Best zoom for a 10D?

[bob_prichard]

My Canon 28-200 zoom has finally bitten the dust after two decades of

use. I am wondering whether to buy a new one or look for a

replacement. I see that Tamron has a new 28-300 zoom especially

designed for digital cameras? Is this just marketing hype, or is the

lens better than prior Tamron zooms? How do the Tamron zooms stack up

with the Canons? I have not been able to find any tests or reviews of

the new Tamron. Does anyone have any information that would be

helpful in making a decision?

 

I have also thought of going with the Canon 70-200 f4.0 L as it is

fairly light. I don't really need IS or a big aperture and my back

and neck appreciate keeping the weight down. Anyone have experience

with this lens. I have a 17-40 that would cover the low end.

[John Crowe]

A 50/1.8 and a 70-200/4 L would do extremely well for you! There are lots of discussions involving this lens in this forum.

[johnrwoods]

The 50 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4L are incredibly great lenses, especially for their prices, I couldn't recommend them enough (I use both on my 10D).<p>

 

I think you also can't go wrong with the 17-40 F/4L. Im planning on primes for my wide end though (15mm f/2.8, 24 f/1.8*, 35 f/2*). I need the speed and light weight for low-light concert work.<br>

*Don't have the last two of those primes yet, soon though :)<p>

 

I think I might end up buying the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS, for a walk-a-round/general purpose zoom. Heard many good things about this lens for it being a "consumer" lens, plus you get IS. Might be worth looking into for yourself.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

The 28-135 is an ideal walk-around lens for the 10D - or a 35mm, for that matter. It's light, and the IS flat works. I use the IS anytime the lens is not on a tripod. I find the lens very sharp. Since you have the 17-40L, you've got the wide end covered with a little overlap. Good luck in your search.

 

Phil

[mark_chappell]

I concur with Mr. Rocket: the 70-200/4 is superb, easy to handle, and not too costly. I

very much like the 17-40, also. If you want to plug the gap in the middle, maybe the 50/

1.8 is a good option (no direct experience with it).

[tlsohl]

Another vote of confidence for the 70-200 4.0L. Best bargain in the L line, wonderful sharp across the entire range and light enough to carry as a walk-around lens.

[rodolfo_negrete]

the lenses that You mentioned are the best for the 10D

 

Unless you buy the expenser ones 70-200 2.8 IS and the 16-35 2.8

[jbq]

Another vote for a 50mm and 70-200/4L (you explicitly mentioned that you don't want IS).

 

The 70-200/4L, while not as masssive as its f/2.8 cousins, is still a big heavy beast, and for cases where the telephoto isn't my primary lens I prefer to carry my 80-200/4.5-5.6

[andrew_ito]

I have the 17-40L as well as the 50mm 1.8 MkI and the 70-200 f/4L for use with my 10D.

Lately though, I find myself reaching more for the 85mm f/1.8. It's really an amazing

portrait lens. The 50mm is a really great inexpensive lens choice and if zoom is what

you're after, the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. I sold a 70-200 f/2.8 because it was such a

beast. The f/4 is such a great, sharp optic and much lighter than the f/2.8. It seems that

many folks around here suggest the 17-40, 50 and 70-200 set as do I. Good luck!

[awindsor]

I have the 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, and the 70-200/4L. If I were to do things over I would

take the 50/1.4 instead just for the improved ergonomics. The 50/1.8 is a fine optic

however.

[robin_sibson1]

If it is a Canon 28~200 that you have been using, then it may have seemed like two decades - but it wasn't! Seriously, either primes, or more than one high-end zoom, pretty much regardless of which you choose, are going to change your photography by comparison with a 'super-zoom', Canon's or anybody else's, 'designed for digital' or otherwise. My son has had very good results with the 70~200/4, and I am very happy with the 17~40, which is a 'standard zoom' on x1.6 digital. If that leaves too large a gap, sadly there is no Canon L zoom that will bridge it at f/4, but the 50/1.4 is a pretty fine lens.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I was wondering when someone was going to point out that you couldn't have used a lens for two decades when the lens was only introduced in September 2000 ... :-)</p>

 

<p>If you are comfortable with the weight of the 70-200/4, then do not walk - run and get it. You ask "Anyone have experience with this lens.[sic]" so it looks like you haven't done your research, but I can save you the effort - a lot of people have it and love it. But make sure you've tried it first. It's a lot lighter than the 70-200/2.8 lenses, but it's certainly not a lightweight.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

>> I have also thought of going with the Canon 70-200 f4.0 L

 

Stop thinking. Get it!

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.