17-70 Sigma, 50mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/4 L. AWESOME setup in my opinion. I have a 17-70 for sale by the way...

Sigma 17-70 vs. Canon 17-40 L (a test I did, I own both):
http://newschoolofphotography.com/fo...ead.php?t=3423

Sigma 17-70 For Sale:
http://newschoolofphotography.com/fo...ead.php?t=4320

I have nothing to add though, seriously, I LOVED having that setup. 17-70 to 70-200 f/4 and the 50 f/1.8 just because it was cheap and so damn good.

Go for it, you've done your research and it sounds like you definitely way ahead of the average dSLR n00b without even owning one yet. The XTi is a great camera as well.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

- Scott

Originally Posted by Stime187

...and the 50 f/1.8 just because it was cheap and so damn good.

QFT. Good in Nikon, Canon, and old-ass Olympus flavors!

Good news and Bad news... Good news is looks like you have done some research and have a good idea of what you want. Bad news is that what you want, no single lens is going to accomplish.

70-200 f4 L. Perfect lens for the $$. L quality without the huge sticker. If you shoot during the day or with a tripod, dont worry about the IS.

The 24-70L is my fav. Lens period. I use it 95% of the time but I dont shoot anything that you shoot. on the cropped body if your doing more action/ landscapes you may want something a little wider with IS. Therefore the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS would be my recommendation. Right around the same price as the 24-70, takes great photos, good IQ just without the "L" badging.

50 f1.8 is a must for the price, best tool you can buy.

As far as replacing equipment... you will find camera gear and lenses hold their value incredibly well. Ask Rattles hes upgraded equipement and turned a profit doing so before so its not an issue IMO. Any other questions just ask.

You seem to have done your research, and seem to have a good understanding of what you want. Budget wise I started out with not wanting to spend too much to get a feel for what focal ranges I actually use, here's what I found for myself:

I had the 50 f/1.8, which is a really good lens, its taught me a lot. My biggest holdback on this was I don't like the fact that I'm constantly having to move to fit the pic into the frame, and I found it typically wasn't wide enough for me. That said its a great lens and its really tough to NOT pick one up.

I used the kit 18-55, and found myself loving the wider end of the kit lens, moreso than the longer end. I decided to get a 10-20mm sigma which I've decided is awesome, and I love it. I can't wait for spring/summer/fall again to shoot more outside when my hands aren't freezing. I think something like the 17-70 would be awesome though because its pretty wide and at the same time has a good useful range that can be used for a lot of different situations.

I also picked up a cheap 70-300mm as I wanted to see what it was like to have something longer, and I knew I needed it for stuff like wakeboarding, rally, ice racing, etc. I love the lens, but don't like the speed (aperature). I just got a 70-200 f/2.8 which will undoubtedly be an improvement when shooting stuff like that, and its great for other longer stuff too. (my cheapie is for sale in the for sale forum in my digital rebel thread)

479 for an XTi body is a good deal. So what are your serious contenders now? If you need IS, the 17-55 is a great mix of WA and zoom, plus its fast. You may not even need the 50 at that point, since its really only a stop faster, and the AF/ IS in the 17-55 will prob serve you much better/ make up the stop difference than the nifty in that dept.

Let me just hop in here and say this...

If you want to take long exposures, landscapes, and macro there is NO reason to buy the 17-55 f/2.8, you're paying a premium for a faster lens (f/2.8) and IS that won't be relevant to you. All of the above should be shot from a tripod. The Sigma 17-70 is THE landscape/long exposure lens for an XTi (and all crop cameras)... no question in my mind. My website and the lens comparison I posted above should vouch for this.

WOW! I just checked the price on the 17-55 f/2.8... $900! You could buy the 17-70 and 70-200 f/4 L for that and have an awesome setup. I just re-read your post, looks like you thought of that.

This is a no-brainer to me.

I'd put the 17-70 Sigma against the 17-55 ALONE. But...

Sigma 17-70 + Canon 70-200 f/4 > Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS for your needs.

^ he also does sports/ action as well Scott.

Okay, I missed the middle one of his posts, but STILL the 17-70 is f/2.8 on the wide end and man, I just can't get past that $900 price tag, especially for a beginner.

Originally Posted by Stime187

Okay, I missed the middle one of his posts, but STILL the 17-70 is f/2.8 on the wide end and man, I just can't get past that $900 price tag, especially for a beginner.

I just think its a better beginner alternative to the 24-70L that he was looking at before hand.

But yea, I agree on either the 17-55 IS or the 17-70 and 70-200 f4 combo

Just considering the sheer quality of the Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-200 f/4, I just can't imagine spending $900 on one lens that's not only similar to the Sigma 17-70, but has a bit shorter focal range even.

Weird, yes, I thought it was 10+ post to see the forum. I'll report the thread and see if anyone else can help out.

- Scott

Try it now. Ben (jacobsen1) took care of it for you, we hope.

Originally Posted by billd92

Does anyone have opinions on Tamron lenses?
I'm considering buying a XTi package that includes:

Tamron 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 AF Zoom Lens
Tamron 75-300mm F/4-5.6 LD AF Macro Lens
Titanium .45x Wide Angle Lens
Titanium 2X Telephoto Lens

I'm guessing that these are not that great?

Thanks,
Bill

I don't even know what that means or how it would be relevant to a dSLR. That alone would make me steer clear of that package.

As for the Tamrons, as a brand they are pretty good, but I would consider those two lenses to be pretty average or worse.

Your best bet is to get educated in what you need or want, then to purchase lenses with those specific needs in mind. What lenses/equipment do you have right now?

- Scott

Originally Posted by billd92

Does anyone have opinions on Tamron lenses?

Most of the reviews ive read about Tamron are more negative than positive. Bottom line is you get what you pay for.

Originally Posted by _L_U_C_A_

Most of the reviews ive read about Tamron are more negative than positive. Bottom line is you get what you pay for.

That's not entirely true. You can easily get an incredible lens for cheap at times, spend a ton of money and get something pretty good, or spend nothing, get nothing and spend a ton and get an awesome lens.

Lens buying is a knowledge endeavor. You have to know what you want and what you need to come out good in the end.

As for Tamrons, I'll say it again. Some Tamron lenses are quite good, I don't think the two you listed are part of that group.