10D owners-- Whats Lenses are in your bag?

10/10/2003 12:04:10 AM · #4

I just got the 10D after test driving with a gang of lenses. I was on a budget and had the bucks for only 1 lens with the body and a pelican case. I chose the 28-200mm f3.5 - 5.6 myself. It is a great all around lens.

Darter02

10/10/2003 12:13:13 AM · #5

Before I bought my 10D I did a lot research into cameras before settling on this one. One of the most recommended to me lenses was the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I bought it as my first lense and love it! The next two lenses I want are the EF 17-40 f/4L USM and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

Canon's Line up //www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html

Darter02

10/10/2003 12:14:37 AM · #6

Oh, here's an interesting review comparing the 16-35 and the 17-40.

//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

10/10/2003 12:30:40 AM · #7

I have the 28mm F2.8, 50mm F1.4 and 70-200 F4L.

The 28 is a great 'normal' lens and is very sharp and one of the cheapest lenses Canon makes. Very small and light, and the build quality is just fine. The autofocus is very buzzy (no USM) but the travel is so short that it's not really a concern. I debated saving for the 28 1.8 but I'm not missing the extra brightness so far. I also went for the prime at the wide end as I'm probably going to get the 17-40 F4L at some time in the future, but shouldn't spend the money on it just yet.

The 50 is my favourite lens as it's sharp, contrasty, usable in really, really dim light and is able to produce a very shallow depth of focus when necessary. It's also very light and inconspicuous on the 10D...unlike the 70-200.

The 70-200 is a great, flexible lens for sports and portraits. Very, very sharp for a zoom, good colour and contrast, wickedly fast autofocus, light, and very durable. The downside is that you'll get a few looks when walking around town with it (especially when the lens hood is on). A white lens means 'pro' to a lot of people and I sometimes feel uncomfortable. When shooting sports, though, it's great to feel legit with the equipment, even though you shouldn't need equipment to feel legitimate.

Lenses I will most likely be buying in the future:

300 F4L. A non-IS, used version if I can find it. The 70-200 is long but for sports (especially field sports) I feel I need something longer. The 1.4x telecon will be bought at some point as well, and I'll be able to use it with both lenses.

17-40 F4L. Good wide walkaround, and great landscape lens.

100 F2.8 macro. For macros! Also a good medium telephoto when the F4 lenses are not bright enough.

1.4x teleconverter. Usable on any L lens 135mm and up.

Message edited by author 2003-10-10 00:48:08.

Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

10/10/2003 12:42:17 AM · #8

Buzz, the 70-200 2.8 will be an astounding portrait lens, as the F4 version I have is able to produce excellent, smooth background blur at F4. F2.8 will be one stop better in this respect.

KBrown, I'd go 17-40 instead of 16-35 as the extra stop probably isn't worth the cash for me. Given the wide depth of focus even at 2.8 on my 28mm, I can say that the abilities to blur the background with the 16-35 won't be terribly different than the 17-40, and at really short focal lengths it's possible to hand-hold at low shutter speeds. The ISO flexibility of a DSLR does something to diminish the need for the extra stop. If I were shooting film it may be different, but a lot of people are buying and using the 17-40 as it's just a better value all around.

Message edited by author 2003-10-10 00:43:07.

buzzrock

Fujifilm X-M1

10/10/2003 01:11:25 AM · #9

So should I not get the 50mm F/1.4 for portaits? I was thinking I was gonna need that--, would the 70-200 F/2.8 make a good enough portait lens on its own-- even If I have to be a few feet farther away?

Also how does the 50MM do for other shots than portaits given it can do F/22

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/10/2003 01:36:36 AM · #10

Get a 50, definitely get a 50. I love the 1.4 but the 1.8 is supposedly good too. For very low light and a wider shot, the 50 is better than the 70-200, of course. For headshots the 70-200 will be great at a longer range, and of course flexible as a zoom. That, and the 70-200 F2.8 is quite heavy (over 3 pounds) whereas the 50 1.4 is small and light. Even the 50 is a bit long on a 10D/300D for more than head and shoulders at a conversational distance. To get a full-length portrait with the 50 you'll have to be a good 15 feet away in most cases. They're built for entirely different purposes but are both good portrait lenses.

As for the 50 for other purposes, yeah it's very sharp when stopped down and makes a great landscape lens when necessary. I shot this with it, handheld:

Message edited by author 2003-10-10 01:45:16.

jab119

10/10/2003 08:41:16 AM · #11

I am still debating several lenses for my D60 for X-Mas gifts to my self..

however I do highly recommend the Canon remote. Its awesome

Canon TC-80N3

James

Froogle Rawks Da House

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

10/10/2003 09:29:11 AM · #12

Originally posted by buzzrock:

I got the 50mm f/1.8 because it was cheap. I use it all the time. Incredible clarity and pretty fast. I don't use it for portraits though because I have to get too close and models generally become uncomfortable when you get close enough for a 50mm to get a good head shot. I use a 70-300mm Quantaray and get it around 100mm. The industry standard for portraits is between 100-135mm. My portfolio suffers from the lack of enough closeups and having too many 50mm full body or full setting shots (see my Portraits on PBase in my sig). If I were you and had to trade off anything I'd get the 70-200mm and use it for most of my portrait work and then pickup one of the 50mm f/1.8 for about $70 USD. That will give you a good range of focal lengths and f-stops. My widest angle is a 35mm so I can't help you much on that end but the majority of what I've shot is portraits and I definitely think you'd be helping yourself with that 70-200mm.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/10/2003 09:54:50 AM · #13

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

(see my Portraits on PBase in my sig).

You've got some very good stuff there Kevin, impressive! Redhead is my favourite, very professional.

I bought 4 lenses when I bought the 10D. In the wide angle department I bought the Sigma 15-30, the most expensive one and also the one I use the least :-( It's a very good lens though. I also have the standard Canon 28-135 IS which I use the most and have all my filters for. I also have the Canon 70-300 IS which I love, especially for candids. For some reason this lens doesn't have the best reviews, I don't understand why because I have no problems with it at all. And in the macro/portrait sector I have the Sigma 105 f/2.8 which I recommend totally. It can be a little slow to focus sometimes but the results are always clear and sharp. Jacko and Mag convinced me to get these lenses so I couldn't go wrong there I guess. Thanx guys.

In November I'm going to spash out and get two more lenses. Of course, thanks to Carsten and Eddy who convinced me, I'll get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8, it is a must so I am told, and looking at their results I believe them. I'll also get the Canon 50mm f/1.4. Then I'll probably need to buy a wheelbarrow as well so I can carry the whole lot with me everywhere.

If you don't see anymore submissions from me after November it's because I'm in hiding somewhere, being on the run from my bank manager :-) (not to mention my wife!)

carsten

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/10/2003 10:24:42 AM · #14

My three first lenses were
Canon 100mm/2.8 macro,
Canon EF 28-135/3,5-5,6 IS and
Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 IS USM.
And I agree with Gary about the two last ones. I love the 28-135mm and the 75-300mm is great "on the town". I donÂ´t understand why some people donÂ´t like them. They have the IS that makes them so usefull.
Then I have bought
Canon EF 17-40/4L (Good but I regret I didnÂ´t buy the 16-35mm intead),
Canon EF 50/1,8 II (a "must have" because itÂ´s cheap and good),
Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L IS (SOOOO GOOOD!) and yesterday
Canon EF 24-70/2,8 L (will get it next week).
The 70-200mm with the 1.4x extender works very good.

My problem is to decide wich ones to bring when I go out because I canÂ´t bring them all. But itÂ´s a rather pleasant problem.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/10/2003 10:29:36 AM · #15

Originally posted by carsten:

Mental note: Buy two wheelbarrows, one for Carsten and his artillary too.

carsten

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/10/2003 10:44:43 AM · #16

Gary, a strong wife is enough!(Hope she doesnÂ´t read this on her work trip to Stockholm because if so she kills me tomorrow.)

STEINR

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

10/10/2003 10:47:29 AM · #17

has anyone ever used or considered the sigma 170-500mm?

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/10/2003 12:03:03 PM · #18

I started with the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 because the 28-135 didn't seem wide enough when you consider the 1.6 crop factor (28mm x 1.6 = 45mm). This was an ok starting point, but really not fast enough for my purposes.

I added the 50mm f/1.4 which is now my favorite lens.

I ordered the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM from Dell, but it won't ship until mid November.

The debate now is between a fast prime wide, 24 maybe, vs 24-70mm f2.8?

dwoolridge

10/10/2003 12:25:47 PM · #19

Originally posted by STEINR:

has anyone ever used or considered the sigma 170-500mm?

I have one. And, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. It's AF is incredibly slow and it hunts quite a bit, so it's not ideal for birds in flight: With a little effort and much patience you can be moderately successful with it though. It gets you quite a bit closer to your subject than other lenses and this is its most redeeming quality. The bokeh sucks large and it's far from sharp, but it gets the job done.

Edit: Example shots link removed.

Message edited by author 2003-10-30 10:51:18.

buzzrock

Fujifilm X-M1

Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

10/10/2003 05:23:57 PM · #20

Thanks so Much for all your input--

I think I have decided based on your guys opinions and other research Ive been doing--

I have found a camera store that is an hour away that can almost match BHPhoto's prices--

So I think Im going--

10D--
28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS
50 F/1.4
70-200 F/2.8 L IS
1.4 Converter
Canon 100MM Macro
420 EX SPeedlight

That equalls just a few dollars over 5000--

Could save money and go with the Canon 50 F/1.8 and the Sigma 105 Macro

Will pick up a CF card online for cheap and probably get the Shutter release too

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/10/2003 05:29:10 PM · #21

I'm planning to get a 75-300mm USM and a 28-105mm USM as my 2 starting lenses for the 300D. Do you think I will suffer without IS on the 300mm? I can't afford the IS version, so it's a case of either not bothering with it at all because IS is so vital, or going for it and getting a few (or many? this is where i need advice) blurry shots.