in a candy shop. Of course I have a budget here since it's a hobby and I don't make cash off of this. Taking advantage of the triple rebates I'm definetly going to get the 20D. Now the dilema with the lenses.

I mainly shoot portraits and family events. Occasional sports and wildlife. If I sell all my gear except for the 17-85mm & 420EX flash I'm considering the following lenses:

1)50mm f/1.4
2)85mm f/1.8
3)200mm f/2.8L

You Pick 2.

I'm leaning towards 2 and 3. My 17-85mm covers a large focal length but lacks in aperture, so I can live with 50mm covered by this lens and has IS for low light.

I'm always at either end of my 70-200mm and will miss the convenience of the zoom, but would gladly give it up for the stops and outstanding quality of these two prime lenses.

I'm looking at around an $800 upgrade price if I get market value for all of my current gear. Yes I have a spread sheet...lol :)

TIA

The key statement was that you find yourself at either end of the zoom range on the 70-200.

Anyway, if you're interested in a 200 f2.8, let me know. I've got one sitting around that I don't use, and I have a 135 + 1.4x, so it's kind of redundant.

the

Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L which gets you L glass, some room to work with (zoom wise) and a a fast lens...although it may be out of your budget. Not sure how it performs in comparison to your choices.

I've actually been thinking of picking up a Tamron 24-75mm f/2.8 which is supposed to perform rather well for the price point of only ~$300.

Good Luck

Tamron 28-75mm, but again not wide enough and too many quality control issues. A lot of wedding photogs use that lens and I've seen great results from it.

for the price of that one...well kind of.

sigma...I quoted the wrong focal range its actually the Tamron 28-75mm. I didn't realize you had those requirements since you were choosing primes and isn't the 200mm f/2.8L pretty heavy?

a good sharp copy you will be very pleased with it I'm sure.

The 24-70mm and 200mm are about the same length, but the 200mm is about 1/2lb less in weight and it is a true telephoto lens where the 24-70 is technically a wide-angle telephoto so I can accept the size of the 200mm for its class. Plus it is about 1.5" shorter than my 70-200 f/4L, black, one stop faster and prime quality "L" results.

Finally I need to choose 3 products to get the triple rebates and if I went with the 24-70mm or 70-200mm f/2.8 I couldn't get a second lens :(

Its nice that its shorter than the 70-200 f/4L that is pretty significant.

It's a really nice lens, but on a 1.6x camera, it's FL is no man's land. Based on what you said, this appears to be the case for you. You'll probably end up leaving the 1.4x on it most of the time. Considering it costs more to begin with (plus the addt'l cost of the 1.4x), you'll probably be better off with just the 200.

of the sharpness. I like that it's shorter too, that is a big plus, even though it has an old antiquated, oversized hood :(, come on Canon update your hoods please!