Which Set of Lenses would you purchase for your 10D

[paul_metzger]

Both of these set of lenses cost about the same ($90 difference at

17th Street Photo)

 

Which would you rather have for your 10D?

Set 1-

Canon EF17- 40 mm f/40L USM 679 700 689

Canon EF 70 - 200 F/40L USM

Canon EF 28 - 135 mm f/3.5 -5.6 IS USM

Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro

 

Set 2

Canon EF 24 - 70 f/2.8L

Canon EF 70 - 200 F/40L USM

Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro

 

Can't quite make up my mind. Thanks in advance for your input.

[jim_larson1]

Set 2; without the 100/F2.8 Macro. Consider adding 1.4TC if you are a telephoto shooter.

 

As for Set 1: Delete 28-135/US (much lower quality than other lenses). Add 50/1.4 to cover gap between 17-40 and 70-200. Delete 100/F2.8 Macro. Consider adding 1.4TC if you are a telephoto shooter.

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

Seeing that both kits include the Macro, I'm thinking you really want it (its a great lens so I understand).

 

I'd go with Kit 1, but again take out the 28-135, and replace it with a 50mm 1.4.

 

If you are open to third-party solutions, I'd go with Kit 2, and get a new ultra-wide lens offered by a third-party manufacturer. (That is, if your shooting requires this FOV).

 

Regards

[dan barthel]

I'll take issue with the comment about the 28-135IS. It can be very good. It was my first (and only for awhile) lens on my D60, and it still gets a lot of use as a walkaround lens. IS is very nice. So I vote for set 1.

[brian_e]

here's the real question you have posed:

 

would i rather have both the 17-40 and 28-135 or just the 24-70?

 

for my style (landscape/all around/macro and light on people/event photog) it's an easy choice. if you're a pro wedding photog or pro event photog, then i'd probably say the 24-70 would be of more use. personally, i'd much rather have the 17-40 + 28-135 bundle versus 24-70 only - but my answer is think about what you like to photograph and that will give you the answer.

 

a little more on my experience with the lenses you mention:

 

btw, for my money, the 28-135 is a very good all around lens. when i'm traveling light it's great - i just toss this lens and my 70-200 + 1.4TC into a bag and it makes for a relatively compact but extremely versatile kit. IS _is_ all it's cracked up to be. on my 10D this lens is a bit long, but still usable, and on my 7e it's perfect.

 

my favorite lens by far is my 70-200/F4. relatively light and amazingly sharp throughout its range.

 

the 100/2.8 is also a great lens if you are into macro photog, it is redundant for portraits, imo, if you already have the 70-200.

[paul_metzger]

Thanks to all of you for your input. Still seeking as much guidance as possible on this. As to the macro lense, my other passion is fly tying and I wish to be able to photograph the flies I tye and insects for web posting.

Here's the question again with some semi-colons added - not sure what happened to the format post when it uploaded.

Both of these set of lenses cost about the same ($90 difference at 17th Street Photo)

 

Which would you rather have for your 10D? Set 1- Canon EF17- 40 mm f/40L USM; Canon EF 70 - 200 F/40L USM; Canon EF 28 - 135 mm f/3.5 -5.6 IS; USM Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro

 

 

Set 2 Canon EF 24 - 70 f/2.8L; Canon EF 70 - 200 F/40L USM; Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro

 

 

Can't quite make up my mind. Thanks in advance for your input.

[adam_eberbach]

How important is the fly tying? If it's really important:<p>

 

Canon 65mm MP-E 1-5x macro lens<br>

Canon MT-24EX twin macro lite<p>

 

There's just about nothing that will photograph flies as well as the MP-E/MT-24EX combination. You will fill the frame as much as you want with the smallest fly and the flash will let you do it hand held with amazing results. With a normal 100mm or 180mm macro lens at 1x maximum the trout flies that are familiar to me would still look a little small.

[michael focus97.com lee]

I'll second what some others have said: get a 50 1.8 (or 1.4) instead of the 28-135. Maybe get the 1.4x if you can. I say keep the macro. It's an essential lens for me, because the macro world is a totally unique type of photography.

 

Have fun...

[jon_austin]

(Don't we all just love to chime in about our lens collections...)

 

I'd go with Set 1, except that I'd replace the 28-135 with the 24-85, and the 100mm macro with the 50mm version.

 

No, wait, this is now MY lens kit...

 

I chose the 24-85 over thr 28-135, because on the 10D, I think the extra width on the low end is more useful. I believe the 24-85 and the 28-135 (and the 28-105) are of comparable quality/performance, but I'm not fond of zooms with more than a 3x range. (I'm aware that the 24-85 also exceeds this ratio, but less so than the others.)

 

If I'm carrying the 17-40, 50 and 70-200, I leave the 24-85 at home. But for a single walk-around lens, it's the 24-85 for me (until Canon makes an f/4 version of the 24-70).

 

I bought the 100mm macro, and it's excellent, but I found it a little long on the 10D (particularly for portrait use), so I returned it and bought the 50mm. Unless you know you need the 100mm's greater working distance, check out the 50mm macro; you might like it (I love it) and save a few bucks.

[gerry_szarek]

Set ONE. I have the 17-40 which is great, I would get a Sigma 50mm F2.8 macro (goes 1:1 with OUT an adapter), along with the 70-200F4, I would also get a 1.4X converter the 28-135IS USM would be a good knock around town lens however it is heavy.

 

You also will need a good flash unit if you take flash photo's I recommend the 420EX. Remember to have fun.

 

I would start with the 17-40, 70-200 and then add as necessary.

 

Gerry

[louie]

Actually, I happen to own all of the lenses you mention save the 24-70 f/2.8L. I haven't used my 28-135 lens in a long time now. The 17-40mm takes about 80% of my shots. The 17-40mm covers the effective focal range of 28-64mm, and the 70-200mm covers 112-320mm. I tend to shoot in the 28-50mm range for most of my shots, so I'm covered there. When the 28-135mm was on my film camera, it was the perfect lens for me. On my 10D, I find it too long.

 

But, the thing is, I'm a landscape photographer, so the first set would be my choice, with the 28-135mm swapped for the 50mm f/1.8. In fact, there's a good chance I'll sell my own 28-135mm at some point. Aside from the Fly Tying, where do your photographic interests lie? Sports photography? People? Landscapes? Wildlife?

 

As someone pointed out, your real question is: Do I get the 17-40 and 28-135 or the 24-70mm by itself.

 

Get the 17-40mm if you need a wide angle - it's the only lens you have listed that gets you out to a 28mm effective focal length. The 24mm is only an effective focal length of 38.4mm. Get the 50mm f/1.8 as it's a very cheap, but optically good lens. With this combo, you're very well covered in terms of focal lengths.

 

By the way, with either set of lenses, you can expect them to all have different filter sizes.

[jim_larson1]

The real problem here is that there is no 24-70/4L available.

 

The 24-70/2.8L (which I recommended above) is a bit pricy for most hobbiests. Frankly, there are only a few situations which *need* a 2.8, and for most of those a $70 50/1.8 or a $70 tripod will do the trick. But the 24-70/2.8L is a top notch lens from what I hear, so I recommend it!

 

The 17-40/4L is a cool lens. Paired with a 50/1.4, it is still substantially cheaper than a 24-70/2.8L. Frankly, image quality is on par and the focal range is broader. The gap from 40 to 50 and 50 to 70 are really insignificant.

 

There are times when IS really is the bee's knees => but for most cases a monopod combined with a bump in ISO will solve any issues related to not having IS. After that, it is all about optical quality.

[ken_dunn1]

I have the 17-40 and 70-200 with my 10D. You need 17 on the wide end. I also have a 400 5.6, but I know that is not for everyone

[bob_bell]

Those 2.8L's are really pricey if you aren't a pro or have someone paying for them. I choose secret option 3: The 17-40/4L + 50/1.8 + 85/1.8 + 70-200/4L + 100 macro. These are the lenses I am working on buying. I think you should buy 1 or 2 lenses at a time and master those and not buy all 5, but it is your money and it would be a good kit.

[david arnold eugene, oreg]

I'm using a 17-40 f/4 L, 50mm f/2.5 compact macro, and 70-200 f/4 L. What I'd like to add is a lens Canon does make...yet: a 24-70 (or 28-70) f/4 L. The current 24-70 f/2.8 L is a possible alternative, but it add too much weight to the bag and subtracts too much money from the wallet. I may end up buying one none-the-less, but I really wish Canon would give us the same choice in this range they've given in the 70-200 range. I'd also like to seem come up with a 12-24 like Nikon has done for their DSLR shooters.

[yakim_peled1]

17-40/4 + 50/1.8 (or 50/1.4) + 100/2.8 macro USM + 200/2.8 USM L. This way you get no overlapping and faster apertures.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[charlie_vigue]

Set 2. If you need a very wide option go with a wide prime later, or the Sigma 12-24 zoom or something. The 24-70 is the lens I'm currently lusting after though, so I may be biased....

[anna yu]

I would choose Set 2 anyday.

[charlie_vigue]

OH, one other thing. I have the 28-135 IS, and while it's OK, there are a couple of issues. (1) While excellent on a full frame SLR, it's a bit long on the 10D. (2) Less important, but worth thinking about, is that it is noticably softer and less contrasty than other, better glass. (3) IS is not a substitute for fast glass. A big aperture permits faster shutter or limited DoF. IS is the worlds smallest tripod. You can get long shutter times handheld, for things like intentional motion blur, etc., but it's just a different thing.

 

In short, it's good enough, and a great value, but combined with (1) I'd go with the slightly wider and faster 24-70 if I was doing it again. I will be getting the 24-70 as soon as I can scrape the $$$$ together, for sure. The 17-40 is good, but every review and the MTF show that doing an ultra wide zoom is really difficult. I really think a prime is the way to go, or a narrow ratio zoom like the 12-24 units coming out now.

[d_weissman]

I did my research and saved up to buy this systemm. I retired and wanted to freelance. I put together this new system to do photos of dogs, kids and some nature. I have not been disappointed. My results have sold 100%!

Canon 10D

Tamron Di 17-35mm 2.8

Canon 24-85mm 3.5

Canon 70-200mm 4L

Canon 1.4x II Extender

Canon 420 flash

I also use a couple of Vivitar 283 flashes with slave attached

on ultrapods for back and side lighting. Take very little space

but work great. I have had the 2 283 flashes for ages and they

still work great. The slave units I bought from Porters for 15 bucks each. I use them with Lumiquest pocket bouncers.

I think I would like to add a Canon 50mm 1.4 for those

special low light times I do not wish to use a flash or a high

ISO setting.

I also have an old 400mm 6.3 telephoto from Spiratone (circa 1970).]

They are no longer in business but I bought a t-mount from Porters and it fit beautifully. That 400mm on the Canon is 640mm and with the 1.4x it is 896mm. Using a good tripod, Bogen 3221WN, I have taken super animal shots in the woods surrounding my house. What fun I am having.

Good luck on your photography choices.

[paul_metzger]

Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful and detailed responses. I will now.put on my thinking cap and make the decision.