10D and the LENS that works best??

[photography By Evangelos]

Well for some time now I have noticed that my newer canon 24-70 L which is made to work better with digital works best over all in A/F. I have a lot of canon L and EF glass and the newer lens had the best results. Has any one noticed this as well? I have the 70-200 L , 17-35 L, 300 L, 85 1.8 ,28-135 IS, Tilt shift, and some sigma’s that work just fine. However the best one of the bunch is the new 24-70 not sure why? I wonder if the new 16-35L is way better than my 17-35L is? Any one has an input with this??

Angelo 8)

[timmyquest]

What do you mean by "work better"

Auto-focus

Sharpness

Colors

???

[Belmondo]

It's hard to make comparisons with lenses I'm not familiar with, and I have no experience with the 17-35. I do own both the 24-70L and 16-35L, and both produce similar results. Both are extremely sharp throughout their range.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I can't answer your question specifically re: particular lenses.. but I can definately say that certain lenses "work" better on the 10D than others...

When I say "work" better I am getting down to the bottom line. IE: Number of "keepers" due to better AF, and more importanatly in most cases.. better exposure!

The Best lens I have in this case is the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 Prime.. I have a very hard time taking a bad photo with it :mrgreen: (as hard as I may try)

After that the 70-200mm f/2.8 seems to be pretty magical too... far better than the 28-70mm f/2.8

The "works better" in these cases is very hard to quantify.. it just is.

[Haifidelity]

The 24-70 f/2.8L has probably the most up to date AF Processing Unit out of all of those you have mentioned, which could be attributed to percievable improvement in AF responsiveness.

I believe the 17-40 F/2.8L is also probably from the same round of revised AF Processing units.

Although, even Fred Miranda's comparison of the 28-70/24-70 f/2.8L's AF speed notes that the difference is pretty much insignificant.

-hza

[Pekka]

There are three lenses I seem to use now almost exclusively: Canon 85/1.2L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L and Canon 17-40 f/4L. I also like 50 f/1.4 but it falls so close to 85 (couple of steps back)... also 85 can be used even down to 1.2 with very sharp results.

Situations changed a bit with Mark II, 50mm was about 80mm with 10D and so much more used in portraits. 17-40 is now wide enough so Sigma 14 is not really needed apart from bathroom architecture. Sigma 20 falls now under 17-40 area, and as it is not stellar at f 1.8 and equal to 17-40 at f4 I seem to be ignoring it, too. So if you get lenses for 10D it may be wise to keep 1.3 at mind, too. Also, take into account the low ISO 800-1600 noise Mark II has which means 16-35 2.8 is not really needed for gathering light, and 2.8 for subject separation it is not enough for such wide angle anyways.

One lens I'd love to buy before the end of the year: Canon 24/1.4L. It falls to 85/1.2L category of lenses you can use wide open without any hesitations. It also offers a real capability to bring subject out on wide shots.