Personally, I'd say that you should spend your money on a 50mm f/1.8. All $75 of it. But a filter, and the hood as well. You don't need a zoom, just stand closer. After you get bored of 50mm, pick up either a 20mm f/2.8 or a 100mm macro f/2.8. Pick up both! That way you have a wide, a short zoom, and a longer zoom that is also macro. Buy them used if price is an issue.
If you really want a zoom, buy very cheap (used) or very expensive (L series). Getting a lens that has a red stripe really does make a difference because they are so much better than a consumer level lens. It comes down to the purpose of the lens. Consumer lenses are made small, light, and cheap while a professional lens is made to be an excellent optic. Those two paradigms are at opposites ends of the design philosophy so they can't overlap. Bck in 2003 I got a 300D with the 18-55 and a $189 75-300 zoom. I was pretty pleased with having 300mm of zoom for so cheap. Eventually I got a 50mm f/1.8 and I was amazed at how nice the pictures looked over the other lenses. By July of 2004 I had read Phil Greenspun's humorous jabs at yuppies who buy expensive bodies and cheap lenses. I also wanted some more zoom. It had been hard to spend $1500 on a rebel an accessories 8 months before, and it was even harded when I bought a 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS. It really was worth it though. That lens rocks. My latest lens is a 24-70 f/2.8L on a D20 (so at least I have a black body on my white/red-striped lenses instead of a grey body). I don't think I'll ever be able to use a 28-105 f/4-5.6 again. The 24-70 has even made that 50mm f/1.8 look pretty poor, so it hs fallen into disuse. The 20mm f/2.8 still gets used though. As does the 100mm macro f/2.8. -- void *(*(*schlake(void *))[])(void *); * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
