Lens upgrade for 10D

[Thierry]

Hello,
I have the 10D and recently purchased my 17-40L. Everything works great.
I'm looking at upgrading my other lenses now (28-105 3.4/4.5 I and an old 70-210 f4 non USM).
I'm thinking of:
- keeping the 28-105 and getting a 70-200/f4 (although I would like to keep black lenses)
- 28-135 IS + 70-200/f4
or
- what about the new 70-300 DO IS. IS it going to be good ? It looks very compact.
What would you recommend ?
I appreciate all you comments.
Thierry.

[CyberDyneSystems]

the 70-200mm f/4 is fantastic and very affordable.

IF they ever release the 70-300mm DO... I doubt it will be as sharp as the f/4 70-200... and it will cost three times the price if what they say is true :shock:

[2new]

I recently upgraded the very same lenses. The 17-40 L is very good and the 70-200 f/4 L is phenomenal. IMHO - Both lenses are the 2 best buys in L glass, which is why I started with them (after reading dozens of posts on this site and reviews on several other sites).

If you decide for some reason you would like to sell them down the road or next week, they really hold their value so the downside risk is minimal.

I love both lenses. Like the L-crack addict I am becoming now I would really like to add the 100-400 and the Sigma 500mm prime. I think this is the first sign of a serious problem...

[Thierry]

CDS,
Is your last post an insider information on the 70-300 DO release ?
Is Canon having problem with ?
Thierry.

[Whaler]

70 - 200 f/4 L. Inexpensive and if the color really bothers you? :roll:

[Mike H]

Thierry, don't let the color stop you. Once you get the 70-200/4L you'll realize that it's as sharp to look at as it is to shoot with. Everyone who gets one really loves the lens--and you can include me on that list. It's very sharp and built like a brick.

Ultimately what lens is best for you will depend on what you plan to shoot. It sounds from your post like you are happy with the focal length and speed, but just want to upgrade. Is that correct? If not, can you tell us what you will be shooting?

Mike

[psk4363]

Hi Thierry,

For what it's worth I'd go for the 28-135 IS, supplemented by the 70-200 L.

OK so you'll have a large 70-135 overlap, if that bothers you and you could afford it get the 100-400 IS L instead of the 70-200 L - less overlap and a greater range.

Cheers,
Barry

[Tom W]

I'd go for keeping the 28-105 f/3.5 and getting the 70-200L. If your 28-105 is as good as my copy is, its going to be hard to beat without spending a good deal of money.

Don't forget to get a 50!

[Sketcher]

IMO,

Gear and cost consideration only: Start w/keeping the 28-105 and supplement with a 70-200 f/4L. That f/4L is a sweet lens at a great price point and won't hurt badly in the resale department if you choose to put it up (I sold my f4 to afford a f2.8L IS). I do prefer it to the 2.8L IS for weight and portability as a walk around lens.

I'll likely be re-buying the f/4 for the wife though (cringe, flourite enhanced hindsight). She doesn't much care for the weight/size of the 2.8L IS and doesn't want all those extra buttons anyway.