Please someone put me outta my lens misery....

[Martylaa]

Keep researching lens, I have a 550D and have just been on my first course, really want to get into landscapes and snaps of my upcoming new baby.
I sold my kit lens and I am thinking about some upgrades, I am thinking of getting 3 of the following 4.
Canon 15-85mm f3.5, Canon 17-55mm f2.8, Canon 10-22mm and finally the Canon 70-200mm f4, I can only get 2 of them at the moment so I am thinking which 2 should I get first, I am thinking get a 15-85 and then the 70-200 lens, maybe get a 10-22 later on in the year.
The only thing what's bugging me is, is the 17-55 a better lens than the 15-85, would I notice the difference and it's also a lot more money.
Please help me as I'm my own worst enemy when I start to research.....

 

[*Babs]

Personally (and I'm no expert) I would go with something like a 10-20mm (sigma?) for landscapes and a Canon "nifty fifty" for baby shots.

The nifty fifty is brilliant in low light and produces wonderful close-up shots with lovely bokeh - perfect for a new baby. And the 10-20mm is just divine (IMHO - but I am slightly in love with it )

I don't think either will stretch your budget given what you've listed, so bank the rest (somewhere where the baby can't get at it ) and save the rest of your pennies 'til you know what else you want.

 

[Martylaa]

Hi baba, thanks I already have a nifty fity, yes it's a cracking bit of kit.
For some reason I only have looked at the canon lens and have discounted other makes.
Looks like more research dammit....

 

[tijuana taxi]

I would buy (and in fact I did) the 10-22, 17-55 and 70-200 f/4 IS.

Good coverage and although the 15-85 is no doubt a nice lens it lacks the constant f/2.8 of the dearer option which comes in very handy at times, not sure it has USM either.

 

[*Babs]

Hi baba, thanks I already have a nifty fity, yes it's a cracking bit of kit.
For some reason I only have looked at the canon lens and have discounted other makes.
Looks like more research dammit....

Oh no, don't go purely on my say-so! I've barely being doing "this" 6 months!! I just adore my Sigma though!

 

[Jackwow]

Good coverage and although the 15-85 is no doubt a nice lens it lacks the constant f/2.8 of the dearer option which comes in very handy at times, not sure it has USM either.

USM? It does.

Marty, I have 10-22, 15-85 and 70-300L which is 2 of the lenses you're thinking of. I'd get the 15-85, it's superb and better built than the 17-55, and 70-200 first and then add the 10-22.

 

[tijuana taxi]

What is wrong with the 17-55 build quality?

Are there a pile of these laying broken somewhere or mass complaints of them disintegrating?

Sorry, but the 15-85 is not as good as the 17-55 image quality wise and that's pretty much an accepted view, also remember the f/2.8 constant aperture which could be an important factor. Guessing the 15-85 is only f/3.5 at the very wide end and soon changes if other similar lenses are anything to go by.

 

[nano]

Seems like you plan on spending £2k on glass

ebay? Going by the completed listings should be able to hit these sorts of prices
10-22 - £450
15-85 IS - £470
70-200 2.8 IS - £1150
brings us to £2070, lets round up to £2100 Could save a bit here by going for a sigma 10-20

I'd usually advise the 17-55 for its 2.8 and general awesomeness but its pushing the price up a bit, dropping to the 15-85 for money rather than the 15mm wide end. Not too sure the 15-85 is really the way to go if you are getting the 10-22 tho, the wide end seems a bit redundant and the rest i'd rather have f2.8. Depends how hardcore you are about landscapes, i'd quite easily give up the 10-22 for something else.

 

[Razor-BladE]

I would take the 17-55 over the 15-85 for the IQ and constant 2.8 aperture which will be handy shooting indoors.

 

[33L]

to throw a spanner in the works, tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC. Sharp, good build, small package, light, cheap. Downsides really is the lack of USM motor but if you can live with that, you have a winner.