NEWBIE question! what lens is ideal for starting out?

[yikes]

Hey everyone! I made the jump from a G2 to a 10D :) Now, truthfully I have very little knowledge of lens's. What should I be looking for in an entry level lens? I dont wanna spend a huge amount, I'm thinking 400 american = 600 canadian tops. I like to have ability to zoom in, and I like to do macro shots aswell. Help me out here, what should I be for. :)

Nick

[Morden]

Hello!

I know for certain that many here will disagree with me on the following, but then many will agree....

My first lens, when I bought my D60 a year or so ago, was Canon's EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS.

I now have a 10D (and the D60) and this lens is still my 'everyday' lens that sits on the camera most of the time.

It has a nice zoom range, is of decent optical quality (I like it, anyway), is lighter than L zooms, and is not too expensive.

In addition, the IS (Image Stabilizer) system really works, saving many handheld shots that would otherwise be blurred into uselessness.

[davekone]

I nice inexpensive lens that performs good is the Tamron 28-300. Its only 3" long and weighs next to nothing. Wont matter if you smack it on a table while turning around since its only $300ish. From 28-200mm it takes nices shots, from 200-250 you need to be careful and at 300mm its a bit soft. Above 200mm you need light or flash because of the f6.3 at the top end.

David

[robertwgross]

I use a D60, and my standard lens is a Canon 28-200mm. Because of the outdoor nature stuff that I shoot, I need a wide range of focal length, and I don't want to be changing lenses every time I come upon a new subject.

Often I do carry a Canon film camera and other lenses, but the 28-200mm does about 90% of my work.

---Bob Gross---

[lziering]

I think you should consider a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. The typical super zoom is not wide enough at 28mm and it gets very slow at 200-300mm.

[yikes]

WOw! thanks for all the response. I do like the zoom but I am now thinking on waiting for a while, and spending a little more on my everyday lens. I have been reading some reviews on teh Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. What do you guys think of this lens?

YiKeS.

Also, I have heard that other brands of lens's may have issues focusing on the 10D.

[yikes]

This is the lens I have been looking @

http://www.vistek.ca/details/detail_over.asp?eCode=107445&Specs=N&Box=N

[brault]

I have the 24-85 and I'm quite pleased with it. However, I have just ordered the 29-135 f3.5-5.6 as I want IS. Below is a picture from it on my 10D.

http://www.fototime.com/%7BC2CF8AA9-0697-40ED-B6C0-BF95E1EE7AA8%7D/picture.JPG

Frank B

yikes wrote:
WOw! thanks for all the response. I do like the zoom but I am now thinking on waiting for a while, and spending a little more on my everyday lens. I have been reading some reviews on teh Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. What do you guys think of this lens?

YiKeS.

Also, I have heard that other brands of lens's may have issues focusing on the 10D.

[yikes]

thanks for the image brault, good shot! yes the IS does look like a nice feature, do you by jumping to the Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM, is worth it? its $200 more.

NIck

[Mr.Jalapeno]

I also use the 28-135 as my walkaround lens. Not only is the IS a minor miracle, but the close focusing ("macro" ) capabilities at full zoom are outstanding!

[brault]

Thanks.

I have not used IS yet, but I think it is worth it. I will still use the 24-85 on occasion when I need the the 24mm. However, I do mostly scenic photography on walks (I don't carry a tripod) and I think the IS will allow me to use smaller apertures handheld (with the slower shutter speeds with less camera shake) when I need them for extra depth of field. Also, at dusk I will be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds (with wide apertures) and have a better chance to avoid camera shake. Finally, having a focal range up to 135mm will mean less changing of lenses.

When compared with the 24-85 the only negatives I see are the extra weight and the 28mm widest focal length. I expect that overall it will be at least as sharp as my 24-85 as Photodo rates the 24-85 at 3.3 and the 28-135 at 3.5. Those are both good ratings for non-L lenses.

DPR in its D30, D60 reviews recommended both of these lenses.

28-35 D60 Review (DPR also recommends the 24-85 in this review).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60/page23.asp

24-85 and 28-135 D30 Review

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/page19.asp

I think the difference in price at B&H and Adorama is about $90.

Frank B

[perfectpixel]

Hi,
I am in the same boat!
Given the digital format's 1.5X focal length multiplier, I had thought of getting the Canon EF 17 - 40 mm F4.0 L lens for my "every day" lens. (27mm 64mm effective).
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022709canonef1740.asp
any comments on that? I know the "zoom" is pretty much nonexistant at 64mm, but I think in most situations being able to get a wide shot is more common.
Unless there is a good choice that would cover an effective range of 35mm to 200mm (after the focal length multipplier effect) and not be cost prohinitive.

[mwinog2777]

Tamron 28-200; great all-purpose lens. Save some money, as well.

[yikes]

Holly sooooo many suggestions, I think i need to open up a poll! I think I have made my final decision on the Canon 28-135 IS USM. Today I will go and buy :) I have looked @ the tamaron lens's as well, but they rate much lower than the Canon's from what I have been reading. Also, as stated above. I think I will wait for the soom lens, and worry about a good everyday lens first.

NIck

[mknodpipe]

Hiho!

I have a Sigma 28-200 Ashperical IF Macro and a 50mm 1.8 Canon. I have taken some comparison shots - and the 50mm doubtless has a higher resolution.

There is a perfect lens from Tokina though. It's supposed to be as good as a prime. The 2.8/28-70 Zoom. It's a pro zoom for a street price of about 280 USD.

It's up to you to decide what lens you choose depending on what you wanna do with it.

[David Lawson]

I used the 24-85 as a walk around lens in India 5 or so years ago and film based. OK it wasn't as good as my 70-200 f2.8L, however, my agents took shots done on both lenses, which was the important thing to me. I don't think 28 is wide enough on a 1.6x crop. 24mm is a great focal length, my favourite wide on film. I had a 28-135 but thought the 135 end was nearer 105. I agree with someone above about the Sigma 28-70 f2.8, build quality is a bit flimsey, if you get a good one it rivals but doesn't beat the canon 24-70 IMHO. david

[shejobe]

I purchased my D-30 3 weeks ago and bought the Canon Ultrasonic EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

I've used it for scenic shots, portraits and even managed to get a few shots on a 42' sail boat this weekend:

http://users3.ev1.net/~shejobe/Image_Pages/2003_May/Me_helm1.jpg

There are others that captured the DOF better, but this is the only one I have with me at work today...since it is me in the pic. :)

Anyway, for the short period of time I have had the camera and lens, I've been pleased.

SJ

[dwdmguy]

I'm surprised not one reply has asked
"what is the mission" or "what so you most enjoy shooting"
This makes a world of difference.
When about to purchase any type of equipment, PLEASE understand the mission of said equipment.

There a a lot of well meaining peoples on the board but all wars are religious.

Very best,
Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. he did say he wants to be able to zoom in,. and likes macro.

I think something like the Sigma 28-200 which is a "macro" will offer a lot. IUt can be had for about $240.00 US,. which will leave some money in the budget for a Canon 50mm 1.8 etc.

The Canon alternative mentioned, 28-135 would be great,. but is it macro?

[jlamadoo]

What kind of wacky board is this that has 20 people reading a message for every one person who replies? Where can I get answers to questions about Canon Digital that aren't on the official page? I don't want to read any more questions. I want to read ANSWERS!

Lama

[Robert]

The 28-135 is an excellent choice to start with. The downside is that the effectual focal length of this lens on the 10D will be 44.8mm to 216mm. This is good when using the tele focal lengths but works against you when requiring wide angle. I shoot more wide angle photos and could not live with it as my only lens for this reason.

Although a bit more than your budget I think the new 17-40 mm lens makes a lot of sense. I think it is the only lens that Canon currently makes that the focal length is not changed on the 10D. Please don't hold me to this however I think it is correcct.

Best to you with your new camera.

[martcol]

jlamadoo wrote:
Digital that aren't on the official page? I don't want to read any more questions. I want to read ANSWERS!

Lama

So, What's your question ;)

[brault]

We won't hold you to it. :) The 17-40 must be multiplied by 1.6 on the 10D to get the field of view. This lens is designed for both film and digital; however, even if it were designed for digital only this would still be true.

Frank B


Although a bit more than your budget I think the new 17-40 mm lens makes a lot of sense. I think it is the only lens that Canon currently makes that the focal length is not changed on the 10D. Please don't hold me to this however I think it is correcct.

Best to you with your new camera.
[/quote]

[JAB1]

Get the Canon 17-40mm...I have had mine for about 2 weeks and it will remain my all-around lens...crystal clear images with the 10D and my Elan as well....you will not go wrong....much better constructed lens than the Sigmas or Tamrons....for the money, I am very happy....AB

[Moosehunter]

I've got a Sigma 17-35. It suffers from slow focusing and 'soft' pictures at wide apetures. Go for the Canon 17-40, my other two lenses are Canon (28-90 & 75-300) and I've never noticed slow focusing with either of these lenses.

UK Midlands