Which Canon Lens?

hutchman · February 1, 2004

I have decided to buy a EOS-10D (or whatever replaces it!). I would like some advice on which lens to buy. I would like to buy one or two that would cover most normal photo needs.

I have considered buying the 16-35 f2.8L, but at $1300 it would be the only lens I could buy. I have considered the 28-70 f2.8L and a fixed focal length for a wide angle.
I suspect some of you may have an opinion that you would share.

Thanks,

Hutch

ian408 · February 1, 2004

The answer is that it depends.

A zoom is a nice option. I might go the 70-200 route and get something
shorter as well.

Ian

patch29 · February 2, 2004

It will all come down to how much you want to spend. A great lens for the price is the 17-40 f/4 L it is not as fast but decent focal length.

You could always look at the 24-70/2.8 L, it replaced the 28-70 and is weathersealed, the 28-70 is not.

The 70-200/2.8 IS is also a great lens to add, but pricey.

They also make a 70-200/4.0 L, for a lot less money.

What do you want to do it? You could always get the 17-40 and add a 100/2.8 macro lens.

Lots of options, let us know what is important for you to shoot, how you shoot and what type of a budget you want to stay within.

hutchman · February 2, 2004

Patch,

I guess I want to shoot everything:

Typical family snaps.
Landscapes.
Action.
Some still life.

With that in mind, I really don't want to spend more than 1500 - 1600 bucks to start with. More later, but Mrs. Hutch will most likely put an end to the spending at aroud 4 grand - body, lenses, and accessories etc.

I realize that I may not have the perfect setup to start with, but I would like to have a good system to build on. I would rather spend a little more and get reasonably good quality lenses, than try to get by cheap and not be happy.

Hutch

patch29 · February 2, 2004

hutchman wrote:

Patch,
I really don't want to spend more than 1500 - 1600 bucks to start with. Hutch

with that budget in mind I would go for the 17-40/4 and the 70-200/4, both are L lenses about $700 and $600 respectively. The offer sharp glass, just one stop slower than 2.8 at a considerable savings, over 50% or greater savings. This will give you a good range of lenses to use with a 10D or similar. So at $1300, you come in a little under budget, the savings you can put into a new case, CF cards, spare battery .........

If you decided you wanted a faster lens I would upgrade the telephoto first, but expect to pay about $1130 for std 2.8 and $1650 for 2.8 with IS (70-200).

patch29 · February 2, 2004

I was quoting prices for Canon brand lenses. I prefer them, but many folks use aftermarket brands, have good results and save some money. I would research them if you are interested, but would recommend Canon lenses first.

fish · February 2, 2004

Hutch,

I'm still a n00b with the 10D, but I've got three lenses and like 'em a lot. I can only give you my perspective on these. Obviously YMMV. The 17-40/4L as mentioned is a great lens, and less than half the price of the 16-40/2.8.
One from the 17-40:

I also recently bought the 100/2.8 macro ($470) Wow. Talk about sharp, contrasty, and colorful! I've been having a ball with it. I think it rivals the 105d/2.8 micro-nikkor (which I also own), but is better as a telephoto, imho. Here's one of my shots with it:

Lastly, and this is the surprise of the bunch, is the really inexpensive 24-85/3.5-4.5 zoom ($310). A great everyday versatile lens that's light and crisp. One of my shots with it:

So that's $1500 for three great lenses that let's you do anything from 1:1 macro, wide, and tele zoom. I still lust after the 70-200/2.8, and I *will* get one before too long. Beware of the 70-200/4...I'm sure it's a great lens, but lacks image stabilization, which makes a BIG difference.

BTW, all prices quoted are from bhphoto.com...which I consider to be the best online photo shop on the planet.

FWIW, the 10D is back in stock at bhphoto for $1,499.95 (apparently the rumors about Canon wanting to clear out inventory to make room for a new version are unfounded).

Good luck...yer gonna LOVE the 10D. I love mine more and more everyday.

patch29 · February 2, 2004

fish wrote:

BTW, all prices quoted are from bhphoto.com...which I consider to be the best online photo shop on the planet.

It is an even more impressive store in person. I have yet to see a store that has as many items on the floor and available to look at and handle. It should be on any photographers list of places to stop on a trip to NYC.

patch29 · February 2, 2004

Sorry for the highjack, but I found these links that show the different camera stores in Manhattan and Brooklyn, one way to get and idea of who you are dealing with, not that some are mail order only so why would they have a storefront.

Brooklyn Stores

Manhattan Stores

pathfinder · February 2, 2004

fish wrote:

Hutch,

I'm still a n00b with the 10D, but I've got three lenses and like 'em a lot. I can only give you my perspective on these. Obviously YMMV. The 17-40/4L as mentioned is a great lens, and less than half the price of the 16-40/2.8.
One from the 17-40:

I also recently bought the 100/2.8 macro ($470) Wow. Talk about sharp, contrasty, and colorful! I've been having a ball with it. I think it rivals the 105d/2.8 micro-nikkor (which I also own), but is better as a telephoto, imho. Here's one of my shots with it:

Lastly, and this is the surprise of the bunch, is the really inexpensive 24-85/3.5-4.5 zoom ($310). A great everyday versatile lens that's light and crisp. One of my shots with it:

So that's $1500 for three great lenses that let's you do anything from 1:1 macro, wide, and tele zoom. I still lust after the 70-200/2.8, and I *will* get one before too long. Beware of the 70-200/4...I'm sure it's a great lens, but lacks image stabilization, which makes a BIG difference.

BTW, all prices quoted are from bhphoto.com...which I consider to be the best online photo shop on the planet.

FWIW, the 10D is back in stock at bhphoto for $1,499.95 (apparently the rumors about Canon wanting to clear out inventory to make room for a new version are unfounded).

Good luck...yer gonna LOVE the 10D. I love mine more and more everyday.

Fish has done an excellent job describing the benefits of Canon L glass, but I would suggest that you not turn up your nose at Tamron and Sigma lenses automatically because some of them get very good reviews - The Tamron 90mm Macro is thought very highly of and is half the price of the Canon 100 Macro. The Tamron 180 macro f3.5 DI as well as the 28-75 f2.8 Di are thought well of also.
I own and use a 17-40 Canon and a 70-200 f2.8IS, but I also own the Tamron 180 macro and the 28-75 Di lenses and have been very happy with them.
You must know what you are buying as the cheaper lenses - Canon or Tamron or Sigma - are cheaper for a reason..... A good site for lens evaluations is http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html If money is no object - buy the best Canon L glass - but if you are like most of us with a more modest budget there are other altenatives if you are careful and do your homework.

dakar92 · February 2, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

The Tamron 90mm Macro is thought very highly of and is half the price of the Canon 100 Macro.

Am I missing something here, Pathfinder? B&H lists the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro for the Canon EOS system for $459.95 and, right now, there is a $40 rebate bringing the final price to $419.95. B&H lists the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro for $469.95 for the USA version or $449.95 for the Grey Market version. In other words, the two lenses are about the same price. Since I've been thinking about getting the EF 100mm Macro, I got excited that perhaps I could get the highly rated Tamron for a bit over $200, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Do I have something wrong?

Also, not to highjack, but I'm close to buying the EF 17-40 f/4L for my 10D. Does anyone have any additional comments about this lens? I want it mainly to shoot bridges and buildings in Chicago.

jimf · February 2, 2004

patch29 wrote:

It will all come down to how much you want to spend.

There is that, but I think you can weigh your decisions pretty heavily based on the versatility of the lenses.

I had to make similar decisions recently. If you're going to buy only one lens then I would recommend a quality general purpose lens. Back in my film days my do-everything SLR pretty much had a 35-75mm permanently attached. I had other glass, but I very rarely used it; the mid-range lens was good enough for almost everything but sports.

When I first went digital I had what was in effect a 35-110mm lens and that proved quite versatile. Enough that I almost never picked up the film SLRs despite their vastly superior glass, and almost never used the wide-angle or telephoto adapters I bought for the digital. ('Course that also had something to do with the adapters having really bad quality.)

I bought an EOS-300D just last week and bought three lenses for it; the 17-55mm lens with the kit, a used 28-70L, and a 75-300 IS. I was looking for as broad a range as I could manage for a price that my wife wouldn't string me up for. The biggest deal of the lot is the 17-55, of course, but the lens I have found myself using all the time is the 28-70. Buying it used instead of new saved me enough to take the sting out of the 75-300.

If I were forced to buy new then I would very seriously look at the 24-70L. I am sure I could live with that as my only lens for awhile. YMMV, of course.

hutchman · February 6, 2004

To All -

Thanks for the feedback. I am now in the research mode and will most likely take a week or two to do some thinking.

However, the money is in the bank and I may pull the trigger any time!

Fish - We have the same 24-85 on our 10D at work and do not get near the quality that you seem to get (even after Photoshop). The camera has been back to Canon and they say it is OK. Makes me wonder if we may have a lens problem.

Hutch

pathfinder · February 8, 2004

dakar92 wrote:

Am I missing something here, Pathfinder? B&H lists the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro for the Canon EOS system for $459.95 and, right now, there is a $40 rebate bringing the final price to $419.95. B&H lists the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro for $469.95 for the USA version or $449.95 for the Grey Market version. In other words, the two lenses are about the same price. Since I've been thinking about getting the EF 100mm Macro, I got excited that perhaps I could get the highly rated Tamron for a bit over $200, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Do I have something wrong?

I stand corrected on the price of the 90/100 macro diference. I believe there is about a 2 to 1 difference in the 180 macros of Canon and Tamron, but not apparently of the shorter versions. My bad....

dakar92 · February 8, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

I stand corrected on the price of the 90/100 macro diference. I believe there is about a 2 to 1 difference in the 180 macros of Canon and Tamron, but not apparently of the shorter versions. My bad....

No problem and thanks for the clarification, Pathfinder. You know, it was primarily you that pushed me over the edge and got me to buy a 10D in the first place. That was from your outstanding posts over at ADVrider, mainly in response to Fish's questions. Thank you for getting me (back) into this wonderful hobby.

fish · February 8, 2004

dakar92 wrote:

You know, it was primarily you that pushed me over the edge and got me to buy a 10D in the first place.

I know what you mean. It was pathfinder, baldy, and Marc who all conspired to make me get one too. Now I'm freakin' addicted. :dood

fish · February 9, 2004

fish wrote:

Hutch,
I still lust after the 70-200/2.8, and I *will* get one before too long. Beware of the 70-200/4...I'm sure it's a great lens, but lacks image stabilization, which makes a BIG difference.

I'm going to amend my statement here, after purchasing a 70-200/4. I think the IS makes a big difference if...

You can afford it.
You don't mind carrying around a 3.5 pound lens.
You can't afford to miss a shot (you do it for money).
You shoot a lot of sports.

Otherwise, so far I'm very pleased with the 70-200/4. It's much cheaper and much lighter than it's IS cousin, while having the same image quality. Personally, I can't believe it's only $600.

wxwax · February 9, 2004

How much lighter is it, Fish?

pathfinder · February 9, 2004

fish wrote:

I'm going to amend my statement here, after purchasing a 70-200/4. I think the IS makes a big difference if...
You can afford it.

You don't mind carrying around a 3.5 pound lens.

You can't afford to miss a shot (you do it for money).

You shoot a lot of sports.

Otherwise, so far I'm very pleased with the 70-200/4. It's much cheaper and much lighter than it's IS cousin, while having the same image quality. Personally, I can't believe it's only $600.

I probably would have bought the f4 non-IS 70-200 as well because of value/dollar, but my younger brother bought the 70-200f2.8 IS L first - and well - WHAT COULD I DO?! - let my little brother show me up?? After all he is only 53 - so I went for the gusto to keep up with him.

In all fairness to my brother - his youngest son is playing high school basketball and that is what he bought the lens for and it works very nicely for indoor available light sports photography - but it is HEAVY ( well made and durable ) but NOT light - A 10D with a BG-ED3 battery holder and L bracket and a 70-200f2.8 will develop your biceps if you carry it very long.

Use your new lens in good health Fish - Those hummers are really hard to catch on the fly aren't they? No hummers here in Indiana right now - they left in the fall - Smarter than me heh?

pathfinder · February 9, 2004

dakar92 wrote:

No problem and thanks for the clarification, Pathfinder. You know, it was primarily you that pushed me over the edge and got me to buy a 10D in the first place. That was from your outstanding posts over at ADVrider, mainly in response to Fish's questions. Thank you for getting me (back) into this wonderful hobby.

I am blushing.......and I am self-employed - I do not work for Cannon or Tamron either......

fish · February 9, 2004

wxwax wrote:

How much lighter is it, Fish?

1.56lb vs 3.2lb (3.5 w/ tripod collar).

fish · February 9, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

Use your new lens in good health Fish - Those hummers are really hard to catch on the fly aren't they? No hummers here in Indiana right now - they left in the fall - Smarter than me heh?

Thanks. I'm going to try. Flash and proximity is the trick. Once it warms up here, we'll start getting more and I'll be able to hang out under the feeder to catch 'em on the wing. I got some okay shots with my Nikon CP990 two summers ago. I hope to do better with the 10D.

wxwax · February 10, 2004

fish wrote:

1.56lb vs 3.2lb (3.5 w/ tripod collar).

Wow, that's heavy, especially when you consider that you can get 200mm at 8 megapixles in the lightweight Powershot S1

fish · February 10, 2004

wxwax wrote:

Wow, that's heavy, especially when you consider that you can get 200mm at 8 megapixles in the lightweight Powershot S1

Response A: The proof will be in the pudding.

Response B: There will always be something better around the corner. You could hang out and always want for something better, or you could belly up to the bar and be taking photos tomorrow. Your choice.

wxwax · February 10, 2004

Actually, I was just comparing lens weight versus camera weight. And responding to your query about why anyone would want to buy an expensive Pro1.

hutchman · February 10, 2004

After a lot of consideration this week, I believe that I will purchase the Canon 17-40 F4 L and the Canon 70-200 F4 L. This should give me a good place to start and I think they should hold up to a lot of miles on the bike.

The first big test for this system will be a ride from the Canadian Border south to the Mexican Border on dirt. This route follows the Cont. Divide and should have some spectacular scenary. Pictures to follow!

Hutch

pathfinder · February 10, 2004

hutchman wrote:

After a lot of consideration this week, I believe that I will purchase the Canon 17-40 F4 L and the Canon 70-200 F4 L. This should give me a good place to start and I think they should hold up to a lot of miles on the bike.

The first big test for this system will be a ride from the Canadian Border south to the Mexican Border on dirt. This route follows the Cont. Divide and should have some spectacular scenary. Pictures to follow!

Hutch

When are you planning on riding the Continental Divide Route? - I bought the maps from Adventure Cycling with the intention of riding it on a DR 650 a few years ago but it is hard to get sufficient time from Indiana. But I haven't given up yet - I loved the article in Rider magazine by Clement Salvadori -
I am going to Nathrop Colorado this summer for two weeks to ride the passes around Leadville and shoot pictures - sure sounds like fun right now in the midst of winter doesn't it?

ian408 · February 10, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

When are you planning on riding the Continental Divide Route? - I bought the maps from Adventure Cycling with the intention of riding it on a DR 650 a few years ago but it is hard to get sufficient time from Indiana. But I haven't given up yet - I loved the article in Rider magazine by Clement Salvadori -
I am going to Nathrop Colorado this summer for two weeks to ride the passes around Leadville and shoot pictures - sure sounds like fun right now in the midst of winter doesn't it?

The article on the Divide trail was awesome. The maps Adv Cycling put out are
great for plotting.

Enjoy your time in CO. I know when I go, I want to stay.

Ian

fish · February 10, 2004

hutchman wrote:

After a lot of consideration this week, I believe that I will purchase the Canon 17-40 F4 L and the Canon 70-200 F4 L. This should give me a good place to start and I think they should hold up to a lot of miles on the bike.

The first big test for this system will be a ride from the Canadian Border south to the Mexican Border on dirt. This route follows the Cont. Divide and should have some spectacular scenary. Pictures to follow!

Hutch

Good choices. I can't wait to see your ride report.

Which Canon Lens?

Comments