Right now I have my eye on the 100-400L IS. That range would be awesome especially with a 1.6 factor. And the IS would be awesome for keeping props from freezing. That prop blur thing is a dilemma because you need like 1/250 or less but 400mm. And I'm not a huge fan of my monopod.
Good choice. I love my 100-400, I think it's the perfect airshow lens.
Sounds like you are going to be going with the 20D. If so, a reasonable lens set would seem to be the 10-22, 28-135 IS and the 100-400 you already mentioned; that covers you for a pretty broad range. My mother has the 300D and the 28-135 and 100-400, and it is the perfect set-up for her, and she has been very happy with it for the last year.
Another vote for the 35mm f/2.0. I don't own any L glass yet, but of the several decent quality consumer lenses I have, this is my favorite. Gotta love being able to shoot indoors at night at ISO 400 with no flash!
My pick for Canon lenses I've used and consider bargains:
50/1.8 - amazing image quality for the price.
70-200/4 L - Yep, it's an L lens but at somewhere around $550, an amazing bargain for amazing image quality in an easily transportable and handholdable package.
Sigma bargains I've used:
15/2.8 - great image quality at a very nice price.
20/1.8 - ditto (and no Canon equivalent).
135/2.8 soft focus: very sharp in non-soft mode, light, small, decent build quality. feels much more solid than say, 50/1.4, which is optically good but very plastic in charcter
135/2: not a sleeper, per se but down right cheap for the optical quality & frankly less expensive than many L lenses
My votes would be 50 1.4 (better bokeh than the 1.8 IMHO), 100 2.8 macro, 17-40L and the 28-135IS is ok too... though if I HAD to sell one it would probably be that last one...
Galen Rowell often used a 21 (IIRC) nikkor. He'd throw it in a small belt pack and run (yes, run) up some mountain to shoot the sunrise, then run back down. For that kind of style, a 35mm with wide angle is an excellent choice. While I haven't visited their gallery in Bishop, I've checked out a couple of the prints made for him at Calypso. My impression is they're excellent in magazine, or up to 11x17, but in the sizes presented are kind of soft and devoid of textural detail. This is fairly typical for photography made in the "journalistic" mode for magazine print. Most of Galen's gallery work is just an opportunity for you and me to own some of it ourselves. It's not work done primarily to look good at the sizes they're printed. While the photos are nice and well composed, they would have been truly stunning if made with say a Mamiya 7 instead of a 35mm SLR. Of course, the M7 is too new for this to truly be the case, and most of the MF 6x7 gear around in the 80s and 90s was big bulky SLR models not at all practical for that kind of shooting. These days the selection of lightweight RF models is much greater -- from the M7 mentioned, to Horseman 612's, Alpa (6x7, 6x9), etc. The Fuji GSW's were around, but weren't particularly wide angle (I used the GSW690III with a 65mm for about ten years starting 91 or 92, still a much bigger camera than the M7).
I like to throw a Bessa T with C/V 21mm lens in my fanny pack when hiking, or M7II with 43mm if my purpose is more specifically photographic. The Bessa T + 21 is smaller, lighter, cheaper (body $185, lens $335), and a little bit better than the stuff GR had or chose to use.
It's too bad he didn't care a little more about the technical quality as well, but it seems gallery prints were truly an afterthought.
My vote is for the Canon 28-135mm IS and Canon 50mm 1.8
The 28-135mm is one of the best non-L zooms Canon makes.
The 50mm 1.8 comes in 2 varieties: mkI - old with a metal mount and all glass... and mkII - plastic mount. Both are great lenses that can be picked up for less that $150 ($75 for the mkII version)
My choice would be a 17-40 F4L, a 50mm F1.8, and the 70-200mm F4L this would give you exceptional quality all the way up to 200mm. It would also be a reasonably light kit. You could always pick up a 1.4x converter later on.
If Airshows are your thing, then a 100-400mm L is the way to go. I would still get the 17-40 F4 and a 28-105mm to fill the gap.
I found this article very handy in finally migrating from my antique Canon F1 bodies and FD lenses to the new age. It will give you a very good summary of what I termed as sleepers. Hope my definition matches yours. http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html
I also read every Canon lens review on this site.
BTW - Galen Rowell was one of my favorites. One of my best friends was able to go to a couple of his workshops years ago, and then she passed on to me to me tidbits of what she learned.
Someone in this thread asked who Rowell was. Here is a brief description. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0814_020814_rowell2.html
I would put the 100-400 in the "sleeper" category. It's a terrific lens, extremely versatile, and a bargain. It won't do you much good in low light situations though.
Another one you shouldn't overlook that I think has only been given one brief mention in this thread is the 15mm f/2.8 rectangular fisheye, either in Canon or Sigma guise. A wonderful, surprisingly useful tool.
Why would people still recommend 28-135 IS? If he gets 20D, he should get 17-85 IS. It is 60g lighter, more usable range and 3-stop IS. Based on the MTF chart, it is at least as good as 28-135 IS
A lens not mentioned yet is the 24/2.8. IMHO, it is one of Canon's best wide-angle primes. This lens is sharp, even wide open at f/2.8. I have mine since 1990 and I'm still very happy with it.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
Galen Rowell often used a 21 (IIRC) Nikkor.
It was the old 20mm f/4 Nikkor. Small & light, great for travel.
I visited Galen & Barbara's gallery when it was in the San Francisco area. Met Galen too and got to see some of his "selects" from a just-completed shoot. The trannies were gorgeous...I enjoyed looking at those far more than the big prints. One of the things we lose with digital is the beauty of a crisp transparency on a light table.
The Bessa-T/21mm combo is very cool. Small, light & inexpensive. I have a T as well and use it mainly with a 40mm Summicron-C. The 40mm is almost pancake size...it's probably the sleeper lens in the Leitz/Leica stable.
If these were mention in this order just ignore.
The kit lens 18-55/S, $100 is a good buy for this lens and will cover most wide angle needs. The 28-135IS and you already picked out one of my favorites the 100-400.
Another more expensive way (but not by much) is the 17-85/S (will leave a gap from 85-100). If you have any money left over get the 50/f1.4 or 50/1.8 in that order.
