I plan to start saving money in order to buy a Canon EOS 10D camera. However, the problem I have lies with the purchasing of lenses.

Here are the lens choices that I have made thus far and why.

• Canon EF 50mm f1.4 (~$295)
  portrait photography / some general use
• Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (~$450)
  macro photography / some portrait
• Sigma 28-135mm f3.8-5.6 Aspherical IF Macro (~$130)
  All-around photography (would like more of a lower focal length to cover the 1.6x cropping factor of the 10D, but those get a bit too expensive... this would give me the 50mm approximate that is good for general use).

That makes the total cost $875, which is about the maximum that I wish to spend. I'd like to get some longer focal-length lenses, but I think that's cost prohibitive right now.

From what I've read of the reviews, these lenses stack up fairly well. The Sigma lens is the only one that seems in the average to good range. I guess I'm just looking for people's opinions to help me get started with a new system.

Again, I love playing around with macro photography, and the lens I chose will give me a good 1:1 for macro. I also wish to do high quality portrait work, and hopefully the f1.4 of the 50mm lens will help isolate the subjects and not feel distant since it's about 80mm when cropped in the 10D. The only questions I really have are for the lower focal lengths... I need something that I can use where I won't be able to back up to frame the shot. Should I go with a prime lens? If so, what size (taking into consideration the 1.6x crop of the 10D).

I'm curious as to why you have chosen the 50mm as a portrait lens? I'm not sure of the conversion from traditional slr to digital, but won't the 50mm in effect become a wide-angle lens? Probably better suited for landscape work? Surely the best choice for portraits would be something that would be equivilant to a 105mm lens. Which is traditionally the best focal length for portraits. Again as I said I'm not sure of what focal length changes become when converted to digital. Donald is our resident Canon user, recently converted to digital. He's also very knowledgable in the technical stuff so maybe he can help you with this.

Ehhh....never mind me! I got my math all backwards and I guess that should be more like an 80mm? See! I told you I didn't know how to do this conversion stuff..... :~)

Mike - Cool beans. I'll be going in and picking up my 10D tomorrow. I've been looking and I think the lens I am going to be getting for mine, in about a month, as my standard lens is the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. It's an oustanding all around lens with image stabilization. On the 10D it becomes a 45-216mm f/3.5-5.6 and the IS really makes it act more like a lens that's 1 to 2 stops better (because you can shoot handheld with slower shutter speeds than normal). With an $875 lens budget, I would probably go with the 28-135mm IS (which sells for $350-400 or so) and the 100mm f/2.8 macro. -=>Donald

...hummm... Canon has a full-size ccd... sop a 50mm lens is a general use lens but not a portrait one... 105 is a better choice for a portrait... But i feel more copnfortable buying a couple of good zooms... like a 35-70 f2.8 and a 70-200...

@Michelle: Yes, with the conversion the 50mm is the equivalent an 80mm. For portrait I think the macro 100mm is the best choice in this case. (will be a 160mm) For quality photos with no much light the 50mm 1.4 must be superb.

Artax - only the EOS 1DS has a full size-CMOS array (1x multiplier). EOS 1D (which is CCD) has a 1.3x multiplier, EOS D30/D60/10D have 1.6x multipliers. If you want a close to the DOF control that the 50mm gives you but for portraits, I'd probably go with the 85mm f/1.8. Yea, you lose some DOF control (it's like a .7-stop difference between the two), but it lets you get further back. For me, that's important as I don't want to invade the comfort zone of the person I'm shooting. But that could just be me. Enax - I couldn't believe when Canon came out with their 50mm f/1.0L pro lens. Saw a review where a guy was shooting handheld at dusk on a riverbank and the images were crisp. Yowza! :) -=>Donald

I wish to have at least one lens that's going to get me some great night shots. That's the secondary reason I chose the 50mm f1.4 lens (since all other 1.4's out there are larger/smaller focal lengths and much more costly). It will also give a great DOF to portraits, but would they look alright since it's the equivalent of an 80mm lens? As well, I'd really love to keep the 1:1 macro of the 100mm f/2.8 lens that I listed in the first post because I wish to explore macro photography. The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is .7-stop? So, if I'm correct, one full stop is 2 times the light, giving the former a 1.4x light advantage ( 2 x .7 ) as well as having the shorter DOF. If I were to stay with the 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2.8 macro knowing that I wish to capture portraits, night shots, and macro shots, what would be recommended as a third lens? What also needs to be kept in mind is that with those lens choices, there's no good lens that's going to allow me to take pictures where backing up isn't desired (since those lenses are 80mm and 160mm respectively). Would it be best to save up more and get the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens as suggested by DHolman in the fourth post? This would be ~$1145 total for the lenses + $1250 for the 10D = $2395 That's would be quite a bit to save up for. Just trying to figure things out so that I can get started. Thanks for the help thus far!

Michael - I tend to like zoom lenses because of my street and event photography. For instance, my main lens has been the Sigma 28-200mm. That way I can go from wider angle shots to closeup portrait without having to worry about changing lenses or carrying extra stuff. For what you want to do, those two lenses will be good. I'd probably opt to use the 100mm and step back a bit rather than the 50mm for portraits. Although, I have seen some photographers who have shot portraits with 85mm and even 50mm and they have looked great with no distortion (I have no idea how they do that, I've never been able to do it). With what you said above, the three choices you have made look to fit what you want to do and how you want to use them. I would still prefer the Canon 28-135mm IS over the Sigma, but you have to go within your budget. I know that feeling well, I had to figure a new flash and off-camera shoe cable into my camera budget since I can't use my current TTL flash setup with the 10D. :/ Oh yes, one thing you want to find out before you buy it is if the Sigma lens works correctly with the 10D. There are some Sigma lenses that do not. You can send them back to Sigma for reprogramming, but that's just a pain in the butt. -=>Donald

I know 80mm seems to work fine for portrait work. If you check out my gallery, the two portraits I have there were taken with my AE-1 and a Sigma 39-80mm f/3.5 FD lens out at 80mm and lens wide open using natural light. There's not tight budget that I'm adhering to because I'm just going to start saving up all of my extra money to do this. I might be able to have about 50% of what I need sometime around September. I'm not sure if I'm going to use any of the extra money from school or loan money to help get it sooner or not. Right now, I'm just in the research and planning phase. Looking at the startup costs, I shouldn't be making half-hearted purchases and regret them later. I think I'll try to see if I can get the EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8 macro, and EF 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM. It may be until the end of this year, but I'll try my best to save as much as possible.