This 10d Kit make sense?

[yallcome]

I'm thinking of taking the plunge off the G3 diving board and going for a 10d. Does this kit make sense to you? I am amateur, but want to expand my horizons a bit. I have used SLRs for 30 years, and am finding that I miss terribly the ability to see the image through the finder. Partially has to do with not being able to see the LCD on the G3 well in the sun, as well as my being presbyopic.

10d bod
16-35 mm L and hood
28-135 IS and hood
50mm 1.8
Bogen 3001 BN
Tamrac 608 Pro
Giotto's Rocket
Stofen OmniBounce
Holga 120S :-)

[Canuck]

I'm thinking of taking the plunge off the G3 diving board and going for a 10d. Does this kit make sense to you? I am amateur, but want to expand my horizons a bit. I have used SLRs for 30 years, and am finding that I miss terribly the ability to see the image through the finder. Partially has to do with not being able to see the LCD on the G3 well in the sun, as well as my being presbyopic.

10d bod
16-35 mm L and hood
28-135 IS and hood
50mm 1.8
Bogen 3001 BN
Tamrac 608 Pro
Giotto's Rocket
Stofen OmniBounce
Holga 120S :-)

Hmm....
I like the 16-35, great lens!
Can't speak for the 28-135.
Can't go wrong w/ the nifty-fifty.
I'd add Big Ed, especially considering longer focal length lenses.
Failing that I would recommend at least 512MB as min CF card size, especially if shoot RAW. Other than that extra batteries and I think you will be good to go. The only other way I'd imagine going is a 24-70 and 70-200 in F2.8 or F4 in L which would be your choice.

[yallcome]

What's Big Ed?

PS. An hour later --Whoops -- just found it. Thanks

[Jesper]

Big Ed (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=208567&is=REG) is the battery grip for the 10D. It's called BG-ED3, which almost sounds like "Big Ed". Some people like it, some people don't. I don't like it, for me the 10D is already big and heavy enough in itself.

Have you thought about the 17-40 f/4 L instead of the 16-35? It costs only half of what the 16-35 costs and it's just as good - the only real advantage of the 16-35 is 1 stop extra light (f/2.8 vs. f/4).

[defordphoto]

What's Big Ed?

Vertical grip. It also holds two batteries. It's highly recommended and balances the camera especially for the larger lenses.

Nice kit, BTW.

[RikWriter]

I'd think you'd want something telephoto in there.

[ijohnson]

That is a very strong wide angle lens with great low light capability combined with a pretty nice, maybe so-so lens with a 5.6 f-stop at 135mm, not good in low light if anything is moving. The IS is nice though. This set-up makes sense to me if you love wide angle low-light shots, like a LITTLE zoom, and don't want anything long. If that sounds like your shooting preference then I would say that is a great kit. Still step up for the BG-ED and the flash card. I don't have the BG-ED because I like not having it there for some reason. Maybe I just need to spend a few months shooting with one before I decide I don't like it.

If you wanted to cover more bases, a common set of reccomendations is the 17-40 f/4L, the 50mm 1.8, and the 70-200 F/4L. This would give you higher quality at anything over 35mm, better low-light in the mid and long lens ranges, longer reach (200 vs. 135) and would cost you about the same as the other lens set and I think less (maybe you could get the 50mm 1.4 instead of the 1.8). There is a gap in the focal lengths but nothing that I would notice.

I just typed to much. I am procrastinating going to bed.

[Edgar in ATL]

I am thinking along the same lines. Why don't you go first, and tell me how it goes?
:D

[justruss]

Unless the 16mm and one fstop of light is a big deal to you, why not get the 17-40 F4 L at half the price of the 16-35 2.8 (and some say the 17 is sharper!) and then instead of 28-135 IS you can get the 70-200 F4L, with the middle mostly covered by the 50 1.8. This setup is less expensive then the list you made at first, with a greater range, and better quality glass overall-- maybe better across the whole range of focal lengths.

17-40 F4 L $580-650 (used/new)

50 1.8 $50-80 (used/new)

70-200 F4 L $450-550 (used/new)

That's about the same price as the 16-35 alone. And though the 28-135 IS is a good lens, the 70-200 4 is much better. The only downside (and this is a downside to some, upside to others) is the 70-200 is a big white lens which will attract attention.

[justruss]

p.s. If I were me, that's the set of lenses I'd get. Wait, I am me!? Those are the lenses on the way to my house!! sweet. And a 10D!!!

hehe

[dsze]

I just bought a 10D about 3 weeks ago. All I had after selling my 300D was the 70-200 f/4 L. I was then propositioned to shoot a wedding and obviously needed more equipment, but had little money. Here's what I got. (its all still pretty new, but so far I am not disappointed at all with any of it). And, on top of the 10D & 70-200 that I had, I think I spent another $800.

Canon 50mm 1.8
Tamron 28-75 XR Di (w/UV filters)
420EX Flash (w/4 NiMH rech. batteries)
DynaTran AT-3770 Tripod
LowePro Compact AW bag
(2) new 512MB CF cards (in addition to the 896MB I had)
(1) new BP511 (generic) batt. (in add. to the 3 I had)


Since I've recieved all of this I've run through several 'practice weddings' around my house and really feel that this kit will be very sufficient.

-daniel

[dsze]

The other thing that I would add is a sensorswipe, pecpads, eclipse. You'll have to clean that sensor eventually. My 10D came with a dirty sensor and I had to clean it the first day. Its stayed pretty clean since then though, and I've been doing ALOT of lens changing as I get familiar with my 2 new lenses.

-daniel

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ditto Ijohnsosn's recomendation..

Save a little and substitute the 16-35mm with the 17-40mm f/4 and then you have enough for the 70-200mm f/4

Also.. you may want to just skip the 28-135mm... save that cash for getting the 24-70mm or maybe a used 28-70mm... and of course there going nuts over the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 in many circles..

[yallcome]

Ditto Ijohnsosn's recomendation..

and of course there going nuts over the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 in many circles..

Got any good reviews to look at on this one?

[drisley]

Yes, I've heard many great things about the Tamron 28-75mm.
It's supposedly much better optically than the Canon 28-135mm (that is something I've heard consistently), and almost as good as the very expensive Canon 24-70mm F2.8L.
It also includes a 6 year warranty compared to Canon's limited 1 year warranty.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35201&highlight=tamron+2875

[dsze]

It is also $329 compared to Canon's $1169!

So far, I am very impressed with the Tamron. Here are some portraits that I took yesterday with it (my first real day of shooting with it) AND some with the 70-200 f/4. I know they are different lenses, but I think the image quality is comparable. See if you can tell the difference. None of these photos are sharpened...they just recieved a minor saturation bump & hue adjustment because they recieved no in-camera processing and my white balance was incorrect..... But, I think they are pretty good. The subject is sharp and the bokeh seems smooth. These shots were practice fill-flash shots, so the lighting is not always spot-on, but you can see what the lens does. What are your opinions of this lens?

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dmcnulty/people/

-daniel

[yallcome]

I think I may be sold

[dsze]

:)

Does the sharpness show up ok in those posted jpgs? I tried to preserve all the quality I could, but they are still web-jpgs...

-daniel

[yallcome]

Yes, detail in hair and skin was very nice. Also like the bokeh there as well.

[Haifidelity]

Dan, i'll take some guesses--lemme know if i'm correct..! (going by the image numbers):

1.) Tamron
2.) Tamron
3.) Tamron
4.) Canon
5.) Canon
6.) Canon
7.) Canon
8.) Tamron
9.) Tamron
10.) Tamron

[dsze]

Close, but not quite.
1. Tamron
2. Tamron
3. Tamron
4. Canon
5. Canon
6. Canon
7. Tamron
8. Tamron
9. Tamron
10. Tamron

So, you were only off on #7. Tell me what you based your guesses on? Bokeh?

-daniel

[Haifidelity]

I tried the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 on at a local camera store that let me 'borrow' it for a small time period to try it out. It's a good lens, especially for the price--but the one thing that got to me was the slight yellow cast that it gave on all the pictures I took with it (on a 10D).

I opted to buy a second hand EF 28-70 F/2.8L because of this. Here are my conclusions with my short time with the Tamron:

PROS:

1.) Acceptably Sharp wide open, but better at f/5.6+
2.) Good Bokeh, at least as good as the similiar Canon 'L' Zooms.
3.) PRICE..PRICE...and oh yeah, The Price!
4.) Smaller and Lighter than similiar Canon 'L' Zooms
5.) AF Speed was acceptable.

CONS:

1.) Slight yellow cast resulting in color rendition not to my liking.
2.) Contrast straight out of the camera a little too weak for my tastes.
3.) AF Speed is still not Ring USM Speed.

Given, the color cast and contrast can be fixed in post processing. I don't think i'd NOT recommend this lens to anybody who's looking for near-'L' lens, but it just wasn't for me.

I wanted to guess which ones were the Tamron too see if the yellow cast was just isolated to the copy I tried, or not. Good pictures BTW!

[dsze]

So, did you see the yellow tint in my portraits? I saw that in some but not others and I think it was dependent on the lighting. It was not consistently yellow for me. Even if it was, I don't find it a big problem. If I were actually going to use any of those portraits (thanks for the compliment BTW), then they would have been shot in RAW anyway and gone through post-processing. OR the parameters could be set on my 10D for a more red tint, or whatever. I don't see the yellow tint as being a problem with this lens yet though...I'll keep an eye on it though.

-daniel