starter lens for 10d?

[MikeyHo]

wat lens should i start with? i have a 50mm 1.8 II already...

but i think a zoom will be more practical right?

[Wai]

if u shoot landscape - Sigma 15-30

if u shoot bird/events/animals - Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Canon 70-200L f2.8

if budget < $1k, may be 28-105 or 28-135 IS (but then it cover your 50mm already and 28mm is not wide enough)

[i_r_i_a]

Can try Sigma 24 - 70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF. Cost cheaper, it is ard $700 with GST. However filter size 82mm & weights 700g.

[Fizzy]

Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 LD would be a relatively cheap lens to start off with. Furthermore, it has a 1:2 macro feature.

[MikeyHo]

or should i say what lens will be more for practical photography?

24 to 100 mm focal range?

[Wai]

Quote: Originally posted by MikeyHo or should i say what lens will be more for practical photography? 24 to 100 mm focal range?

hmm...depends on your style rite? it is better to get what u need, then to buy the whole range from <20 to 200mm.

IMO, better to get some good lens for your 10D since you have invested so much liao....no point to get no-so-good one, then sell away later and spend $$ again for better one.

but of cos dun just blindly get all the L lenses out there, there are a few 3rd party one that is as good, if not even better than L lenses and at a more reasonable price

[Fizzy]

Agree that should try to get some good lens since you have invested so much in a 10D.

However, if you are not going to uprade your lens that soon, perhaps you could consider either the Tamron 24-135 F/3.5-5.6 SP AD or the Canon 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

The Tamron would translate to a 38-216 mm lens and the Canon would translate to a 45-216 mm lens on your 10D. Sufficient for pratical photography (can always get a 1.4x teleconverter if you want a longer focal length).

[Wai]

Quote: Originally posted by Fizzy (can always get a 1.4x teleconverter if you want a longer focal length).

correct me if i am wrong, I tot TC only can works those lenses with max aperture like f2.8, and the rear elements shouldn't be moving so that it will not crash with the glass on the TC?

[Fizzy]

Hmm, I have a Tamron 24-135 and am using a tamron 1.4x teleconverter but:

<Please correct me if I remembered wrongly> I think the problem with the teleconverter is that auto-focus would not work (or would not work properly) if the resultant aperture (include the 1-stop decrease due to the 1.4x teleconverter) is above 5.6. Thus, if the maximum aperture is 2.8, even with a 2x teleconverter, autofocus should function properly.

As for the rear elements, I recall something about the Canon f/2.8 Lens (or Sigma f/2.8 Lens) not being able to work with a 2x teleconverter as the rear elements would come in contact with the teleconverter. However, the 1.4x teleconverter would be fine.

[bummer]

Hi all,

looing at these 2 for the 10D.

Any comments on the 28-138 IS and 70-200 F2.8L IS for shooting basketsball matches at the sidelines (at out usual neighbourhood CC).

Also, whats about the use of these 2 lenses for street photography.

advise on costs will be great too.

[trendmatrix]

Quote: Originally posted by bummer Hi all, looing at these 2 for the 10D. Any comments on the 28-138 IS and 70-200 F2.8L IS for shooting basketsball matches at the sidelines (at out usual neighbourhood CC). Also, whats about the use of these 2 lenses for street photography. advise on costs will be great too.

You mean 28-135 IS is it?

10D owners also must remember to bring their 10D down to test the lens.. for all the FF and BF problems...

[Leongfm]

I would recommend the Canon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (effectively 38-136mm for the 10D). I have one myself and I find the output pretty good for a lens costing around $580. The extra 4mm (vs 28-135mm or 28-105mm) makes a lot of difference for DSLR.

FM

[ivor]

Leongfm is correct... it seems like the Canon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is a better choice on a DSLR...

Quote: Originally posted by Leongfm I would recommend the Canon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (effectively 38-136mm for the 10D). I have one myself and I find the output pretty good for a lens costing around $580. The extra 4mm (vs 28-135mm or 28-105mm) makes a lot of difference for DSLR. FM

[Wai]

Quote: Originally posted by ivor Leongfm is correct... it seems like the Canon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is a better choice on a DSLR...

i will rather save the $$ for an ultra wide like 15-30 or 17-40 or may be a cheap cosina/vivitar 19-35

instead of 24mm which is neither here or there

the range for 24-85 is rather small compare to 28-105, somemore the price for 24-85 is so much more expensive than 28-105

but also depens on what you shoot, if i really want to get that range i will get a 3rd party 28-70/f2.8

[canturn]

Depends on what your needs are. On a 10D with 1.6X FLM, I suggest u get the following:

1. For travelling, general events - 17-40 F4L or 16-35 F2.8L . Factor in the 1.6X, I find these two lenses more useful among my collection of lenses. The 17-40 is really good for indoor events because it performs much better wide open compared to the 16-35.

2. For concerts, weddings, fashion shows - 24-70 or 28-70. Useful range and when you want to take full-length body as well as mid.

3. 24-135 Tarmon or 24-85 Canon are both good lenses, if you're using f8 and up

Agree with what most of them said, 28mm on a 1.6X FLM is not very useful compared to the 24mm.

A little OT...IMO Canon's weakness is in making WA lenses. They've yet to learn how to make solid WA like the Nikon AFS 17-35.

[kiama]

sigma 28-70 EX f2.8 works fine with 10D?

[Fizzy]

I agree with Wai. Perhaps can save up money for an ultra wide e.g. Sigma 15-30. This means that you could start off with either a Canon 28-135 IS, or if you don't mind spending more money, a Canon 28-70 f/2.8.

[Hilarion]

Depending on your style of photography. I would advice the use of a Canon 24 - 85/3.5-4.5 as a starter. It's a great lens.

[RCheah]

I'm using a D30, thus the same 1.6x constraint. For me, I am using a 20mm, 28-105mm and 75-300mm. But after using the D30 for 1 year, I'm quite sick of always changing lens, and even the 20mm (32mm) is not wide enough. And Yes, zoom is indeed more practical. Alternative is to crop the photos since you have 6MP, more than big enough to do so.

As for the 17-40 L, it's only slightly more ex but is lighter, more compact and robust than a Sigma 15-30, so IMO, no point getting the Sigma, unless you really need the extra few mm at wide angle.

My 75-300 III USM is a surprisingly sharp lens! Have seen quite a few of them in TCW going for $200-300. But they are a bit slow to focus though.

So after 1.6x, the 17-40 and 75-300 will give the following range:
27.2 to 64mm, 120mm to 480mm. I realise there is a gap there but you do have the 50mm (80mm) to fill the gap.

What about the Tokina 24-200/3.5-5.6 Aspheric SD?

Seems like it offers the wideness of a 24mm and the flexibility of a 200mm without having to switch lens and it is below $1K as well.

Though no USM or IS.