lens suggestions

[charr5]

Hey guys,
I'm trying to replace some of my Canon lenses as to not have so many to haul with me.
I have:
Sigma 17-35 ( which I want to keep)
Canon 35-80
Canon 75-300
Canon 100mm Macro ( which I also want to keep)
I was thinking of selling the other two and getting something that covers the span of them combined in one lens.
I'm not sure how much I'm willing to spend, since I bought my 10D yesterday( it is awesome)
I'd like some feedback on some replacement lenses and also any reasoning...
I want to be able to grab maybe two lenses and go, without carrying them all. If I know I want to take Macro stuff then I'll take that one, but it's usually only when I plan on taking those pics.
Thanks guys,
CMH

[D60DIETER]

Congratulations!!

If you´ve got the 10D then you should get some "L" glases.

+It´s the same thing you know from your stereo. Buy cheap hardware and excellent speakers.

The sound will be great.

So get some good lenses: 16-35, 24-70, 135, 200 all of them are excellent and designed for digital SLR!!! Everthing else is waisting time and money.

[justme_dc]

Well I agree in part with dieter you should buy the best glass you can afford.

That being said, there is no silver bullet when it comes to zoom lenses. Anything that covers that much of a range is going to suffer optically somewhere. Canon makes a 35-350 L lens but it is pricey and generally thought to be a little soft (relatively speaking). It is an "L" lens and will out perform most consumer zooms. You can read about this lens here: http://www.photo.net/canon/35-350

You'd likely be better suited with a better zoom with a shorter range like the 24-70 2.8L. If that is not in your budget then maybe hold out for a bit with the glass you have.

[kbhagat]

I got the Canon EF 100-400 "L" lens with IS. I can tell the difference in every aspect from my Tamron 28-200 zomm. I'm thinking of selling my Tamron and getting the Canon 24-85 MM "L" lens for my general purpose shooting.

If I had the money I would only buy "L" lens. I also picked up the Canon 50MM F1.4. It has super picture quality.

Here are some shots i took from the 100-400 zoom. They were all done from a tripod with a 1/2 to 2 Sec exposure.

http://family.bhagat.com/100-400.htm

[martcol]

D60Dieter wrote:
If you´ve got the 10D then you should get some "L" glases.


kbhagat wrote:

If I had the money I would only buy "L" lens. I also picked up the Canon 50MM F1.4. It has super picture quality.


I dream about the 24-70 L lens but in the UK it costs £1230.00 (on-line price) - $1920! I just got the 28-135 IS USM for £350 (on-line) although haven't shot with it 'cos canon still have my 10D for cleaning sensor. I don't shoot professionally so, lesser lenses may do. I've noticed that all decent lenses Canon, Sigma and others sell easily on ebay so when the time comes for upgrade I'm off to NY for a long weekend and I know I'll sell my other stuff.

Martin

[charr5]

Thanks guys for the input.
I guess my point is that I don't want to have 7 different lenses. I would love to have two daily lenses..my 17-35 Sigma ( I wasn't in the position to buy the Canon 16-35 at the time) and another one ...I need things to be convenient. I've been thinking about the Canon 35-350, which would cover the range of my other two lenses. And my 100mm Macro for specific close up shots.
I'm not a professional and I don't make any money from my pictures...though I've had a few published in calendars for winning contests...which was pretty cool.
If anyone has any experiences with the Canon 35-350 lens, I would love to hear about them.
I'm pleased with the quality of my shots so far, so until I get out of school and can really afford "L" lenses, I have nothing to compare to.
Thanks again guys...this board is great.
CMH

[brunz]

The 35-350 is a nice lens but I wouldn't want to carry that huge monster around very far. Its too big and inconvenient to use without a tripod in my opinion.No,I don't own the lens but I've read what others say. I like the 28-135 IS for an everyday lens. Much lighter and I have had very good luck with it. I also love the 20-35 USM lens which is rather inexpensive. These two lenses are on my camera most of the time and both perform quite well. Both lenses are in the $300-400 range. Since you have the Sigma, I would get the 28-135 IS lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Your looking to replace two lenses ranging from 35mm to 300mm.

There are not amny lenses that can do this.

At the low end are Sigma 28-300mm as well as a Tamron that also goes from 28mm-300mm

Neither of these are "Stellar" performers, but I use the Sigma 28-300mm as a waliking around lens and am quite stisfied with it for that. At 300mm it is very hard to get a clear picture handheld,. it is so liteweight that it is more "shaky" than most 300mm lenses.

Of course several have mentioned the Canon 35-350.

This is a far superior lens in quality and image. But it is as others have pointed out,. not the most convenient to carry around.

I have a similar lens in that nature. The Sigma 50mm-500mm An Absolute tank of a lens,. wieghs 5 times what the body weighs and I would have been happy with less "ZOOM" on the wide end,.. but the 50MM does come in handy in a pinch.

Keep in mind that a 200mm lens will be 320mm equivilent on the 10D,.. so you may be looking at a 35-200mm range if you do the math that way.

[charr5]

Ok...so if I get the 35-350 it really ends up as a 56-560 right?
Canon makes a 28-200 F3.5-5.6 which would be
~45-320mm .it's not an "L' lens but it is USM.

What about the Tamron 28-300? I have only one off brand lens (sigma), so I'm not familiar with Tamron.
All words of wisdom are appreciated.
CMH