a bit of heresy) with a D60 or 10D (mind the crop factor) it would be a relatively wider angle prime (20mm is a bit pricey, or the 24mm) and then the 85 or 100mm. I like the later lens for a variety of reasons including its laser sharpness and macro capabilities. Many people seem to like the 50mm 1.8 (~$70-80) or its much more expensive and better constructed f 1.4 brother; but its crop equivalent is 80mm which is way to long for most applications (landscapes, groups, etc.) Much of the hoopla associated with a 50mm is a legacy thing related to film photography and if you were dealing with a full-sized sensor, I would suggest buying one. With a 1.6 crop factor, it will sit in your bag more often than not.
This is why I also recommend the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 zoom as a primary or all purpose lens. It is reasonably sharp (though no where near any of the primes), is a good value ($279), covers most commonly used focal lengths, provides great contrast color, and AF with a minimum of distortion, CA, etc.
4. Consider better, but used, lenses.
BTW, while they're all pricey, there is a range in the "L" series:
the 70-200/f4 is under $600 and the upcoming 17-40/f4 may be under
$700. Add the 50/1.8 and for well under $1500 you're covered in
quality glass (assuming you don't need the 2.8 for low light or
background effect).
This is really great advice and for reasons mentioned earlier is a wise way to go. Occasionally you can find some really good values and it is a useful and fun way to build a lens collection. Some useful older "L" series zoom lenses which can be found at reasonable prices include the 20-35, 80-200, and 28-80. There are some issues to consider which are beyond the scope here.
The new 10D with it's prices and features will allow me to finally
make the plunge into the Digital SLR community. Currently I have
no lenses though. I am looking all over the place as far as what
to buy. I have heard good things about the L Series from Canon,
but the prices are amazing compard to non-L Lenses. I don't want
to get a bad lens and strap it to my new toy, but at the same time,
on my budget I can get a lot more glass if I stay away. I just
wanted to know if those with experience with the L series could
help me. Is it worth getting one L series vs a couple non-L Lenses?
