I have a have a canon EOS digital rebel with two lenses that I don't really care for. I'm looking for a set-up that is pretty versatile but unfortunately I don't think I can spend more than say $500. And thats probably pushing it. I'm going to Italy for a month this summer and would love to take some great photos. Thanks!

John

what are you planning on shooting? Day or night or both?

If Scott (Stime) were here he'd reccomend the Sigma 17-70mm, its f/2.8-4 I think. Somewhere in the $375ish range new.

Like Berg said, if you're OK with the kit lens and want something longer, that f4L canon may be a good one to pick up if you can find it used, otherwise its out of your $$ range.

The 50 f/1.8 is a good lens and cheap, but if I was travelling I doubt i'd bring it in favor of a zoom, but thats just me.

Thanks guys. If I had the money I think I would go for the Canon 70-200mm f/4; Canon 50mm f/1.8; and the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 but I don't. So should I start by buying 1 by 1 the afore mentioned lenses or should I go a different route?

Overall I will be shooting both night and day but probably mostly day.
However, in Italy I will probably be shooting a good mixture of both.

I think people will need to know if you need the longer range and are happy with the current kit lens, or if you're looking to replace that.

Personally if it were me I'd get the 17-70 first, but there are a bunch of others on here that would get the 70-200 first. I use my wider stuff more than my 70-200.

When I went to France, I took a D70 with the kit lens only (an 18-70mm)... I never felt like I was missing out, except for maybe a couple of photos.

The midrange is popular because it is so well suited to general photography--that's why all "kit" lenses are in the 16/17/18-55/70 range (for crop bodies, anyway).

That being said, if I were going back now, and I had to limit myself to two or three lenses, I'd take my 17-55, my 10-20, and my 50mm 1.4, leaving out the 70-300. Sure, I'd miss the telephoto for some shots, but the fast prime is good for indoor shots, like museums and churchs where flash isn't allowed, and it's also smaller and lighter for traveling. I could even live without the 10-20 if I was traveling really light, but I love that lens.

Again, what Mark said-
I just went on my honeymoon and took my 10-20, and my 28-135, and I did miss the 70-200 but did not miss carrying it or fitting it into my bag. I felt like I needed the 10-20 but if I had a bit wider mid-range I think I'd be OK leaving it home.

I stand by my theory that the best setup for all around performance on a crop body is...

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4
Canon 70-200 f/4 L

Those two lenses just flat out rock together. I would start with the Sigma in your case and buy the 70-200 when you have a bit more money.

I'm not that happy with the kit lens. It just doesn't get the DOF that I want most of the time. So yes I'm looking to replace that. My other lensis a Canon 100-300mm f5.6 thats from the 80's and just doesn't do a lot for me.

I think I will probably get the sigma 17-70 and see if my parents can get me the nifty fifty for my birthday. And then save up for the 70-200.

unless you need UWA

I sugest the Canon 28-105 f3.5 USM II...The range is great, it's AF is fast and smooth... it has a solid casing and looks very nice with the lens hood

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I think I will probably get the sigma 17-70 and see if my parents can get me the nifty fifty for my birthday. And then save up for the 70-200.

Sounds like a perfect plan to me. The 17-70 should be a good walkaround lens for traveling.

Originally Posted by thechickencow

Sounds like a perfect plan to me. The 17-70 should be a good walkaround lens for traveling.

It's fantastic. I'm about to buy it again just to leave it on my back-up body. I never should have sold my first copy.

^ I actually got to play with one last week, its a neat lens. Sharp too!