Buying a Canon D10 - What's the best all-around lens I should buy?

[mark_jones8]

I've placed an order for the Canon D10 - now the next question (in

addition to one on memory..another posting) is what's the best all-

around, all-purpose lens that I should purchase to use with the Canon

D10. I'm looking for the lens that I'll use roughly 75% of the time,

that would have wide zoom to telephoto (ideally). I would use this

lense for everything from vacations to family to landscapes, etc.

 

I know there have been postings around secondary lenses - but this

will be for the primary. While I'm not adverse to spending money to

get the right lens - I do need to consider cost (i.e. up to $500 for

a truly versatile lens would be fine) - and I certainly don't want to

go cheap. I've been told the Canon 24-85m f/3.5-4.5 USM EF Lens

would be a good option - but I would prefer hearing from people here.

 

Many thanks.

[chris_tennyson]

Well, I have both, and that is my standard, go everywhere with me, set up. I would love it if they made a say... 20-85, but thats just wishful thinking and im not even sure it would be technicaly possible.. but anyways.. Yea, the 24-84 is a very sharp lens, quick at AF, and reasonably fast at f3.5-4.5

 

The 27-70 f2.8L would be a great lens, but two drawbacks... price obviously.. and its heavy.. the 10D is already a bit of a weight increase from my old D30... so I don't know that I would even want to deal with the extra weight of this lens... lightness has a lot going for it!

[Ken Katz]

The 24-85 is nice on a film body, but just having a 38mm effective field of view as my widest lens doesn't work. I use the 20-35 USM as my "standard" zoom, and its effective field of view equal to 32mm - 56mm is not really wide enough, but I'm making do for now. Some of the Sigma options (15-30 or 17-35) may be attractive. Match any of these lenses up with the 50 f1.8 and 70-200, and you have a reasonably flexible kit.

[jean_berthe]

Hi Mark

 

Here is MY pick: I have the old Canon 28-70 3.5-4.5 II. It is not USM and the front end rotates as it focuses. The reasons why I am going to use this lens are:

1. very very sharp lens

2. There is no opening at the back of the lens. Most rear/internal focus lenses have the last element that pumps in and out of the lens body, therefore pushing/pumping air (DUST) in the camera body.

 

I also have the Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM and I will keep it on my ElanII. I love this lens but the rear element is very mobile and the front extends with two sleeves. I had this lens for only a few years and I can see quite a bit of dust inside. The old 28-70 is still free of any dust inside! None whatsoever!

 

Even if I don�t jump to the DSLR this year, I will keep this old 28-70 lens until I get my DSLR.

 

Good Luck

[steven_wilcox]

How about a plain old 35mm f/2 prime lens? That essentially becomes roughly a 55mm standard lens. There's a lot to be said for going simple. Also... the 28mm prime would be in the 40ish mm range.

 

If I had a D10 in my hands and no lenses... I would probably buy either the 35 or the 28 and a 50/1.8 -- all with 52mm filters. Start clean and simple and enjoy the megapixels.

[canon man]

I would second the vote for the primes. They're also mega sharp!

[james_harvey1]

Since you're prepared to spend $1600 on a camera body, I would assume that you don't wish to waste that expenditure but putting a slow zoom on the front. I think your choices could be:

 

16-35 2.8L (25.6-56 2.8L equivalent)

24-70 2.8L (38-112 2.8 equivalent)

 

neither of these is perfect: the former doesn't quite go long enough, the latter not quite wide enough. I'd personally would prefer the 16-35, as the 25mm-38mm range is much more useful to me than the short telephoto range 56-112: but then it all depends what you shoot most: if, say, you want to do a lot of head-and-shoulder portraiture of your kids, then your mileage may vary.

 

Alternatively, put a 35 f2 (56 equiv), 28 f1.8 (45mm equiv), 24 f1.4

(38.4mm equiv), of 20 f2.8 (30mm equiv) on it and just shoot away, if you want a minimalist prime experience. Again, I'd go for the 20 2.8, because I'm a wide angle kinda guy, but YMMV. You could always add a 50mm f1.8 for $80: with your machine it would make a pretty good 80mm equivalent portrait lens.

 

James

[alex_p._schorsch]

Dear mark,If you want to be a "one lens" man buy the 24-70 2.8 L.If you plan to supplement your system later, get a 16-35 2.8 L. If you buy the 16-35 you can supplement it later with a 50mm normal lens and a 100 macro. With digital, one can change the ISO settings easily and one can get good results useing the 400 ISO setting, therefore, for a one lens system you might be able to get by with the new 17-40 mm. It is cheaper than the 24-70 and would be the equivalent to a 28 - 64mm on your camera, which is a nice range. Decisions, decisions!! Good luck

[ben_lanterman1]

I messed around with several inexpensive zoom lenses at various ranges

over the last two years and have found myself less than happy with them. I

sold them at a loss (naturally) and bought better quality.

 

My final set of lenses are the 16-35, 24-70, 35-350, 100-400 and a 50mm1.4.

Unless I am going to an airplane show the lens that lives on my 1D is the 24-

70. The other lenses are fine products and have definite uses (otherwise why

buy them :-) but the 24-70 is great.

 

Due to physical handicap restrictions the use of primes is not the best option

for myself but should be really considered as a better choice. There is less

compromise to sharpness.

[rrohan]

I have been researching this too. From what I read on the wide angle side (the area I am looking to supplement) there is:

 

Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L - The one to buy if you have the money.

 

Canon 17-40mm f4 L - Canon quality at a cheaper price.

 

Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 - Cheap and gives you a wider angle, however I have heard that buyers should beware of lenses that make it out of poor quality control that have bad lens flare and blurry tendencies. If you find a good one, I hear they are notably sharp with low flare.

[mark_jones8]

Ok folks - thanks sooo much for the response so far. I can't afford the "L" series, so that's out.. here's what I'm thinking.. please provide your feedback - it's much appreciated! I'm looking for a lenses for the D10, which has the 1.6 multiplier...

 

1. 28mm f/2.8 OR 35mm f/2 (which would be better as a prime, something that is 44.8(the 28) or 56(the 35)?

 

Or I'm considering instead of one of the above to go with a zoom (but my concern here would be sharpness and f/ ...

 

2. 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM OR 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM OR 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM OR 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II

 

Finally, I could always buy one of the fixed primes and then go for one of the less expensive zooms (either the 22-55, 24-85, 28-105).

 

Finally, finally, the 50mm f/1.8 II SEEMS to be one that is recommended by folks, at $70, should I just go ahead and get it? (it would then me a shorter telephoto at 80mm)??

 

Thanks again.

[melissa_eiselein]

I'm in the same position as you, Mark. I have enough money set aside to buy the 10D, but not enough for a cache of lenses to go with it.

<p>For us to get a semi wide angle equivalent to a 28mm on film, we'll need to plunk down a stash of cash.

<p>Your best bet on a budget will probably be the 28-105 (10D equivalent is 45-168) and then get a 20mm (32mm) for those times when you need something a little wider. From there, you can start saving a few dollars as you shoot and decide if you need more width or more zoom.

<p>I'm looking forward to the added focal length as I often find myself wishing I had more zoom. Rarely, when using my 28-135 IS do I find myself needing something wider. However, I suspect that will change after I get my 10D.

[ted_reyes]

You may wish to try a Tokina 28-70 Pro II. I have one on my Elan IIE and it works great for film. Got it for less than $450. Photozone results were within half a point of Canon L lens when I purchased.

 

When I purchase a D10 this summer, i plan to add a 70-200 2.8L for youth soccer pictures. It will replace the 100-300 USM which we use on the Elan II. Any thoughts?

[pc1]

my vote is for the 17-40 L ,,pc

[pc1]

next, 50 F1.8 Mk 1 or 11, last but not least,,70-200 F4 L,

1.4x TC,and you're set for "almost" any event.. pc

[pc1]

oh so sorry, also 550 EX flashgun,and don't 4get to buy a big storage CF card or digi wallet,then you're really set,oh a real stable tripod,, guess i've been watching too much of this on going war in iraq,,am beginning to 4get essential stuff,,lots o luck,,enjoy your new equipment,,pc

[yakim_peled1]

Which focal lengths do you currently use ? Divide by 1.6 and you have the answer.

[erick_kyogoku]

Hi Mark,

 

It seems we all share the same problem: wanting the wide angle, but not

having the money for a sharp wide angle lens that suits the D10.

 

Actually, according to your needs/budget, it seems as though the 24-85 would

be good. I also recommend the 28-135 Image Stabilizing lens. I have both

lenses, and am in fact considering selling my 24-85 since I use the 28-135

most of the time. (If you're interested, it's in great condition with a new B-W

MC UV filter. I bought it in Tokyo and it's a beautiful champagne-and-black

color; matches perfectly with my Elan IIe but I imagine it'll go nicely with a

D10) I think I'd be well served with something in the 28-135 range and

something super-wide for the 1.6 multiplier (uggggh, I hate that multiplier

effect). I usually shoot primes: 28, 50, and 85mm (in order of diminishing use)

so my zooms aren't used as often.

Might be time to pick up a prime in the ~17mm length.

 

For general use, the 24-85 or 28-135 are good. If you need a 24-28 35mm

equivalent, you may need another lens. The 50mm $80 lens I have, and I've

taken some of my best shots with it. Focusing is slow, but it's a sharp and fast

lens. (f/1.8)

 

Good luck!

 

- Erick

[hubert_sammons1]

I just got my D10 4 days ago.I started with and still love my Elan 7. I have the 50mm f.8 , 22-55, 28-105 and recently 100-400L IS.

I would rather start out with only one sharp lens like the 50mm f1.8 If I was on a budget. I have had fun with the 50mm.......something that cost $60-70 bucks but is really sharp. I have also taken some neat close ups with it.

 

Hugh Sammons