I have the 17-55 F/2.8. Pricey but a very good all around lens.

The 10-22 is probably too wide angle for your application but I love this lens.

For fixed focal at a bit more length, maybe too long, the 85 1.8 is a deal price wise and has great quality.

For the, I only want to carry one lens setup (travel), I have a Sigma 18-125 OS HSM.

Thanks guys, I should have added that she most likely will need a zoom to cover the subjects of dogs, as you usually cannot vary your position when shooting, often you have to stay outside the show ring.

I like Bruce's choices. I have the Tamron non-IS version of the 17-50 f/2.8 and it's a good lens as well.

I'd avoid variable aperture lenses for video work.

I have both the Canon 17-55mm/2.8 and the Tamron 24-70mm/2.8. Both have image stabilaztion, which is nice for both video and stills.

I don't love the Tamron, but it is a competent lens. My wife uses it as her main walking around lens for stills on her Canon 5D Mark III. The image just doesn't appeal to me for video, but it isn't bad by any means. Her stills are great with it.

The Canon is very sharp and I really like the very straight forward image from it. Depending on how close she'll be, it might not be long enough. If not, the Tamron would likely be my one lens. The Canon really is a very nice lens and a great value, in my opinion. I can hand hold it for video with the great IS, even at 55mm.

Both Canon and Tamron are big and heavy, with the Fanon slightly less so.

I also have the truly outstanding Sigma 18-35mm/1.8, but it is like too wide for what you might want. I actually like the Sigma better than my Zeiss 35/2.0 prime.

Thank you everyone, I have noted the suggestions, and come to the conclusion that my wife needs a zoom in the 15 to 80ish range in order to be able to cover the subjects. She will be mostly using it for stills, not video, so I will be looking to find the best quality glass in that range.

Does any one manufacturer make better quality than others? In other words, what maker should I be favouring?

Just an FYI on the Tamron 17-50nmm, many folks think the non-IS version is a better lens than the one with VC.

She likes to shoot dogs? I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM which, imho, is some amazing glass and would be ideal for dogs. That's the good news. The bad news is it costs about twice as much as a 70D body.

Anyone remember Jazzy the Dog? Shot about 20 minutes ago with this lens.



...Jerry

btw: I did nothing special on this shot. Handheld, bounce flash - took about 5 minutes to set up. Added very gradual vignetting in Lightroom.

70-200 f/2.8 is II is unbelievable zoom lens. I have been wanting one pretty bad. Eventually I know, I must have it. :) rented once and now I want one. Sigma 35 is just as good though.

Wow, that is a pretty high spec lens Jerry, but you are dead on the money, too expensive for this little black duck. I also feel it would be a bit long on the wide end as well for most work, given the crop of the 70D sensor. But certainly something to aspire to.

Perhaps I could buy one of those 'gray lens' drinking mugs just so she does not have 'lens envy' :-)

An inexpensive lens for the 70D is the 18-135 STM "kit" lens. It's a step above the usual kit lens and it really is quiet when you are shooting video. The focus is very fast and when coupled with the 70D's focus system is fun to use with the touch screen. A must have is the $99 50mm nifty fifty. I had an 18-200 Canon zoom but it wasn't fast to focus and the motor was noisy. Love my 70D by the way.

>>>An inexpensive lens for the 70D is the 18-135 STM "kit" lens

I strongly agree. I bought a Canon 60D a few years back, i also bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 lens which is excellent and a Tokina 11-17 2.8 lens (also excellent) I ended buying the Canon 18-135 (pre stm) with the camera because the package deal was ridiculous, like 100 dollars more for the lens, I figured I'd just sell the crappy "kit" lens at some point. But it is such a good lens, much more functional than the 70-200 and light as a feather, fast focus, image stabilization etc. It truly blew me away. I have shot many things with it and I really use it more than my other much more expensive lenses. The 3.5-5.6 speed of the thing clearly had me assuming that it was not a real pro lens, but I find on all of these modern cameras that are so noiseless, I can easily shoot at iso ranges up to 4000 with no noise and with the lens moderately zoomed in gives a very cinematic shallow depth of field even at a 5.6 or f8, for that matter. I can't say enough about how unexpectedly great that particular Canon kit lens is.

I have a couple of lenses from Noktor which are good value for money for the image you get
http://noktor.com/products.php

be careful if you use a matte box some lenses can’t take any weight and get gritty after a while so let the guys know if you use matte boxes and ND filters on your lens.

When I got the 1.2 35mm lens I went out early, very windy low light sunrise sunset with another photographer to get a feel for the lens. @ 2:46 and @ 2:52 there was almost no light as I popped the lens on, the light flooded in. Very nice lens.

[Link=