Which lens to get for my Canon 10D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nigal, Nov 11, 2003.

  1. nigal

    nigal Guest

    I currently only have a standard 50mm lens for my 10D. I'm looking to get
    my first good zoom lens. I saw some reviews on the EF 17-40 f/4L USM and
    that seems like a good choice.

    Is there another lens by maybe Tameron or Sigma that is comparable?

    Is the Canon 17-40 a good choice if I'm willing to spend the $800 for the
    lens?

    Thanks!

    Vince
     
    nigal, Nov 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nigal

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <QK%rb.21969$>, nfinn9876
    @yahoo.com says...
    > I currently only have a standard 50mm lens for my 10D. I'm looking to get
    > my first good zoom lens. I saw some reviews on the EF 17-40 f/4L USM and
    > that seems like a good choice.
    >
    > Is there another lens by maybe Tameron or Sigma that is comparable?
    >
    > Is the Canon 17-40 a good choice if I'm willing to spend the $800 for the
    > lens?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Vince


    Good for what? Does the 17-40 cover the zoom range that you will use
    most for your style of photography? Will the f/4.0 max aperture limit
    you in any way?

    For my 10D I currently have the 50mm f/1.8, 28-135IS, and 70-200 f/4L
    and I am very happy with all three. The 17-40 is my next purchase. It is
    a fantastic lens as long as it fits your particular needs.

    --
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nigal

    Don Coon Guest

    "nigal" <> wrote in message
    news:QK%rb.21969$...
    > I currently only have a standard 50mm lens for my 10D. I'm looking to get
    > my first good zoom lens. I saw some reviews on the EF 17-40 f/4L USM and
    > that seems like a good choice.
    >
    > Is there another lens by maybe Tameron or Sigma that is comparable?
    >
    > Is the Canon 17-40 a good choice if I'm willing to spend the $800 for the
    > lens?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Vince


    I'll tell you in about 3 hours : ) assuming UPS is on schedule. I picked the
    17-40 after exhaustive research on the web -- enough so that my eyes need a
    dose of USM : )

    BTW, the 17-40 is $699 at B&H -- best combination of price and retailer
    reputation, IMHO.
     
    Don Coon, Nov 11, 2003
    #3
  4. nigal

    Don Coon Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message > Good for what?
    Does the 17-40 cover the zoom range that you will use
    > For my 10D I currently have the 50mm f/1.8, 28-135IS, and 70-200 f/4L
    > and I am very happy with all three. The 17-40 is my next purchase. It is
    > a fantastic lens as long as it fits your particular needs.


    Interesting that we agree almost totally in lens selection....... except
    that I bought the 17-40 first : )

    50 f/1.8, 17-40 f4 L, 28-135IS, 70-200 f/4L soon to replace my 75-300 USM
    IS.

    How's the 70-200 in actual use compared to the 28-135? Probably no chance to
    compare it with the 75-300?


    >
    > --
    > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    > Todd Walker
    > http://www.toddwalker.net
    > Canon 10D page:
    > http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
     
    Don Coon, Nov 11, 2003
    #4
  5. nigal

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <RH7sb.172420$Tr4.460909@attbi_s03>,
    coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > How's the 70-200 in actual use compared to the 28-135? Probably no chance to
    > compare it with the 75-300?
    >


    Hey Don, haven't talked to you in a while. I love the 70-200. The
    results are of noticeably higher quality than the 28-135 which as you
    know is a great lens. The 70-200 has better contrast and more saturated
    colors, as you would expect from an L lens. It's only a little heavier
    than the 28-135 so it is easily handholdable. The zoom ring is also
    smoother and the overall construction of the lens is first rate.

    Haven't used the 75-300 so I can't comment...

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 11, 2003
    #5
  6. nigal

    Jim Townsend Guest

    nigal wrote:

    > I currently only have a standard 50mm lens for my 10D. I'm looking to get
    > my first good zoom lens. I saw some reviews on the EF 17-40 f/4L USM and
    > that seems like a good choice.
    >
    > Is there another lens by maybe Tameron or Sigma that is comparable?
    >
    > Is the Canon 17-40 a good choice if I'm willing to spend the $800 for the
    > lens?


    I'd get the EF 17-40L. Tameron and Sigma do make zoom lenses of around the
    same focal lengths, and of decent quality. (I'm not a Sigma slammer :) But..
    if you can afford Canon 'L' glass, go for it.

    But.. Most importantly, what kind of shooting do plan to do ?

    I couldn't *live* with a maximum focal length of 40mm (64mm with the crop). My
    favorite lens is my EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. I use it the most. (Of course my
    passion is nature photography). You wouldn't want to be photographing things
    like wild bears with a 40mm lens :)

    If landscapes, architecture and interior photography are your thing, the 17-40
    will fill the bill quite nicely. But.. it will be limiting if you want to do
    other stuff. In this case, you should also be looking for a zoom or primes
    with focal lengths of between 28mm and 150mm.
     
    Jim Townsend, Nov 11, 2003
    #6
  7. "nigal" <> wrote in message
    news:QK%rb.21969$...
    > I currently only have a standard 50mm lens for my 10D. I'm looking to get
    > my first good zoom lens. I saw some reviews on the EF 17-40 f/4L USM and
    > that seems like a good choice.
    >
    > Is there another lens by maybe Tameron or Sigma that is comparable?


    Here's a sample from a Sigma 24-70 EX ($330) wide open both ways at f2.8 and
    24mm. Great edge to edge sharpness, I'm really happy with it. The
    oringinal RAW file was a stop overexposed and pulled back some, not the
    len's fault...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204

    Though for the 10D, I'd recommend the HF which has almost indistinguishable
    sharpness for $89, unless you really need f2.8.

    > Is the Canon 17-40 a good choice if I'm willing to spend the $800 for the
    > lens?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > Vince
    >
    >
     
    George Preddy, Nov 11, 2003
    #7
  8. nigal

    Don Coon Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <RH7sb.172420$Tr4.460909@attbi_s03>,
    > coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > > How's the 70-200 in actual use compared to the 28-135? Probably no

    chance to
    > > compare it with the 75-300?
    > >

    >
    > Hey Don, haven't talked to you in a while. I love the 70-200. The
    > results are of noticeably higher quality than the 28-135 which as you
    > know is a great lens. The 70-200 has better contrast and more saturated
    > colors, as you would expect from an L lens. It's only a little heavier
    > than the 28-135 so it is easily handholdable. The zoom ring is also
    > smoother and the overall construction of the lens is first rate.
    >
    > Haven't used the 75-300 so I can't comment...
    >


    Have you missed the IS on the 70-200? I assume you have so the better
    question is how significant is the lack of IS?

    Got my 17-40 about 2 hours ago but haven't had time to play with it since I
    also got some studio lights at the same time. It's gloomy outside so I gave
    the studio priority. So much fun, so little time : )

    Guess I'm going to order the 70-200 pretty soon. I see that 75-300 USM
    *with* IS are going for between $350 and $400 on Ebay. That's a pretty good
    down payment on the 70-200. Got my better half to agree : )

    Cheers
     
    Don Coon, Nov 11, 2003
    #8
  9. nigal

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <G2csb.123631$mZ5.831828@attbi_s54>,
    coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > Have you missed the IS on the 70-200? I assume you have so the better
    > question is how significant is the lack of IS?
    >


    Yeah, I've missed it but it's not too bad. If you need a higher shutter
    speed, just crank up the ISO a notch. That's what's great about the 10D
    -- you don't have to worry about going to 800 because the noise will
    still be almost insignificant. I wouldn't step down to the quality of
    the 75-300 just to get IS.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 12, 2003
    #9
  10. nigal

    jean Guest

    I just got a 70-200 2.8 and it IS a hevy beast. How is the 75-300 for
    general carrying around and on trips?

    Jean

    "Todd Walker" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > In article <G2csb.123631$mZ5.831828@attbi_s54>,
    > coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > > Have you missed the IS on the 70-200? I assume you have so the better
    > > question is how significant is the lack of IS?
    > >

    >
    > Yeah, I've missed it but it's not too bad. If you need a higher shutter
    > speed, just crank up the ISO a notch. That's what's great about the 10D
    > -- you don't have to worry about going to 800 because the noise will
    > still be almost insignificant. I wouldn't step down to the quality of
    > the 75-300 just to get IS.
    >
    > --
    > __________________________________
    > Todd Walker
    > http://www.toddwalker.net
    > Canon 10D page:
    > http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    > __________________________________
     
    jean, Nov 13, 2003
    #10
  11. nigal

    BoodieMan Guest

    In article <ITPsb.8536$>,
    says...
    > I just got a 70-200 2.8 and it IS a hevy beast. How is the 75-300 for
    > general carrying around and on trips?


    I would prefer a heavier lens, easier to hold still. And the optics are
    much better on the 70-200 2.8
     
    BoodieMan, Nov 13, 2003
    #11
  12. nigal

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <ITPsb.8536$>,
    says...
    > I just got a 70-200 2.8 and it IS a hevy beast. How is the 75-300 for
    > general carrying around and on trips?
    >
    > Jean
    >


    Jean,

    I don't have the 75-300 so I don't know. In my post I was referring to
    the 28-135 when talking about IS.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 13, 2003
    #12
  13. nigal

    Don Coon Guest

    "BoodieMan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <ITPsb.8536$>,
    > says...
    > > I just got a 70-200 2.8 and it IS a hevy beast. How is the 75-300 for
    > > general carrying around and on trips?

    >
    > I would prefer a heavier lens, easier to hold still. And the optics are
    > much better on the 70-200 2.8


    Now wait a minute : ) I agree the 70-200 2.8 is a better lens but the 75-300
    is far easier to carry around on trips and is heavy enough to be easy to
    hold. I don't think the 70-200's 3.2 pounds should be considered an
    advantage.
     
    Don Coon, Nov 14, 2003
    #13
  14. nigal

    jean Guest

    "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> a écrit dans le message de
    news:MpXsb.144838$ao4.463479@attbi_s51...
    >
    > "BoodieMan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <ITPsb.8536$>,
    > > says...
    > > > I just got a 70-200 2.8 and it IS a hevy beast. How is the 75-300 for
    > > > general carrying around and on trips?

    > >
    > > I would prefer a heavier lens, easier to hold still. And the optics are
    > > much better on the 70-200 2.8

    >
    > Now wait a minute : ) I agree the 70-200 2.8 is a better lens but the

    75-300
    > is far easier to carry around on trips and is heavy enough to be easy to
    > hold. I don't think the 70-200's 3.2 pounds should be considered an
    > advantage.
    >


    For travelling, the 70-200's weight would be a big disadvantage, it's almost
    twice the weight of the 75-300 (45oz vs 24oz) When hiking or biking, less
    weight is always an advantage. Il'l reserve judgement untill I have had
    more time with my new 70-200.

    Jean
     
    jean, Nov 14, 2003
    #14
  15. "George Preddy" <> wrote:

    .... snip ...
    >Here's a sample from a Sigma 24-70 EX ($330) wide open both ways at f2.8 and
    >24mm. Great edge to edge sharpness, I'm really happy with it. The
    >oringinal RAW file was a stop overexposed and pulled back some, not the
    >len's fault...
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
    >
    >Though for the 10D, I'd recommend the HF which has almost indistinguishable
    >sharpness for $89, unless you really need f2.8.


    Hi George,

    That looks like a beautiful site.
    Where is it?

    Thanks
    Mike J.
     
    Mike Johnston, Nov 15, 2003
    #15
  16. nigal

    Paul L Guest

    "Mike Johnston" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote:
    >
    > ... snip ...
    > >Here's a sample from a Sigma 24-70 EX ($330) wide open both ways at f2.8 and
    > >24mm. Great edge to edge sharpness, I'm really happy with it. The
    > >oringinal RAW file was a stop overexposed and pulled back some, not the
    > >len's fault...
    > >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
    > >
    > >Though for the 10D, I'd recommend the HF which has almost indistinguishable
    > >sharpness for $89, unless you really need f2.8.

    >
    > Hi George,
    >
    > That looks like a beautiful site.
    > Where is it?
    >
    > Thanks
    > Mike J.
    >


    Just out of curiousity, does ANYONE recommend the Canon 16-35? I'm surprised not one person mentioned it. I myself am debating between the two...
     
    Paul L, Nov 18, 2003
    #16
  17. The Sigma 15-30 EX is an incredible lens too. But both of those aren't very
    practical for one's only lens.

    "Paul L" <> wrote in message
    news:icjub.73664$...

    "Mike Johnston" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote:
    >
    > ... snip ...
    > >Here's a sample from a Sigma 24-70 EX ($330) wide open both ways at f2.8

    and
    > >24mm. Great edge to edge sharpness, I'm really happy with it. The
    > >oringinal RAW file was a stop overexposed and pulled back some, not the
    > >len's fault...
    > >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
    > >
    > >Though for the 10D, I'd recommend the HF which has almost

    indistinguishable
    > >sharpness for $89, unless you really need f2.8.

    >
    > Hi George,
    >
    > That looks like a beautiful site.
    > Where is it?
    >
    > Thanks
    > Mike J.
    >


    Just out of curiousity, does ANYONE recommend the Canon 16-35? I'm surprised
    not one person mentioned it. I myself am debating between the two...
     
    George Preddy, Nov 18, 2003
    #17
  18. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bpd23e$i4m$...
    SNIP
    > Just out of curiousity, does ANYONE recommend the Canon 16-35? I'm

    surprised
    > not one person mentioned it. I myself am debating between the two...


    Why? It won't fit your Sigma SD9.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 18, 2003
    #18
  19. Reply to the correct person, please.

    "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message
    news:3fba2002$0$58710$4all.nl...
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bpd23e$i4m$...
    > SNIP
    > > Just out of curiousity, does ANYONE recommend the Canon 16-35? I'm

    > surprised
    > > not one person mentioned it. I myself am debating between the two...

    >
    > Why? It won't fit your Sigma SD9.
    >
    > Bart
    >
    >
     
    George Preddy, Nov 19, 2003
    #19
  20. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bpferi$1uu$...
    > Reply to the correct person, please.


    Sorry, must have been the strange way you quoted the question and top
    posted, that caused the confusion.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 19, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JJ
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    775
    Warren Jones
    Jul 21, 2003
  2. SteveJ

    Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens

    SteveJ, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    863
    Steve m...
    Jun 14, 2004
  3. Stimp

    which lens to get for Canon 400D?

    Stimp, Oct 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    522
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,020
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Ray Fischer

    Re: Which telephoto lens to get for Canon 400D (sub-$800)

    Ray Fischer, Dec 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    405
    Paul Furman
    Dec 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page