[Axelfuzz]

I finally upgraded my circa 1960's Nikon to a Canon Rebel XSi. I bought the kit with the standard 18-55mm lens. It's my only lens so far. I'm looking to pickup another lens this year though. Just curious what everyone else is using. I'm not a hardcore photographer (especially now between work and kids). I mostly shoot the family (indoors and outdoors), landscape stuff, and my car when it's clean. I'm looking for an alternative to the standard lens. Obviously my gear isn't pro level, so I'm not looking to spend $1000's on a lens. Has anyone else run into this before? What lens did you choose?

[BMW F22]

You said you don't want to spend thousands but what about like a thousand??

I would suggest the 16-35mm, 17-55mm, 17-40, 24-70, or 24-105. Those range from about $400-1000 (cheaper if used). Since you shoot landscape, the 24-70 and 24-105 won't be wide enough for you at the 24mm end. Thus I would probably go with the 17-55mm or 17-40mm.

[vachss]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

You said you don't want to spend thousands but what about like a thousand??

I would suggest the 16-35mm, 17-55mm, 17-40, 24-70, or 24-105. Those range from about $400-1000 (cheaper if used). Since you shoot landscape, the 24-70 and 24-105 won't be wide enough for you at the 24mm end. Thus I would probably go with the 17-55mm or 17-40mm.

On a crop body camera like the XSi I'd suggest you go with some of the high quality EF-s lenses out there. In particular, the 10-22 is very well regarded if you're looking for ultrawide and landscape shooting. The 17-55/2.8 mentioned above is a very high quality lens as well, but essentially duplicates the range of the kit lens. Finally, on the telephoto end you can either go with the good, but inexpensive 55-250 EF-S or the excellent, but somewhat more expensive, EF 70-200/4 (non-IS if you're trying to save money).

I owned both the 10-22 and 17-55 when I shot crop and thought they were both excellent lenses. They'll cost $700-1000 new and maybe $550-800 used. My wife shoots a 55-250 and likes it. It's fairly cheap (somewhere in the mid $200s) and decently sharp for the price. The 70-200/4 is an L series lens and very sharp. Non-IS will run you about $500 on the used market. The IS version is newer and even sharper, but will set you back $750-900 used.

[bosstones]

This is kind of me recommending some of what is in my arsenal of lenses...

Initial thoughts on lenses:
I think the 16-35L could be out of question, but I don't know where your threshold for pain...er...spending is. It is a great lens, even on a crop body. However the lens is ~ $1.4-1.5k new (@ B&H and depending if you catch the rebates).

If ~ 1k is doable, I second vachss suggestion for the 10-22. Good optics and the same equivalent focal range as the 16-35L would give you on a full frame camera. I have both lenses and still find it hard to part with my 10-22 when I go out to shoot. The 10-22 EF-S is also widely regarded as one of the 2 best EF-S lenses available. This lens is $770 @ B&H.

If you might also want portrait shots, the nifty fifty is an option at a steal of a price. Also, Canon's 85mm f1.8 is an awesome for portraits. It's a ~ $370 if I remember correctly. It is tack sharp and gives very nice bokah.

If you might want more zoom capability than something like the 10-22 provides, the aforementioned 17-55mm IS is ~ $1k but provides a fixed, wide aperature of f2.8. There is also a 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 lens for ~$390. I've never used this lens but it seems to be fairly popular and would seem to cover what I would assume to be most people's standard shooting ranges.

Additional thoughts:
If it helps, I shoot with a humble XTi but tend to shot wide angle 95% of the time. I love the 10-22 as it is a very versatile lens (e.g. if you set up your shot right, you can use it a a fisheye lens). My only gripe is: 1) that it is EF-S mount, meaning I couldn't use it on a EF mount dSLR when I eventually move up to one and 2) it's not fixed aperature. Still, as I mentioned earlier, I find it hard to not bring this lens with me even though I have a very nice lens in the 16-35L.

The 16-35L on a crop body is still a great lens and has a tasty fixed f2.8 throughout the focal range. The only downside is that since it's on a crop, I am not taking advantage of the 16mm end of the lens...it's more like 25.6mm due to the crop factor (x1.6). Aside from that, very nice IQ and a noticeable difference than the non-L lenses I've had and I don't at all regret having dropped dime on it.

The nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) and 85mm are both great for macro and portraits....great for family portraits or closeups of part of a car. Again, there is the crop factor to consider with out dSLRs. Both the 50mm f1.8 (nifty fifty) and 85mm f1.8 can be used on either EF or EF-S mount bodies.

I think the nifty fifty is pretty much standard for almost everybody's repotoire. At < $100, it is quite a value.

The 85mm is obviously more but I have been very happy with it. I can only imagine what it would be like with a 1.3 or no crop factor. I do notice a difference between it and the nifty fifty.

[BMW F22]

I think the 17-40 or 17-55 would be his best bet. The 10-22mm is a great lens (I've used it before for a while) but it's mainly for wide angle shots. I don't know if the OP will need that for cars and portraits. It would be very nice for landscapes but for the rest of the things he shoots, the 10-22mm just doesn't seem to fit...

On the other hand the 17-55mm basically covers the kit lens range. The only things it offers are better IQ, wide aperture, and better build quality. So in that sense the 10-22mm might be a better fit but I still feel like the OP won't be using it as much.

[jadeddjay]

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-...1316169&sr=8-1

i have both 10-22 and 17-55 ef-s lenses. to be honest i hardly use the 10-22 now that i have the 17-55. there are rare instances that the 10 works but for family, lanscape etc 17 is plenty wide. the 17-55 is a great lens but if you cant justify the price, i think the new sigma is a great competitor. i probably would have gotten it had it been available last year, however i have no regrets and love my 17-55 very much, even as overpriced as it is

the 17-55 is incomparably better than the kit, ive used both. the only thing that is similar is the range but you will have more shots that are usable with the 17-55, and each of them will be far better

[Axelfuzz]

Thank you for all the suggestions, I've been looking at a few, test driving anything I can borrow from friends to see what I like the best. Today I am rocking the basic Canon 75-300mm. Does anyone have any experience with the EF-S 17-85mm? The Woodward cruise is coming up and I'm feeling the pressure to commit to a lens soon.

[vachss]

The 17-85mm lens is "OK", but doesn't usually get raves for sharpness - probably similar in quality to the 18-55 kit lens, but a bit broader in range. If you never want to change lenses and want a decent not-too-expensive walkaround then it's not a bad choice, but it really doesn't buy you much over the kit lens.

[bosstones]

Pretty much new kit lens (18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS) for sale over here for cheap ($110 obo)...comes with a UV filter....

[Trijicon]

All great suggestion above. BUT you have to also get the 50mm f1.8 prime. It great for portraits and indoor photography. The thin DOF is one of the factors that makes SLRs stand out from point and shoots. Its super cheap too $100.