lenses for canon 10D

Hi, we just bought a new canon 10D a week ago before we went to

Canadian Rockies for July 4th weekend. Before , we have a SLR canon

elan 7. The lenses we have are 50mm/1.4 and 28mm/1.8. With the 1.6

multiplier of digital camera, we found none of the lenses work great

anymore esp the 28mm as it is no longer wide angles. I guess for

wide angle shots, you have to get those expensive super wide ones.

We probably would like to purchase a telephoto or a good zoom lense

soon before we go to Italy. Do you have any recommandation on the

canon lense that will work good on the digital 10D?

How wide do you want to go? Look at your existing lenses, see how they work with

film, figure out what focal lengths you use and like, and then decide on a focal length

range based on that.

 

The new 17-40 4L seems to be making its mark as almost affordable pro wide-

angle lens. It'd still be equivalent to 35mm camera's 27-64mm when used on a 10D.

God, those last two sentences were badly mangled. Throw an extra "an" and "a" and

remove a "still."

Hi Vivian,

I've just bought a 10D, and as that has spherically distorted my wallet, I cannot afford to purchase top of the range canon lenses (until next year, anyway). I already had these lenses, which work well together on the 10D :

 

Sigma 17-35mm which becomes 27-56mm

 

Canon 28-80mm which becomes 45-128mm

 

Canon 75-300mm which becomes 120-480mm

 

Hope this helps,

Richard

The Canon 17-40/4L is becoming the "standard" zoom amongst 10D users. It gives you a 27mm wide angle. It is very sharp, and lives up to Canon L standards, but isn't too expensive for a Canon L lens. It's about $500 less expensive than the 16-35/2.8L, and it's considered to be sharper, too. The downside is that you get a slower maximum aperture.

 

Check out the review here:

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

What they said.

 

Other candidates: 20-35 zoom.

 

24/2.8 prime => Excellent reputation, very affordable.

20/?? prime ==> good reputation for a 20, slightly more expensive, but half the price of the 17-40/4L

Hi Vivian - I'm sure you never hear this, but you didn't play Scarlet O' Hara in "Gone With The Wind" by any chance? :) Ditto for the Canon 17-40mm F/4L. I *really* like it. Before I bought it, I had a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX, etc.. lens. (Still do if anyone's interested!) I took it to Yosemite with me, and while it's a very good lens when stopped down, it really doesn't quite hang with the Canon - and the Canon's even wider. Best Wishes . . .

It all depends on how much you want to spend ...

 

Given that you picked up the 10D ... which, at the moment is the reference for its class ... I would personally pick up 3 lens:

 

1. 16-35 2.8L (1.3 lbs)

2. 24-70 2.8L (2.1 lbs)

3. 75-300 4.5-5.6 (1.4 lbs)

 

... but I would be be remiss if I did not bring up the fact that (with the exception of the 75-300) ... the first two lens are very expensive and also very heavy...

 

The last lens, is actually a step down from the "L" series in regards to absolute quality and lens speed ... but the L equivalent is massive and very heavy for casual use ... (3.2 lbs!) The fact that it is an "IS" (Internally Stabalized) lens, helps with the hand holding issue ... but its weight is prohibitive ... and so for the tele end the slower, but much lighter 4.5-5.6 (also IS) is the better general option.

 

With these three lens, you have the equivalent of down to about 26mm ... all the way up to 480 mm (when factoring in the 1.6 "crop" factor). ... with the 16-35 as the general purpose "ultra wide to medium" and the 24-70 for fabulous portraits and mid range shots ... and of course the 75-300 for convient "hand holdable" long telephoto shots with decent sharpness.

 

LCKob