Sudden windfall to get 10D

[Castlesinthesky]

Hey guys...

After months and months of scrimping and saving,i've coughed up 3.6k to manage to get a DSLR, in this case the 10D.and i plan to save up another 1k for the lens.

Here's what i want to get for the lens,

a 24-70mm L to begin with.

Yes i have read up on the pros and cons of L lenses with DSLRs, but i more or less made up my mind on this lens.Only question is, with the 1.6x crop factor, would it enhance the focal length to make it suitable for portraits?i plan to use it for concerts and i figured i need the wide apeture to begin with.

I've read that the lens hood is problematic and the attachment seems to break off easily, something that is not right with the "Luxury" range of L lens, could someone in here kindly share with me the experience of using this lens coupled with the 10D?There were issues of it not AFing accurately at times, and spot on focusing was at best random.

Do give me your advice and experiences on this, i'll like to hear some local clubsnappers' opinion.

thanks!

[iz_k]

Good job on the savings... Go for the 10D mate... but i think u can get it for ard 2.7k which leaves you with $900 to play ard. Why not save a bit and get a 17-40mm? Other lenses and stuffs like batt grip can come later...

[Castlesinthesky]

Originally Posted by iz_k Good job on the savings... Go for the 10D mate... but i think u can get it for ard 2.7k which leaves you with $900 to play ard. Why not save a bit and get a 17-40mm? Other lenses and stuffs like batt grip can come later...

i was thinking of 24-70mm because of the fact that i want to use the extended focal length to shoot portraits which probably will be my main interest.

yea, tt's why i might as well invest in a good lens rather than make the switch later....can't afford the 70-200 IS USM outta budget!

thanks for the encouragement..took me a long time to do it. by skimping on lunches and all.

[mpenza]

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 could be considered too if you want to leave some money another lens. just a suggestion.

[StreetShooter]

There was apparently a bad batch of 24-70 L's in Singapore with backfocusing problems and inability to focus at infinity. Some of these lenses (including mine) were shipped to Japan, where they were adjusted. Mine at least is working fine now, although I know of at least another one which still has problems.

Build wise is very good, colour and contrast are great, focusing is fast and silent. It's a very big and heavy lens, and the hood makes it look humungous. Very intimidating (or impressive - depending on what kind of personality you have). It has 77mm filter thread - same as 70-200 and 16-35 - very convenient if you use creative filters.

I've never had the problem with the hood coming loose, though I've read about it.

I would definitely suggest testing your lens thoroughly upon purchase, not just with a printed AF chart, but with subjects at greater distances (say 5-10 feet) because that's when the AF problems become obvious.

Yes, the Sigma 24-70 is a good alternative, although the images do tend to have a warmer, slightly yellowish colour cast (but only indoors - outdoors it's pretty colour-accurate) and a noisy autofocus.

The 24-70 range on a DSLR is much better than a 28-70/135 range. The feeling of a wide angle is just not there with a 28mm x 1.6.

[Castlesinthesky]

Originally Posted by StreetShooter There was apparently a bad batch of 24-70 L's in Singapore with backfocusing problems and inability to focus at infinity. Some of these lenses (including mine) were shipped to Japan, where they were adjusted. Mine at least is working fine now, although I know of at least another one which still has problems. Build wise is very good, colour and contrast are great, focusing is fast and silent. It's a very big and heavy lens, and the hood makes it look humungous. Very intimidating (or impressive - depending on what kind of personality you have). It has 77mm filter thread - same as 70-200 and 16-35 - very convenient if you use creative filters. I've never had the problem with the hood coming loose, though I've read about it. I would definitely suggest testing your lens thoroughly upon purchase, not just with a printed AF chart, but with subjects at greater distances (say 5-10 feet) because that's when the AF problems become obvious. Yes, the Sigma 24-70 is a good alternative, although the images do tend to have a warmer, slightly yellowish colour cast (but only indoors - outdoors it's pretty colour-accurate) and a noisy autofocus. The 24-70 range on a DSLR is much better than a 28-70/135 range. The feeling of a wide angle is just not there with a 28mm x 1.6.

just the opinion i need, thanks streetshooter!very assuring then..made up my mind to get this more or less already. just need to "tahan" 2 months or so.*resist*

i'll try out the sigma 24-70 too, before committing. i was thinking of getting the 50mm/1.8f prime lens, since everyone's raving about it...but was thinking,would it be redundant since i already am getting a zoom lens that would provide more or less the same quality, save for the aperture advantage?

[showtime]

Originally Posted by mpenza Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 could be considered too if you want to leave some money another lens. just a suggestion.

how much is this lens? i assume it comes with nikon f mount?

[Sgt. Pepper]

Originally Posted by showtime how much is this lens? i assume it comes with nikon f mount?

Around 680-700$ at TCW. Yes, it should have for Nikon mount.

[marcwang]

COnsider the TAMRON 28-75 f2.8 XR . Fantastically sharp. In fact probably sharper than the L lense. Check out popphoto.com for their review.

[showtime]

yeah...thanks guys...
im curious about these other brands because i need fast lenses and the nikon ones are too expensive... wonder how these other brands match up...

lets say 80-200 f2.8...or something like that...
what would be a competitor to the AFS version that nikon sells? or the normal AF-D version?

[Castlesinthesky]

Originally Posted by showtime yeah...thanks guys... im curious about these other brands because i need fast lenses and the nikon ones are too expensive... wonder how these other brands match up... lets say 80-200 f2.8...or something like that... what would be a competitor to the AFS version that nikon sells? or the normal AF-D version?

wah lau...all of sudden become nikon thread.don't like that leh :=P:

jokes aside, thanks for all the effective input. i'll probably save up for another 2 months before making my choices. i want a really good lense though and not regret later, hence the questions.thanks!

[NorthernLights]

Originally Posted by Castlesinthesky wah lau...all of sudden become nikon thread.don't like that leh :=P: jokes aside, thanks for all the effective input. i'll probably save up for another 2 months before making my choices. i want a really good lense though and not regret later, hence the questions.thanks!

Hi, Streetshooter's right...

The 24-70 f2.8 L USM is a great lens. Very fast and quiet. Images are contrasty and sharp, although it would be even sharper on a film camera. It's a good piece of glass to invest in the long term (when Canon comes out with an affordable full-frame).

It's a little heavy though but built wise...solid! It's better for street photography when you can get reasonably close but not too close.

[Castlesinthesky]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights Hi, Streetshooter's right... The 24-70 f2.8 L USM is a great lens. Very fast and quiet. Images are contrasty and sharp, although it would be even sharper on a film camera. It's a good piece of glass to invest in the long term (when Canon comes out with an affordable full-frame). It's a little heavy though but built wise...solid! It's better for street photography when you can get reasonably close but not too close.

Hello, but thing... is will it go well with portraiture and close up concert work? (on the current crop factors of DSLRs that is)I primarily want it for this aspect and event shooting possibly.

because if not..i'll just go for the 70-200 IS L USM and get a 50mm, f/1.8 prime.

the most just save for half a year more.=P

[NorthernLights]

Originally Posted by Castlesinthesky Hello, but thing... is will it go well with portraiture and close up concert work? (on the current crop factors of DSLRs that is)I primarily want it for this aspect and event shooting possibly. because if not..i'll just go for the 70-200 IS L USM and get a 50mm, f/1.8 prime. the most just save for half a year more.=P

Sorry maybe I did not make myself clear.

24-70 is great for portraiture...at 38-112...a basic portrait range.

At 38mm, it's wide enough for landscape and general photography, journalistic shots.

However, for sports, normally one does not get close enough to the subject. You'd really need a 400mm at least.

Get the 24-70...as you can survive better on this lens than the 70-200, if you must get only 1 lens.

Remember the 70-200 L has also got an f4 one. It's light and sharp and contrasy and costs just $1200+.

[Castlesinthesky]

Originally Posted by NorthernLights Sorry maybe I did not make myself clear. 24-70 is great for portraiture...at 38-112...a basic portrait range. At 38mm, it's wide enough for landscape and general photography, journalistic shots. However, for sports, normally one does not get close enough to the subject. You'd really need a 400mm at least. Get the 24-70...as you can survive better on this lens than the 70-200, if you must get only 1 lens. Remember the 70-200 L has also got an f4 one. It's light and sharp and contrasy and costs just $1200+.

sounds like just what i need! thanks N.Lights. much assured even more than ever...i just worry abt the AF and hood problem now...

[denizenx]

Originally Posted by Castlesinthesky Hey guys... After months and months of scrimping and saving,i've coughed up 3.6k to manage to get a DSLR, in this case the 10D.and i plan to save up another 1k for the lens. Here's what i want to get for the lens, a 24-70mm L to begin with. Yes i have read up on the pros and cons of L lenses with DSLRs, but i more or less made up my mind on this lens.Only question is, with the 1.6x crop factor, would it enhance the focal length to make it suitable for portraits?i plan to use it for concerts and i figured i need the wide apeture to begin with. I've read that the lens hood is problematic and the attachment seems to break off easily, something that is not right with the "Luxury" range of L lens, could someone in here kindly share with me the experience of using this lens coupled with the 10D?There were issues of it not AFing accurately at times, and spot on focusing was at best random. Do give me your advice and experiences on this, i'll like to hear some local clubsnappers' opinion. thanks!

OT:if u have to scrimp and save it's NOT a windfall..

[Garion]

Originally Posted by denizenx OT:if u have to scrimp and save it's NOT a windfall..

Yah...windfall is when you suddenly strike top prize in 4D or Toto or when your boss decides to be extra generous and give you a hefty bonus...kekeke...

[Castlesinthesky]

Originally Posted by Garion Yah...windfall is when you suddenly strike top prize in 4D or Toto or when your boss decides to be extra generous and give you a hefty bonus...kekeke...

I call it a windfall as i consider it rare to be that motivated to save for my equipment keke. but yea i get the idea.


anyway i'll just hold on to saving more, plan my move carefully, who knows?canon may just announce a FF DSLR at 10D's price

[denizenx]

ok lah... niggling detail, but was concerned about ur need to scrimp $$$$$$$ to buy the stuff.
what was ur previous camera? ever used a SLR film?
dun end up like that thread about digicam being different from DSLR. that's really *ugh*.

[Castlesinthesky]

Originally Posted by denizenx ok lah... niggling detail, but was concerned about ur need to scrimp $$$$$$$ to buy the stuff. what was ur previous camera? ever used a SLR film? dun end up like that thread about digicam being different from DSLR. that's really *ugh*.

well, i'm not dense enough to go why this doesn't work, that doesn't work huh, i weighed my options carefully and considered my needs before posting this thread.saving essentially equates to months and months of consideration. If i really wanted to go for the DSLR rush just because it's *hip* and *trendy* i wouldn have just gotten the 300D seriously to start with and not asking about the performance of the L lens and actually slowly saving up still to reach my desired goal.4K++ is hell a lot of money to spend on just one body (which will depreciate) and a piece of glass-and i'm aware of that entirely.

i never used an SLR of my own and i have been using an olympus 5050z previously.i did a lot of self studying and experimentation before deciding on the choice.i feel that i want to make the immediate switch to digital instead of going the film way because of the advantages already mentioned so many times and do post processing on one's own if need be.

so don't worry bro. i'm not spending money simply because having a DSLR means you can take power pictures instantly. The mind behind the compositions are still important.and just in case you wonder, i do rtfm before i ask questions.