What makes a good lens outfit?

[graphile]

Hello. This is my first post.

I am a graphic designer. I take photos for fun, and occasionally for comps at work. I bought my first digital SLR last summer, a Fuji S1 Pro. It's interpolated 6 mega pixels were awful, so I sold it and bought a 10D.

I am new to Canon and I was wondering what a good Canon lens setup consisted of. I bought a 28-135mm 3.3-5.6 IS USM with the 10D, and just ordered a 50mm 1.4 USM. I would like an "L" lens, maybe the 16-35, or the 28-70.

Any lens recommendations?

[CyberDyneSystems]

The two lenses you have (28-135mm & 50mm) are both superb bargains.

Anytime you can live with a prime (both as far as flexibility and price) do so.

Of the wide angle "L" zooms I only have experience with the relatoive bargain 17-40mm f/4 L, and it is a wonderfull lens. Get the 16-35 f/2.8 if you need the extra aperture.

Another favorite zoom is any of the 70-200mm L lenses. Again your intended use will dictate whether it is the bargain f/4 "L" or the more costly f/2.8 versions.

[rdenney]

graphile wrote:
Hello. This is my first post.

I am a graphic designer. I take photos for fun, and occasionally for comps at work. I bought my first digital SLR last summer, a Fuji S1 Pro. It's interpolated 6 mega pixels were awful, so I sold it and bought a 10D.

I am new to Canon and I was wondering what a good Canon lens setup consisted of. I bought a 28-135mm 3.3-5.6 IS USM with the 10D, and just ordered a 50mm 1.4 USM. I would like an "L" lens, maybe the 16-35, or the 28-70.

Any lens recommendations?


The 28-135 you have is good enough for many applications, so I would not duplicate it with an L lens of only slightly better quality. I would instead expand your range either with a wide zoom or a tele zoom. On the wide end don't underestimate the 20-35. It is plenty sharp, and only lacks the speed of the L zooms. I don't see much marginal advantage of the 16-35 over the 17-40, and would buy the latter if I needed that extra three millimeters wider than the 20. Again, that extra stop isn't that useful to me.

If you go long, the 70-200 f/4 is awfully hard to beat, especially if you mate it to the 1.4x converter. The non-L zooms in that range just don't compare (and, yes, I tried them).

CDS is right that fixed-focus lenses are generally better than zooms, even L zooms, but changing lenses often allows dust into the camera that that has been a problem for me.

I'm surprised you weren't tempted by the 50mm f/2.5 macro, given that you might want to do comps with the camera. It's a great copy lens with a reasonable working distance. But it's easy enough to use as a general 50, and the only advantage the 1.4 has over it is the extra two stops. Another option is the 100mm macro.

I'm pretty happy with my collection, and here's what I have:

14mm rectilinear Sigma that I'm not using as often as I thought I would.
16mm full-frame fisheye (a cheapie manual Zenitar that works remarkably well) that I'm using much more than I thought I would.
50mm 2.5 macro.
20-35 Canon USM
28-70 f/2.8 Sigma EX
70-200 f/4L
1.4 converter
135mm soft-focus for long-reach portraits

With these I'm not running into many unmanageable situations. The next lens on my list is the 100-400 L.

Rick "who would not turn down a really fast 28" Denney

[Kevin M]

I took delivery of 10d last week with a 24-85 3.5/4.5 USM plus the bargain priced 50 1,8 II. I intend getting a 17-40 4L when the bank account recovers.
As lenses go - the reasonably priced 24-85 seems to be a very useful performer. Took my first trip to the hills with the 10d a couple days of days ago. 24mm is not quite wide enough for my purposes so I shot multiple images and blended them together. Bit of a pain without a tripod but it gets me out of a hole until I can buy the more suitable 17-40.

Valley (http://homepage.eircom.net/~bot/paint/10d.htm)

The 50 1.8 seems to be as sharp as a needle

As for the 10D, what a nice camera.

Kevin

[Longwatcher]

Get the 16-35L over the 28-70.
I have both and the 28-135 IS.

The 16-35L will make a huge difference to your range of lenses. giving you the wide angle you need for some indoor/close-up shots. the extra aperture over the 17-40 can make a difference, but if budget limited, the 17-40 is also a good choice.

On the other hand, while the 28-70 is a better lens then the 28-135IS, I got the 28-70 for the extra aperture not for sharpness. I still use the 28-135 IS when I travel and can only take one lens. (note: the 28-70 is slightly better, but not noticable in the real world in my opinion)

So the 16-35 is the better choice of the two.

After you get that, get the 70-200/2.8L IS and then later gap fill with the 28-70L or 24-70L.
Although the 75-300 IS is also a good lens, I now only use mine if I need a longer lens, but the lower weight is needed more then the quality of the 70-200/2.8.

Just my opinion,