Panasonic G1. That thing is quite incredible.

thinking about getting this lens
EF 50mm f1.8 II

mostly for night shots

read on other forums that its a good lens for night shots

any comments on this lens?

....good in what way? I'd think it's a bit too long even on FF.

So I am just starting to get into photography and I currently have the following lenses:

Canon 50mm f1.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8

I am looking for a good wide angle lens as I know that I take some landscape shots (ie. spanish banks, seawall, etc). Can anyone recommend some to me? Which ones have you used and what have you thought?

11-16mm f/2.8 tokina. I have one on nikon mount and my god is this ever sharp as hell at f/2.8 I can't wait to test it when there is a bit of sun out.

You'll probably get better use out of a tripod for night shots. Even with the low f stop, it won't give you a sharp handheld shot in the dark. It's good for lower light situations though.

I have one, and to be honest, I rarely ever use it. It sits in my camera bag most of the time just because of the fact that it's not wide enough to take a shot indoors and doesn't have enough to get the further away shots. However, for the price, it's a great deal if you can find a use for it.

I second a tripod. Even if you don't want to get a full size one, consider a Joby Gorrilla Pod. I didn't want to carry a tripod for my trip to Japan but found out I was missing a lot of good night shots. Ended up buying a Joby DSLR-Zoom. It's small enough to fit in a camera bag so it's not that much of a hassle to carry.

recommendations for where to get one for a reasonable price
fs has it going for 66 dollars

Are there any other options as well? How does this compare to the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-22?

Hey guys, looking to upgrade my 18-55 IS kit lens on my XSi and was wondering what the next best option is. I can get a 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS for 300? But im looking around and ppl are saying Tamron 17-50 2.8. Help me out?

If that 17-85 is the EF-S, it's the same one I got with my 40D... pretty nice lens, overall. I'd rather have the f/2.8 though...

which place(s) do you buy your lens from

just got my first lens, going to be my 'all around' lens.

vr nikon 18-200mm f3.5/5.6g if-ed

Do you guys think it's worth getting a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS to replace the Tamron 17-55 f2.8 I currently have? The only benefit seems to be the IS and probably a faster focusing (and less noisy) lens. I take mostly scenery photos and the occasional family/friends photo. I also tend to do quite a bit of night photography (although admittedly it's mostly using a tripod).

Is it worth the extra bucks (the lens is twice as expensive as the Tamron, even when buying one used) or should I just save the money for something else?

The canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is a very sharp lens, even on a high pixel density camera like the 50D. The Tamron is a sharp lens too, but I suspect it won't match the canon in sharpness on high resolution sensors. Whether it's worth it to you to get it or not is purely up to you. If you're not going to make prints larger than 11x14 then keep the Tamron, IMHO.

Thanks for the input Senna4ever. I'm still thinking about it, but I think I'll probably just stick with the Tamron for now. I was going to buy a used one from a guy on POTN who was in Canada for $1000CDN. It didn't really feel like a "killer deal" that's cheap enough to justify me ditching the Tamron.

Or...alternately, I can spend it on something else...I've been eyeballing some ultra wide angle lens (Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20) that would probably be more useful. :)

Tokina 11-16 or canon 10-22. The Sigma has slight wavy distortion that is impossible to correct with software.

I have the Tokina 11-16... I love it. It's sharp and super wide. Must have in any basic kit of lenses.

I'm thinking of exchanging my Tamron 28-75 for a Canon 17-55 IS though... any recommendations, experts?

The 17-55 is a very sharp lens, even on a high pixel density sensor like the 50D. I'd say go for it. We got a few in today, but one was DOA for some reason. Weird...very un-canon like.

Yay...got my 17-55 today. Going to have to test it out when I'm done with on call next week!

Where do you work? I am seriously thinking about it... but I don't know if I want to pay full retail pricing just yet :cry:

If I'm not mistaken, Senna4ever works at Beau's.

If you don't want to pay full retail, check out some used ones on Craigslist, Fred Miranda or POTN. It seems the average market price for used 17-55's are about $800USD. Using today's average conversion rate, that's a touch over $1000.

I think I might just bite the bullet and buy one. BTW, do any of you use any filters? I'm still new to photography but do any of you use your filters for a purpose other than to reduce glare and protect the lens? Do any add more color to the picture (ie. polarizing lenses)?

Would you recommend any filters other than a UV one on a 17-55?

Filters do not reduce glare. They can cause glare, flaring or ghosting. Depending on the efficiency of the coatings however, the flaring and ghosting can be greatly reduced. I used to use filters, but not anymore. If I put a filter in front of my lens, it would be a B+W MRC filter.

A UV filter will reduce haze at higher altitudes as well as protecting your front element.

A polarizer does not add colour, it reduces certain reflections so colours can seem more saturated.

^Just about any filter effect can be duplicated (or at least closely simulated) in software... EXCEPT a polarizer. Some of a polarizer's effects (like darkening the sky) can be SOMEWHAT emulated, with some tricky editing... but software won't remove a reflection from glass or water. Times like that are when polarizers are REALLY handy! (And darkening the sky for scenic shots is a good use for them too - it would take a lot of work to get the same effect through software).