Thanks a lot everyone for all your help! I genuinely considered all the options you guys have given me and decided to wait and save up some money to buy the 17-55 f/2.8
Until then I want to get a nice 50mm for portraits etc. so now I have another question...
I'm looking at the Zeiss 50mm f/2.8 and the Canon ef 50mm/1.8 af II, which one do you think is the better buy? They're both very similar in price so I'm not worried about that. I particularly want better sharpness and overall image quality.
I should also mention that the Zeiss comes with a m42 adapter and the canon comes with a Hoya UV Filter. Thanks in advance :D
zeiss lenses are manual focus if i'm not mistaken but they are suppose to be good glass tho.
Is the Sigma 18-200m f/3.5-6.3 OS HSM a good lens?
I've been seeing mixed reviews for it, i have a D5000 and currently trying to replace the stock lens with a good walk around lens, the Nikon 18-200 is out of my budget.
i would not buy a Sigma 18-200mm, a friend of mine had the Canon version and had some issues with it. the Nikons go on fredmiranda for like $550-600. you should just save a little longer for it.
lol those 18-200 lenses or anything like that are complete ass
while i agree with your statement, i took his question as asking for a "good walk around lens" as a good all in one lens. in that case the 17-50 or 18-55 won't be much more versatile than the 18-55.
Should i just get the Nikon f/1.8 35mm instead then? And a new flash? The built in flash sucks balls, i wanna be able to bounce light off the ceiling.
the built in flash does suck but consider how much are you really going to use your flash. its pretty intrusive to use in public places and i find myself using the flash less than i expected. I have the 35mm and I like it a lot.