Learn to use a flash and you're all set. Unfortunately your budget is a little tight for anything faster... The 50 f1.8 is a great available light indoors lens.
...Unless you want to take a cue from Parm and go the prime route.
Sigma 20 f1.8 - $300
Canon 50 f1.8 - $80
Canon 85 f1.8 - $300
Canon 135 f2.8sf - $400 or Canon 200 f2.8L - $550 used
This setup will give you fast glass with great IQ, but you'll have to zoom with your feet and change lenses a bit.
Also, you should pretty much consider the 70-200 an outdoor lens. Even the f2.8 version that I used to have was tough to use indoors. The f2.8IS version works really well indoors, but...
Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports
if you'll be able to use external flash, f4 shouldn't be a problem. with common indoor lighting conditions (not considering windows and daylight), even f2.8 can often be difficult to handhold above 70mm without stabilization. so indoors i mostly resort to either external flash or something with a huge aperture if i want to shoot with ambient light (like the 50mm). the way i see it, that's the reason why people buy 35mm,50mm,85mm,135mm primes with apertures of f2,f1.8,f1.4. otherwise, everyone would be using f2.8 zooms instead.
Originally Posted by JMWallace
one lens? in an attempt to cover the biggest range i would think something like an 18-200mm, but absolutely not without an external flash.
EDIT: jamison beat me to the punch while i was slowly typing away. the good thing is that we're kinda sorta saying the same thing
EDIT 2: i'm planning to upgrade the 70-200 f2.8 to the IS version (when the budget allows) for the same reasons that jamison mentioned. darned thing is expensive though... if you've got the $$$ now and you've got serious photography plans for the future it's the lens you'll probably end up with
Last edited by ReF; 05-18-2006 at 08:39 AM.
canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes
note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.
"anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4
I am sort of a newbie at digital photography, but here is my $.02.
I have the 17-85 IS. It is inconsistent. I have some good pictures and some not so good pictures. It is light and a good walk around lens. I take several pictures of each subject, hoping to mitigate the inconsistencies of the lens. For me, it is a good portrait lens, as the lens is on the soft side.
I have the 28-135. I use it for a doorstop. I do not like this lens -- it is of lesser quality than the 17-85.
I used a friend's 17-40 for awhile. I got spectacular results with this lens. I should have one.
I have the 70-300 IS and love it. The lense is light. The pictures are sharp. In fact, there is very little difference between this lens and my 70-200 IS. I have not had problems with the 70-300 lens.
For superwide I have the Canon 10-22. I love this lens. The images are very sharp and the color is good.
Regarding IS, I do use it. I travel much and am walking around cities and hiking in the boondocks much of the day. When I travel I don't carry a tripod. I have taken pictues in very low light with the IS -- inside of buildings, pre-dawn and after sunset, streets in dark shadow, etc. I never would have gotten such pics without IS.
...cue from Parm
Agreed..good idea, thats a lot of lenses and (honestly) probably more complicated than I am able to handle at this point. But YES...am going to buy the 430ex.
Originally Posted by jamison55
I guess I'm the only one who wasn't blown away by the 17-40L. I sent mine back. It had serious focusing issues on my XT and was a little soft wide open and at the long end of the zoom. Plus 40mm felt very limiting to me. I opted to keep my kit lens for now instead. (that's probably my 17-40L refurb on Adorama's site.) Master the kit lens - then decide if you need something more. (Canon 10-22 looks sweet.)
I have a 70-200 f4L which I like very much but it's a difficult lens to use at times - esp. if you're new. You may want to test a 70-300 IS. IF you get a good one (i.e., no verticle issue) you won't miss the difference in image quality with the 70-200 (the lens is that good) plus you'll have a much more useable lens in low light situations with the IS plus plus you'll have an additional 100mm of reach.
50 1.8 is a no-brainer IMO. IQ on mine is great.
I didn't like the 28-135 IS. For me, 28-105 3.5-4.5 was a better choice.
Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter
24-105 f/4 IS L. This would be my ideal all-purpose lens, with primes for low light situations, where even f/2.8 isn't enough.
Originally Posted by JMWallace
Which, of course, is only good for static subjects unless you add flash to freeze the motion that way.
Originally Posted by Clyde
Didn't the OP commit to a flash purchase already?
Originally Posted by cdi-buy.com
Anyway, I am what is called a 'light and shadow' painter. I am utterly dependent on cast shadows, and helpless on overcast days. This means I have a crippling aversion to flash.
If I ever give advice on what flash to use, or how to use it, be sure to call me on it.
Yeah he did. I'm just saying he shouldn't expect the IS to be a substitute for a fast aperture for indoor photography of say, friends and family unless they're sitting still.
Originally Posted by Clyde
Ahhhhh, huh? Parm-alicious?
Do what I say not what I do!
Hellz ya, jump aboard the photography 2 step square dance extravaganza!!!! I mean, foot zoom it!
You're feet save a lot of dough.
Ok. but seriously. . . wait, I think I just, ya I just had an idea. RE: the 50 1.8 - those who received a good copy will recommend it for its extremely low price. I know Pete and Jamie both have a good copy - They make some great images with it. Unfortunately, I've come across more people who have had experiences similar to Don's and mine, they wouldn't recommend it at any price. I can't recommend it.
I went the prime route for one reason. . . IQ for $ - I can't decide if I want to get off this prime trail or not. . . I need a second body, 30D, I'd sure like to pair it with the 24-70 2.8, but thats a lot to ask right now. . .
Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -