I want to get my wife some new lenses for her Canon Digital Rebel XT. She has the crappy kit lens, and a Sigma 70-200 f/5.6 off her old film EOS. The Sigma does NOT do a good job on the XT.

I would like to hear your recommendations for lenses. She does indoor shots of the kids, and outdoor shots of nature and kids sports. I don't want to end up with a bag full of lenses, just two or three that will cover most opportunities. Maybe a good wide angle, a medium focal length, and a nice telephoto. Nothing too large or heavy either, as she will complain they are too much to carry. While cost is not irrelevant, I would rather spend the money once on good glass than two or three times on mediocre glass.

I don't ask for much, do I?

Good, lightweight glass will be the 17-55 2.8IS.

Gooder (arguably speaking) glass, but way heavier, would be the 24-70L 2.8


Both are in the $1,000 range



70-200L 4.0 is nice and also in the grand area
70-200L 2.8 is more flexible and above the grand area


The IS versions of the above are really the way to go though ..... $1600+ each



ballpark figures of course.  and they hold their value really well so sometimes it's no different just to buy new LOL
eta:  L glass as a general rule are rather robust (heavier) lenses .... being water resistant and all that.



eta2:  HERE  .... don't hurt yourself

Quoted: the 17-55 2.8 isn't light.  22.8 ounces The 24-70 2.8 is 25 ounces. If for the XT, get the 17-55.  Cheaper than the 24-70, just as sharp and has a rockin IS thrown in.

I'd echo that.

read these reviews
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45
the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di might save you some dough...
www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=308&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If she wants to do sports, the short zooms will be way too short.  Spend the money once; go for the 70-200 f2.8L IS, around $1500, and a 1.4x TC, for a little extra reach. She'll be happy, you'll be happy.   I showed her the non-IS version of this lens, and her comment was "Too big and heavy." She was much happier with the heft of the 70-200 f4.0L. I am kind of leaning towards that lens, a Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM as an everyday walking around lens, and a 1.4X teleconverter. All three of those combined only weigh about 2 ounces more than the 70-200 f2.8L alone. Like I said, she can be picky at times. The TC will be of only minimal value; if I remember my f-stop math correctly, it won't autofcus properly on the 28-105 at the long end (because the camera won't auto focus properly on a lens with a max aperture over 5.6) and the 28-105 is a marginal lens in my experience.   You might want her to try out the 24-105 f4L IS.  More expensive, but it will have IS and with the 1.4TC it will be a constant f5.6. For an everyday walkaround lens on a crop body Canon try the 17-40L; great lens and has wonderful IQ at a fairly inexpensive price.

The teleconverter will not work with the 28-105. It would be for reaching out with the 70-200 in daylight. I'll take a look at the 24-105 you recommend.

if indoor sprts such as basketball,hockey,etc a 70-200 f2.8L,if outdoor only sprts a 70-200 f4L will do good too(a lens i own).IS lenses are nice but not good for stopping action(indoor sports) better for stills in low light overated these days IMO.

On the short end 17-40 or a 25-105 is a good choice as well as the 17-55.I use the 17-40F4L and it works fine for my use  but it does leave me a gap between 40-70mm usually since its indoors or close i can walk closer and get the picture anyways.I find i use this lens alot compared to my 70-200

Quoted: Quoted: The teleconverter will not work with the 28-105. It would be for reaching out with the 70-200 in daylight. I'll take a look at the 24-105 you recommend. The new 70-200f4 IS has been getting excellent reviews.  Remember that the 1.6 focal length factor makes it a 320 at the long end effectively, and that starts to get into the "hard to hold steady" range for most people.  It is also much more expensive than the non-IS version

The price is really not a concern for me. I can always cash out some stock options and get what I want.

The main concerns are image quality, "shootability," mechanical quality, weight and size. My main concern with an IS lens is that it will negatively affect things like focusing speed in AF. Is my concern ungrounded? When shooting at long focal lengths we usually us a tripod or monopod anyway.

This afternoon the wife and I are going to a camera shop to put our hands on the various lenses. She should have a much better idea of what she wants after that. iam taking this list of recommended lenses along as a starting point.

If anyone has any other recommendations, I am all ears. And thanks to everyone who has helped so far.

Quoted: The main concerns are image quality, "shootability," mechanical quality, weight and size. My main concern with an IS lens is that it will negatively affect things like focusing speed in AF. Is my concern ungrounded? When shooting at long focal lengths we usually us a tripod or monopod anyway. This afternoon the wife and I are going to a camera shop to put our hands on the various lenses. She should have a much better idea of what she wants after that. iam taking this list of recommended lenses along as a starting point. If anyone has any other recommendations, I am all ears. And thanks to everyone who has helped so far.

IS doesn't have the kind of affect on AF that you seem to think.  And with a zoom, it's tough to plan on what focal length you'll be using, especially with kid's sports.

In this thread there is a sequence of shots done with the 70-200 2.8 IS, with the IS truned on, using AI Servo mode, to capture a 7 frame burst (1 second) of a kids football game.  Lots of activity in frame, focus stays good.