| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2004 03:58:17 AM · #1 |
Hi guys,
I am about to buy a Canon 10D and some lenses and want your oppinion on the matter. This is what i'm thinking of at the moment:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
(Very nice aperture, good for portraits)
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
(Looks like a nice all-around lens, has Image Stabilizer)
Figure out I can get the whole kit around $2.200 (not shipped to Iceland)
So, should I go ahead or do you have suggestions on what else I should buy?
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 04:11:59 AM · #2 |
| There is a thread on the www.photo.net site that deals exactly with this topic. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 04:12:13 AM · #3 |
If I had more money I'd get these lens
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens $1300.00
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens $1200.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS Autofocus Lens $1600.00
OK that's just a dream, the 50mm lens is a good choice not to sure about the other one. I agree seems like a good all around lens.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 04:43:48 AM · #4 |
I have a 28-135mm IS USM and I am very happy with it apart from I would like to have bigger aperture for low lit situations like Conserts.
I have a 50mm f1,8 wich is my sharpest and also cheapest lens.
Maybe you´d like a telefoto lens with that too?
I have a Sigma 70-300 wich works fine for me and is also cheap..
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 05:28:20 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by jimmyn4:
If I had more money I'd get these lens
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens $1300.00
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens $1200.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS Autofocus Lens $1600.00
OK that's just a dream, the 50mm lens is a good choice not to sure about the other one. I agree seems like a good all around lens. |
...I wish, If we all could afford L lenses.... |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 06:37:04 AM · #6 |
Töffari
I like my 28-135 very much, but agree that I need something a bit faster. I there for allso looking in to buying something like the 50 mm. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 06:42:54 AM · #7 |
The 28-135mm is a wonderful lens. The IS is great and all, but its strength is its zoom range and its sharpness. Good plan on getting the 1.4 for when you need a faster lens.
Message edited by author 2004-01-23 06:43:57.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 07:31:11 AM · #8 |
Sigma, cheap and good...
28-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 who needs IS with 2.8 :) |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 07:38:28 AM · #9 |
I'd definitely consider the Sigma EX line of lenses. A lot of people have had back luck with Sigma's lower end lenses, however most of their EX lenses totally rock.
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Sigma, cheap and good...
28-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 who needs IS with 2.8 :) |
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 07:49:22 AM · #10 |
do you by any chance have ewxperience with the Sigma 24-70mm f2,8?Originally posted by Jacko:
I'd definitely consider the Sigma EX line of lenses. A lot of people have had back luck with Sigma's lower end lenses, however most of their EX lenses totally rock.
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Sigma, cheap and good...
28-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 who needs IS with 2.8 :) |
|
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 07:50:44 AM · #11 |
You might want to PM Mag999 ... he has that one, I do believe.
I have the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX Macro and the Sigma 15-30mm EX. Love 'em.
Originally posted by Nazgul:
do you by any chance have ewxperience with the Sigma 24-70mm f2,8?Originally posted by Jacko:
I'd definitely consider the Sigma EX line of lenses. A lot of people have had back luck with Sigma's lower end lenses, however most of their EX lenses totally rock.
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Sigma, cheap and good...
28-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 who needs IS with 2.8 :) |
|
|
Message edited by author 2004-01-23 07:53:48.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 07:59:37 AM · #12 |
Yeah he told me he had one and loves it too, but I tried one at the store the other day and didnt find it very sharp so I wanted to try to find some more ppl that have used it and see what they think...
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 08:40:14 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Sigma, cheap and good...
70-200 f2.8 who needs IS with 2.8 :) |
I use IS all the time wide-open. This past weekend, I was shooting at an indoor event with crappy (but typical for indoor venues) lighting. I was using ISO 800, 1/125th, f/3.2. The subjects were in motion and would have been impossible to track on a tripod. IS allowed me to hand-hold my camera and get some excellent close-up shots. Even at 1/125th of second shutter speeds, "camera shake" is still a problem at telephoto focal lengths and results in pictures that are less sharp than if the camera had not being moving. Canon's IS technology is amazing at stabilizing the image.
Just my 2¢ |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 09:01:55 AM · #14 |
I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM I really like it, and i recently ordered the Kenko extension tube set soI can do some macro/close up stuff with te 50mm
James
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 10:19:15 AM · #15 |
I did buy the 50/1.8 a while ago. It is probably the second sharpest lens I own (after the 100mm f2.8 macro) and is great in low light. But I hardly ever use it now. The focal length is just kinda boring to me I think.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 11:10:21 AM · #16 |
When the AF quit working on my 50mm f/1.8, i returned it for credit rather than replacing it. I don't really need the 50mm lens either...
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 11:11:28 AM · #17 |
| Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX is good I have both the lenses I said before... Great value, awesome lens for the money and great anyway.. |
|
|
|
01/23/2004 11:23:55 AM · #18 |
I've been looking at a 10D and lenses for a future purchase (hopefully near future). I think I'll be getting the Sigma 12-24, a mid range 28-85 zoom (dunno which one yet) and the Canon 75-300 USM (no IS for me). What I really want is something that is the digital equivalent of my Nikkor 105mm f1.8 lens. That thing was awesome for shooting portraits. Sadly, nobody makes a fast 70mm prime lens. Guess I'll have to settle for either a 50mm or a 85mm.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 12:04:49 PM · #19 |
go with the 50mm lens, if you feel you are going to be using it alot. take into factor that a 50mm will turn into an 80mm lens. I recently just purchsed a Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye and a canon L series 100-400 IS USM. Both are great lenses. I use them all the time. but my 100-400mm turns into a 160mm-640mm at 5.6, and my fisheye turns into a 24mm. not bad for my telephoto zoom, awful for the fisheye. read reviews and test out different lenses...if possible.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2004 12:56:55 PM · #20 |
| I don't really know THAT much... but i have heard may knowledgeable people saying and questioning the point of buying a $1500 camera and then putting the cheapest lenses you can find on it. it is the lenses that get the imagine into the camera after all. It was sudjested to err rather on the camera side. buy really expensive lenses and a cheaper camera if money is a question. i think i agree. i have the 28-135 USM IS lens. i like it. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 04:31:26 AM · #21 |
| Maybe the Sigma 24-70mm f2,8 and a longer tele lens would be a better choice than the Canon 28-135 USM IS? On the longer side I would maybe be looking at something like Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM or Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. Any comments on this? |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 05:45:20 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by leaf:
I don't really know THAT much... but i have heard may knowledgeable people saying and questioning the point of buying a $1500 camera and then putting the cheapest lenses you can find on it. it |
Ditto on all points there. I opted for a 300D because I didn't consider the 10D (roughly 30% more money) worth the extra (for my personal needs). As such, that has freed up more money to buy lenses.
I have a Canon 75-300 mk1, and it's an incredibly versatile lens - in ok to good lighting conditions. In poor light and full telephoto, I'm soon wishing I have a lower f-stop.
I've opted for the Sigma 28-70 EX, which should be arriving soon. That's for instances where I want a closer shot or it's just too dark to use my 75-300. When I've saved my pennies I'll consider buying either the 70-200 EX or the 120-300 EX. I also have a Canon EF-S 18-55, for wide angle shots.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 05:46:17 AM · #23 |
| Sigma 70-200 F2.8 more versatile cos of 2.8 than canon 75-300 and only a little more money... |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 06:01:11 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 more versatile cos of 2.8 than canon 75-300 and only a little more money... |
You're just in denial. :-)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 06:04:44 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
do you by any chance have ewxperience with the Sigma 24-70mm f2,8?Originally posted by Jacko:
I'd definitely consider the Sigma EX line of lenses. A lot of people have had back luck with Sigma's lower end lenses, however most of their EX lenses totally rock.
Originally posted by sn4psh07:
Sigma, cheap and good...
28-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 who needs IS with 2.8 :) |
|
|
From what I understand, the Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX DF (Dual Focus) is better than both the regular Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the 24-28. I have the 28-70 2.8 EX DF and I can tell you that it's a nice lens. The autofocus is a bit slow, but it's accurate and the lens is sharp and it costs $298 everywhere you look.
|
|
