picking out lens

[aj1575]

I wouldn't suggest any Sigma lens, because "stingy man pays double price". I've tried several of them and changed to Canon original lenses. And budget up to 3000$ is wide enough for good quality original lenses.

Also I wouldn't suggest buying EF-S lenses if you have enough money moving to full-frame body (remember, we all waiting for 5Dm3 here ). So 17-40L + 70-200F4L + 100macro can be a good setup for crop body. But I suggest to add 50F1.4 for portraits (if planned any )

Don't count out Sigma. I own Sigma and Canon lenses, both work just fine.

One has also to consider, what the lenses we buy are intended for. Why should one buy a 1000$ Canon 17-55 f2.8 as a general walk-arround lens if a Sigma 17-70 is more versatile and only costs half as much, with a little lower IQ. He could invest the 500$ he's saved in a 70-300L or 100-400L instead of the 70-200F4, which might be a little short for his intended use of shooting horses.
I also strongly disagree that one should not buy EF-S lenses, because we all like a full frame. I think I will never move to FF. The quality of APS-C is improving, and is at a point where FF where a few years ago. So unless you are making a living out of photography, or just like to spend your money on a hobby you love, there is no real need to upgrade to a FF. I also like APS-C because I do not have to carry such a big camerabag. But everybody has a different opinion on that.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Don't count out Sigma. I own Sigma and Canon lenses, both work just fine.

One has also to consider, what the lenses we buy are intended for. Why should one buy a 1000$ Canon 17-55 f2.8 as a general walk-arround lens if a Sigma 17-70 is more versatile and only costs half as much, with a little lower IQ. He could invest the 500$ he's saved in a 70-300L or 100-400L instead of the 70-200F4, which might be a little short for his intended use of shooting horses.

I started with a ther original Canon18-55mm, and went to the sigma 17-70mm, and finally to the 17-55mm Is.

The 18-55 lacked sharpness, but it worked. The 17-70 was a big improvement in IQ, but the f/2.8 part was misleading because it became f/4 as soon as you stopped down. for manual focus, the 17-70mm was the worst lens I've ever had. the reviews has rated it as a little stiff, but it was also jerky, which made it very frustrating to use for manual focus, which I did a lot. finally, it was poor at closer distances near MFD even when compared to the 18-55. It did not have IS either at that time.

When I finally ended the frustration and bought my 17-55mm IS and took a big hit reselling my 17-70 after only 4 months, the 17-55 was wonderful. I used it for 3 years with no issues or dust, and resold it for about what I paid new originally when I went to FF. I'm not knocking the 17-70, you get what you pay for, and as long as I did not manual focus or try to use it for close up photos, it was fine.

Most horse shots do not need 300mm, horses are big.

Accross the arena with my 75-300mm IS, but at 95mm, not 300. (I did not have the much better 70-200mm f/4 at the time.

 

[mr.ranger]

thanks for the info on the not needing a 70-300 lens this def gives me a better idea of what i need def looking into 70-200L lens than since just little bit more. what are your guys experience with refurbished lenses? i was looking on canon direct saw nice refurbished wide angle lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

thanks for the info on the not needing a 70-300 lens this def gives me a better idea of what i need def looking into 70-200L lens than since just little bit more. what are your guys experience with refurbished lenses? i was looking on canon direct saw nice refurbished wide angle lens.

Refurbished lenses from canon have a excellent reputation. I've had two refurb L lenses that were perfect. They just had a 15% off deal expire, so they are out of most of the highly sought lenses right now.

I bought a 70-200mm f/2.8L MK II about 2 weeks ago, it was perfect, but I just found it plain too heavy for a walk-around lens, and I have lots of primes for low light use. I hated to return it, but I could see that it would stay at home while I took my f/4 IS version along.

I do not have the same issue with my 100-400mmL, its just enough lighter to be ok to carry.

 

[T2iShooter]

I don't know if you picked the lenses yet, but here's what I recommend:

For wide angle: the Bower(/Rokinon/Samyang/...) 14mm f2.8. It pretty decently sharp, and only costs about $400 if you buy from B&H. I use it all the time, and have no problems with it at all. Would I ditch it if someone handed me the Canon version? Of course, but I have yet to see that happen lol

For macro: I would go for either the Canon 100mm 2.8 non-L, or the Tamron 90mm 2.8. I haven't used either of the two personally, but I've heard great things about both.

For sports: go for the Canon 70-200 4L (non-IS). The advantages of this lens over the 70-300 4-5.6 are massive. I own this one too, and it has never done me wrong.

Also, if you can afford to upgrade your kit lens, I would go for the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Nice lens, decent sharpness, and lightweight, I own and love it.