I was so put off by the results of the 18-55mm in many places that I just picked up two primes for very cheap (<$250 shipped) to get me through the holidays. I went with:

Canon 35mm f/2 & the classic Canon 50mm f/1.8 II. I know these two lenses aren't the cream of the crop, but I have a feeling I'll feel better about these than the 18-55mm.

 

They may not be, but they ARE *nice* lenses. Have fun.

For some fun, shoot JPG with the color settings set way extreme at the highest ISO with either lens wide open. Makes for some interesting results.

 

Time to change the wishlist. I think I'm going to go with at least the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 as my telephoto lens, and try to decide on if I want to cough up the extra cash for IS on it.

Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 - $1200 This will probably be one of the first real lenses I purchase because I see this as my main walkaround lens (maybe find it used)


So one of the few questions left - to IS for $600 more or not to IS

 

In what kind of light - or just all the time?

 

play around with it...

24-70 as your walking around lens? are you crazy?
this is mostly a portrait/fashion/studio lens in my experience and considering how LARGE and HEAVY it is (the picture is deceptive) I'd go with something considerably less conspicuous for walking around

Although it IS an amazing lens.

As far as the IS on the 70-200/2.8... Why the hell not? At 200mm you'll certainly appreciate it. The IS on the high-end L zooms is also ages beyond their consumer-level IS (like on the 28-135IS). Go all out!

 

Oh, did you plan on getting a flash? Because that built-in flash is total crap and many of these lenses will actually cast a shadow at wide angles. I'd recommend the 550EX for the money, but if you wanna splurge, the 580EX is supposed to be even better.

 

I haven't gotten into flashes yet Chris. Before moving into that area I want to do some more shooting first. I barely used the flash on my Sony. My whole thing is better natural picture quality, and I've always felt like a flash drowns certain natural aspects out. I do want to play with Macro, and know I'll need some light for that - but it is still down the road.

I know the 24-70 is huge, but the other alternatives are:

28-70L 2.8 .....not much smaller
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS .......not an L and I really wanted to get to 2.8 or lower on the f-stop. The 24-70 has far better quality right?
17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS ......I hear it is okay (a step above the 18-55mm) but nothing compared to L's


Keep the suggestions coming - I really appreciate them

 

It really doesn't seem that drastically big





17-40mm


28-70mm


17-85mm


28-135mm

 

Cheaper to hire Chris to take the pictures.