Question about a wide angle + Zoom lens for Canon 40D...

[koti]

After a long research I have decided what camera and what single walk around lens to get:
Canon 40D + Canon 17-55 f2,8 IS USM.
I will not buy any more lenses just now, Im planning to get to know the camera (previously I had a Panasonic FZ20) and then buy more lenses. Im fairly sure that the EFS 10-22 would be a good choice for wide angle covereage on a x1.6 body. Can You guys suggest a zoom lens that would be good as an addition to those 2 lenses ?
Im not a professional, obviously Im not planning to spend $10K on some high end lens but I want some advise on what would be a good wrap up for the 10-22 / 17-55.

[24Peter]

If you're just starting out, you may want to save some money and consider the Canon kit lenses - 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS (think that's it). You can also then go with the Canon 10-22 for wide stuff. Alternatively, I would suggest the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS for your zoom.

[koti]

Ive made up my mind as to the 17-55, spent too much time researching to change it now plus realy, I've taken too many underexposed, unsharp and grainy photos with the Panny, had enough.
I take most of my photos in poor lihting so the combination of 40D's high ISO + f2,8 with IS seems perfect for me. I want a bright lens, period.
I think Im making a good choice here and money is not such an issue for me.
Im just a little lost in the zoooms area, didnt reasearch that at all.

[24Peter]

Ive made up my mind as to the 17-55, spent too much time researching to change it now plus realy, I've taken too many underexposed, unsharp and grainy photos with the Panny, had enough.
I take most of my photos in poor lihting so the combination of 40D's high ISO + f2,8 with IS seems perfect for me. I want a bright lens, period.
I think Im making a good choice here and money is not such an issue for me.
Im just a little lost in the zoooms area, didnt reasearch that at all.

Hmmm, I shot with an FZ20 before going to Canon DSLR and never had grainy, underexposed, unsharp pics with it. In fact, some of my favorite pics were taken with that camera.

I agree the 17-55 2.8 IS is a very nice lens. But it's not a guarantee of better pics. And you can buy 5 kit lenses for the price of one 17-55 IS. If you're set on that lens, great. Then I would repeat my tele-zoom suggestion of 70-300 F4-5.6 IS. Does that help?

[cdifoto]

The EF-S 17-55mm isn't any brighter than the lens on the FZ20. Both are f/2.8. You don't even gain IS because the Panasonic also has that. Cleaner high ISO, sure, but underexposed photos are the user's fault. Much graininess comes from that.

[koti]

My underexposed photos came from using low ISO in low light on the FZ20 - anything above ISO 200 was completely unusable for me.
Grainyness came from using high ISO so its like a vicious cirlce
Im not a pro like You guys but I do know that I want...the 40D + 17-55, why dont You guys just let me have it, lol

Thanks for the tip on the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, I'll look into it.

I love to take photos at night, in clubs, generaly in low light conditions. The FZ20 was a great camera thats why I stood with it for over 3 years but with its frustrating ISO even the great f2,8 lens and IS wouldnt help - those of You who used it probably know what Im talking about.
Thanks for the tips

[TheWengler]

The 17-55 is a fine lens but it's kind of high end for someone who's brand new to DSLR's. There's a chance you might change your mind as to what you really need and be out $900. That's why people don't usually start with the top of the line. If you're shooting in clubs then maybe f/2.8 would end up being too slow for you then you'd need a faster prime. For low light large depth of field shots you'd need a flash. For landscapes in low light you'd need a tripod.

Also all the lenses you mentioned are zoom lenses. Zoom refers to the ability to change focal lengths. Something with more reach is called a telephoto lens. What do you need this lens for? What kind of lighting will you be using it in? Do you want it to have IS? There are a few to choose from.

[koti]

The 17-55 is a fine lens but it's kind of high end for someone who's brand new to DSLR's. There's a chance you might change your mind as to what you really need and be out $900. That's why people don't usually start with the top of the line. If you're shooting in clubs then maybe f/2.8 would end up being too slow for you then you'd need a faster prime. For low light large depth of field shots you'd need a flash. For landscapes in low light you'd need a tripod.

Also all the lenses you mentioned are zoom lenses. Zoom refers to the ability to change focal lengths. Something with more reach is called a telephoto lens. What do you need this lens for? What kind of lighting will you be using it in? Do you want it to have IS? There are a few to choose from.

I will be thinking about buying a prime some time in the future for sure...50mm 1.4 or something similar. I do not see the point in getting the 18-55 or the 17-85 because the are both slow (3.5-5.6 / 4.5-5.6) I realize that Im getting gear which I will not be able to fully utilize right from the start - thats actualy why Im getting it. I want to learn, I want to take trips to places and spend time shooting and I want to have a good camera for that, otherwise I might as well buy the new Lumix and point & shoot like I did for years and realy, REALY I do not want that. I will need the zoom mainly for good light conditions so IS is not a must but its nice to have, I think anyone would agree.
I travel a lot...the zoom will be mostly used for sunny day shooting in the country - birds & animals.
I've been a dj for 12 years, now its more of a hobby, I do still go around clubs though and I spend lots of time in places with bad light...hense I prolly will need a prime.
I give trainings on plotters & laser printers (not Canon though) - I have access to quality large format printers so I want my photos to be finaly SHARP (read 17-55)
Im actualy in Kenya for a week right now, I sold my Panny and Im left with a "camera" in my Nokia E50 and Im realy frustrated so please excuse if Im a bit grouchy here.

[Nickcanada]

Just a suggestion... how about a kit lens (18-55mm IS), Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a flash like the 430 EX or the 580 ex?

[koti]

Just a suggestion... how about a kit lens (18-55mm IS), Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a flash like the 430 EX or the 580 ex?

The flash and a fast prime will be on my list in the near future for sure.
Can You tell me any reason I should not get the 17-55 besides me being a lamer and not deserving it ? Thats what Im reading in between the lines from You guys

Edit :
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is known for its focusing problems...lots of people say to stay away. Is it working ok for You ?