Hopelessly trying to decide on lenses

[VVFF]

It's looking like I'll be the proud owner of a Canon 50D soon. Now I'm trying to decide on the lens issue. For $150 more than the body only package I can get the 28-135 which seems like almost a no brainer to do. However, I really want the 17-55mm F2.8 for its constant large aperture. I'm a big fan of natural light shooting when possible and I'd like to use that. So I could get both, but then I have two lenses that "overlap". The other option would be to get the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 lens which would be great I'm sure on my upcoming cruise. I'm just concerned then that I would miss the F2.8 at my longer focal lengths that I may be using.

I know this will probably come down to shooting style. But if anyone has any input as to which lenses out of these they would start off with first I'd be appreciative.

 

[wenrob]

So are you saying you need to choose two out of the three? Or just one? Of course it depends on your shooting style but if it were me I wouldn't hesitate to get the 17-55 f/2.8, you can always zoom with your feet. For $150 doesn't sound bad for the 28-135 but personally I'd save that cash towards a little faster glass. Kind of a if I knew then what I know now thing. I use my Tamron 28-70 f2/8 90% of the time while my 18-105 sits on the shelf lonely.

 

[VVFF]

So are you saying you need to choose two out of the three? Or just one? Of course it depends on your shooting style but if it were me I wouldn't hesitate to get the 17-55 f/2.8, you can always zoom with your feet. For $150 doesn't sound bad for the 28-135 but personally I'd save that cash towards a little faster glass. Kind of a if I knew then what I know now thing. I use my Tamron 28-70 f2/8 90% of the time while my 18-105 sits on the shelf lonely.

I'm basically saying it seems to make sense to get the 28-135 no matter what. The increase in cost is $150 but the lens is worth $400ish and can be sold for $250.

I am then wondering if I should get a 17-55mm F2.8 or Tokina 11-16mm F2.8. I'm leaning toward the 17-55mm as I be this is the range I would use most, but super-wide angle is quite fun as well. But I think I'm answering my own question, 11-16 is fun, but more of a secondary lens, I should probably get the 17-55mm first.

 

[wenrob]

I'm basically saying it seems to make sense to get the 28-135 no matter what. The increase in cost is $150 but the lens is worth $400ish and can be sold for $250.

I am then wondering if I should get a 17-55mm F2.8 or Tokina 11-16mm F2.8. I'm leaning toward the 17-55mm as I be this is the range I would use most, but super-wide angle is quite fun as well. But I think I'm answering my own question, 11-16 is fun, but more of a secondary lens, I should probably get the 17-55mm first.

Well then we agree, lol. Some time in the future you can sell the 28-135 for more then you paid and get something a little faster if you want. I think the Tokina would be tons of fun but you're going to use the other two way more I would think.

 

[Kaigler]

I can't speak for the Tokina lens. But I have the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and it is the best lens I own. I like it more than the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. It is a great lens and does an awesome job in low light. If you can afford the 17-55 you will not regret it.

 

[JimbobJimbo]

Another option you might could consider is going with the Tonika 11-16 f2.8 and instead of the Canon go with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8(a really good lens for the money). You could pick up both the Tonika and the Tamron for about the cost of just the Canon 17-55 alone. Only major drawback being the Tamron doesn't have IS.

 

[wenrob]

Another option you might could consider is going with the Tonika 11-16 f2.8 and instead of the Canon go with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8(a really good lens for the money). You could pick up both the Tonika and the Tamron for about the cost of just the Canon 17-55 alone. Only major drawback being the Tamron doesn't have IS.

Now that's a fabulous idea! I wouldn't think not having IS on such a short range would be that big of a deal. So I change my vote, go with Jim's idea!