lenses for canon 30d

I am upgrading my 10d to the 30d.

I figure this is the time while I can still get something for the 10d.

 

I currently have the following lenses

 

28-90

75-300

50mm

 

I was thinking about getting the 17-85 as well

I am looking for a good lense with good focal lengths with some wide angle

also something that gives me versatility and something that I could use as a

main lens for travel. But if the right combination of lense's I am not worried

about taking all with me on a vacation.

 

would this be a smart choice or should I be thinking about something else?

Looks OK to me, except some redundancy in 28-90 vs. 17-85. I sold my wife's 28-90 on eBay for about $50. Of course, I don't know what you like to shoot.

Shane,

 

The Canon 30D along with the Canon EF-S 17-85 is a fine combination... especially compared to the Canon 10D with the 28-90mm and 75-300mm lenses. I'm not bad mouthing the Canon 10D... it's a fine camera body.

 

The EF-S 17-85mm lens will be a giant improvement over the 28-90mm that you currently own.

 

And, I think you'll enjoy the versatility of the 17-85mm on the 30D.

 

To add my two cents... I'd consider replacing the 75-300mm with the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens (approx $525) in the future. You'd be so pleased with the image quality improvement.

 

You would then have a fine system that would include the Canon 30D, the Canon EF-S 17-85mm, the Canon 70-300mm IS, and a 50mm for low light and portrait situations... a wonderful setup.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

The 17-85 is certainly a good choice of travelling lens. The aperture could be wider but it

does have the image stabiliser (which really does work). After I got it, I sold my 28-90 and

50mm lenses as I never used them. I kept the 75-300 but I've not used it much to be honest!

The 17-85/IS and 70-300/IS are fine lenses. It is an optimal $1000 two lens solution. Better lenses run 2-3 times higher in cost. . .and the benefits are incremental.

 

The 50. . . I presume you are speaking of the 50/1.8. . . despite the cost ($75) and build (plastic mount), it is one of Canons best lenses. You can legitimately debate the merits of this lens compared to the $1000 lenses.

 

The improvements you will see using these two lenses (relative to your current lenses) will far outweigh the improvement from changing bodies. The 28-90 is pretty much at the bottom of the Canon lens food chain.

 

Remember. . .the 30D is merely a 20D with a spot meter and a bigger LCD. The image sensor and chip are the same. Relative to the 10D, you get a slight megapixel advantage (8 vs 6), and image noise at ISO 800 and above improves by one stop (ISO 100-400 performance on both cameras is excellent). Oh. . .and the 17-85/IS won't fit a 10D.

I'm going to disagree a bit with some of the other posters here.

 

I owned the 17-85mm EF-S lens for about a year. On the plus side: it provides a very

useful focal length range in one lens, image stabilization partially makes up for rather

small maximum aperture, build quality is decent (though not stellar), it is relatively small

and light, it can produce decent images under the right conditions (more on this below).

 

On the minus side: It exhibits more vignetting, corner softeness, and pincushion/barrel

distortion than might be expected. As some apertures and focal lengths these problems

can become more of an issue.

 

In the end, I think it can be a fine lens if you really value having a one-lens solution on a

crop sensor body, if you will mostly share your photographs electronically or in relatively

small prints, if you don't shoot subjects where the pincushion/barrell distortions will

matter so much. While I managed to get a few decent 12 x 18 inch prints from mine, many

other good shots wouldn't print well enough for my taste at such sizes - fine details did

not hold up consistently beyond letter size.

 

There are a few other interesting options to think about, and they might work well in

combination with your current lenses:

 

The EF 17-40mm f/4 L is an excellent lens and one of the least expensive L class lenses.

This would give you excellent coverage at the wide end and compliment your 50mm and

70-300mm lenses quite well.

 

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is more expensive, but also a very interesting option. It is

not an L lens, but is reportedly a very good product and it gets you both an extra stop and

image stabilization.

 

Dan

The 17-85 would be a good improvement. Only replace the 75-300 if you use it a lot -

recommend the 70-200 f4.0 or 200 f2.8. Keep the 50.

I brought the 30D with the Canon 17-85mm EF-S lens, and really like it, it is not the sharpest of lenses and I sometimes wish it would open up more, but 17mm is OK, if I need to open up more then a good wide angle lens would prove better, but this is an all-round lens, I have taken some cracking images with this lens, though I do recommend a GOOD polarising filter and a lens hood after that you will have fun, another bonus of this lens is the very good macro ability that it has, it is far from being a macro lens, but up close to plants, wasps, etc., (6") it has taken some really nice pictures, and the detail is great. Dull days are not good, any little bit of blue in the sky can be greyed out, but at lease it does perform better than the 17-55mm, I would recommend it, it is cheaper, and then it saves you a bit of money to get a good quality wide angle lens later on, especially as you do not need any larger ones...

I have a 10d, but I wouldn't consider a 30d an upgrade, just newer.

17-40 f4 and 70-200 f4, you can't go wrong this leaves a hole for your 50mm but you will have top notch lens'

Correct -- a 30D is a marginal upgrade to a 10D. It's a smaller body but definitely WAY less noisy at ISO 400 and higher.

 

Wait. Invest in quality lenses, the two you list are not.

One of the best feature of the 10D vs 20D/30D is the much reduced turn on time. I missed a bunch of shots when I had a 10D waiting for it to wake up (2 secs?). The 20D/30D is virtually instant on. That and the extra 2MP (not a huge difference, but worth having) made it a worthwhile upgrade for me several years ago.

 

If you want something now it's a change that's probably worth making. If you can hold out until the fall, there has to be a good chance of a 40D appearing. It will be 18 months since the 30D was announced and the 30D was more of a 20D Mk II. Canon have to bring out a new model within a year.

thanks for all the help.

I don't want to wait until the fall for the new release because I am taking a big trip to europe in June.

I figure the 30d will be enough of an upgrade to make me happy.

I do want an upgrade in lens. When I first got the camera I was very new to photography and did not know much so this has been a hobby that has greatly expanded for me. With the hopes in the future to do some pro work one day. But my budget does not allow at this point to go out and spend 1000 on a lens.

Thanks for all the input so far, its been really helpful.