what is the limit for tele? Or what is the intended use?

300mm at the most on the tele end.

I'm more just curious what people would do in that price range.

Since you plan to get a full frame (either a 5D or 1ds or 1ds MkII, or Kodak maybe :) )it sounds like you want all the image quality you can get.

The trick is that FF camera is very demanding on the lenses and you simply can't get two lenses to cover all the range for less than $1500. There isn't much in the Canon's lineup that will cover the range required and do well on full frame digital short of L zooms, and the two of those are more than $1500.

With XT it's easy since it crops the corners, so most any decent wide angle will do well. Although, if you do a lot of available (low) light photography, you'll hit the same wall as ef-s and ef lenses in your range will either be too slow or above your budget.

So maybe just start with a few gaps in your focal range and just choose based on the lengths you use the most.

I'm only speaking of Canon, as I don't have much experience with third-party offerings.

The problem with the 17-40 on a full frame is it really is a wide angle lens. The 24-70L becomes a better choice for an "all purpose" lens. Of course that pushes the budget. A sigma 24-70 is a decent alternative to keep the budget intact.

Another alternative is something like a 1D body, with a 1.25 crop factor. The 40mm end of the zoom still falls a bit short, but I just use foot zoom when I can to make up the gap.

They're both "budget" Ls but they are both super sharp. I have the 17-40 4L and love it, it's wide enough for me. I've seen the results of the 70-200 4L and they are fantastic. I might pick that up or the 200 2.8L as my next lens.

I have one I'm not using. It's in my pile of "should put up for sale because I don't use it, but I'm too lazy" lenses.

how much?

I won't be pulling the trigger this month but possibly soon.

17-40 f/4L (about $650-700) and 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS (about $400 and great reviews for non-L glass. Some reviews say it's as shartp as L glass at certain apertures). Long range, you could get one of the 75-300 lens. There are 3 or 4 of them to choose from. I think the best one is the IS version for about $400-450. But, that will be the weak link of these three lenses, as it is pretty soft beyond 200mm.

Another option would be to go with a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF for $400-450 and then get the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L for about $1100-1200. You'll have two very fast lenses that cover 90% of your shooting.

I tried emailing the account you registered on AW, but it bounced (email no longer valid). Got another addy I can send the email to? (have to keep the rest of this discussion offline...forum rules)

And what others would get, is really meaningless.

If most of your shooting is in good light outdoors, then Raj has suggested an excellent option with f/4 L zooms. But those would not be good indoors.

Third party lenses could be a good compromise, but if your photography requires lots of focus tracking in AI Servo, they will likely disappoint you.

If both points above are important to you, your budget will simply not cut it to cover the entire range without gaps.

This is further complicated by two cameras with 1.6x difference in field of view.

sorry about that. I just updated it, I think. Here it is just so you don't have to waste more time.

It's: bcbeamish AT vanguard DOT edu