Which Canon lens ?

[Dogfish_magnet]

After swapping from Nikon to Canon this week i need to get a couple of lens's for a 50D that will cover a similar range and IQ to the Nikon 16-85 Vr and 70-300mm VR - ideally i 'd like to do this for @ £1K - i no nothing about Canon lens's so is that possible and if so which len's should i be looking at ? - If its not possible to get both the 16-85mm range would be my preference to cover first.

Currently i only have the nifty fifty and a MP-E65.

Oh and i don't mind going down the used route.

[DLS_Creations]

I think the 17-55mm 2.8 IS and 70-200mm f4 would both be nice on the 50D. It is awkward to find a lens to cover 16-85 unless you go for the 17-85mm, I have heard a few stories about it being quite soft on the 50D though.

The 17-40 F4L would also a very nice lens.

What would you mainly be photographing?

[Dogfish_magnet]

I think the 17-55mm 2.8 IS and 70-200mm f4 would both be nice on the 50D. It is awkward to find a lens to cover 16-85 unless you go for the 17-85mm, I have heard a few stories about it being quite soft on the 50D though.

The 17-40 F4L would also a very nice lens.

What would you mainly be photographing?

I mainly shoot macro hence the switch to Canon for the MP-E but I'm trying to do more landscape / seascape work this year.

[matt_wright]

17-55 is a great lens, really good quality could be had for around £550 second hand (many say this is the best walkabout lens on a crop body, so that ahould say somehting for the quality). And i guess the direct replacement for the 70-300VR could be the 70-300 IS USM around £300/350 second hand!

[swag72]

Another vote for the 17-55, especially on the 50d. I find it tack sharp and a total dream to use. So much so, I am considering getting shot of my nifty as this does so well at 50mm.

I am constantly impressed by this lens - Shame about the crap photographer behind it:D

[Strolls]

The 70-300mm IS is very good. One in the classifieds at a very good price (avoid the 75-300mm IS, though).

[EdBray]

17-55 is a great lens, really good quality could be had for around £550 second hand (many say this is the best walkabout lens on a crop body, so that ahould say somehting for the quality). And i guess the direct replacement for the 70-300VR could be the 70-300 IS USM around £300/350 second hand!

I agree, without spending stupid money for L glass this will cover all your options.

[chris321]

a similar range and IQ to the Nikon 16-85 Vr and 70-300mm VR - ideally i 'd like to do this for @ £1K

Are you looking for 2nd hand, or new? And do the lenses have to be canon, or can they by 3rd party? The 17-55 f/2.8 is really highly regarded, but it's prone to collecting dust behind the front element (apparently). Image quality is similar to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but build quality is better on the former. The Canon has IS, but the Tamron is a third of the price. Revews for these two are here (Canon) (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) and here (Tamron) (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx). I've just bought the tamron, as I couldn't justify the extra price of the Canon for what you're actually getting.

For the telephoto, the Canon 70-300 IS USM is awesome (it's what I use), unless you want to go down the L route. If you get the tamron, you'll have about £800 left which could get you a 70-200 f/2.8 (but not the IS version), if you get the Canon 17-55, you'll probably only have enough for the 70-200 f/4!

Hope this helps a bit, and welcome back from the dark side :D

Chris

[Dogfish_magnet]

Thanks for all the replies - i'll stick a wanted thread up for the Tamron and give it a try then if i don't like it i'll go down the Canon route then i go for a longer lens.

[corny]

If you shoot macro then try the Canon 60mm, it is an amazing lens for the money.