How about this.......

My initial lens collection for my forthcoming 10D purchase:

1. 50mm f1.4 USM

2. 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM

3. 100-400L IS USM

I do a little portraiture, a little nature and alot of random shooting !!

What do you reckon ?

I reckon you'll like it. I don't know anything about the 24-85, but I either own or have used the other two, and they are both fine pieces of glass. 8)

Have Fun,

#1 and #3 are great lenses. I would suggest the 24-70/2.8 L over #2.
The 24-70/2.8 (36-105 with 1.6 crop), makes an excellent portrait lens, and the 2.8 gives a good background blur.
Scott

I don't know anthuing about the 24-85mm either.. but at 1/6th the cost of the "L" .. it may be worth a try to keep your initial investment down.

lol. well maybe some people should stay objective there. obviously the 24 70 L is a great lens, but i dont think it is helpful to suggst this here. the 24 85 has the same zoom range at a fraction of the price (a few stop slower though).

I personnaly have the 24-85 and the 50 f1.4. I am thinking of changing the 24-85 for a 17-40L and i have to admit that i am a bit scared of loosing the flexbility of the 24-85.

It is a lightweight lens with an extremely usefull zoom range (ideal for you random shooting". But i feel the quality (optical) is not fantastic, nowere near the 50 f1.4, even stopped down i would dare to say. but as i said, considering that post processing is common, it can compensate for lens quality, but not for zoom range or flexibility.

Hope this is helpfull.

Dan

I never make assumptions for people or about people. What seems too expensive for one person may seem perfectly reasonable/objective to another. We're all adults here. You get options, you make choices. The original poster didn't say, "Please don't suggest anything expensive!"
The camera body will need to be replaced in 3 years, while the lenses will work on the next 2 camera upgrades. I prefer to buy my lenses once.
Regards,
Scott

IMHO, post-processing cannot compensate for the lens quality. Post-processing can restore the original lens sharpness. It can help to bring out what the lens is really capable of, but that's it. If you push it too far, post processing effects are easily noticed (oversharpenning, for example).

Thanks for the advice Scott, however, I was planning on getting the 24-70mm, only, opted for the cheaper lens to free-up money for the 100-400mm. I really want the length for nature photography and I've been hearing bad things about the 75-300mm IS, which was on my original list with the 24-70L.

I really would like to get both "L's". But I've gone way over my original budget already and really haven't got the money for it.

Thanks for all the advice. I'll let you know how I get on when I get the camera and try some lenses on it (unless I change my mind again )

Gary.

My first lens for this camera was the 24-85. While not bad it only took me about a month before I replaced it with the 24-70 f2.8 L. The price difference is significant but I would think that you would be much happier with the 24-70.

quickben wrote:
Thanks for the advice Scott, however, I was planning on getting the 24-70mm, only, opted for the cheaper lens to free-up money for the 100-400mm. I really want the length for nature photography and I've been hearing bad things about the 75-300mm IS, which was on my original list with the 24-70L.

I really would like to get both "L's". But I've gone way over my original budget already and really haven't got the money for it.

Thanks for all the advice. I'll let you know how I get on when I get the camera and try some lenses on it (unless I change my mind again )

Gary.

If you are looking for alternatives to the 24-85 you could do worse than consider the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD. Whilst it's not quite as good as the EF 24-70L, it's a very good lens and a hell of a lot cheaper.

Cadwell wrote:

quickben wrote:
Thanks for the advice Scott, however, I was planning on getting the 24-70mm, only, opted for the cheaper lens to free-up money for the 100-400mm. I really want the length for nature photography and I've been hearing bad things about the 75-300mm IS, which was on my original list with the 24-70L.

I really would like to get both "L's". But I've gone way over my original budget already and really haven't got the money for it.

Thanks for all the advice. I'll let you know how I get on when I get the camera and try some lenses on it (unless I change my mind again )

Gary.

If you are looking for alternatives to the 24-85 you could do worse than consider the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD. Whilst it's not quite as good as the EF 24-70L, it's a very good lens and a hell of a lot cheaper.

I've heard good things about this lens, too. Is it very sharp, or atleast, sharper than the 24-75 ?

Gary ?

I have one. It's a little soft wide open at f/2.8 (easily fixable in post processing) at least as sharp as my EF 17-40L at f/4.0 and very sharp indeed at f/5.6. I don't have a 24-75 so I can't comment on that lens, sorry.

I do know that this lens nicely fills the focal length gap between my 17-40 f/4L and my 70-200 f/4L and it performs well in that company.

The 100-400 is an excellent choice.
Regards,
Scott

I purchased the the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD on Cadwell's recommendation, and I am very pleased with the lens. It's not quite as sharp as my 17-40 at 2.8 but it's damn close. Next to my 70-200 f/4 I think it is one of the best values for the $$ in that range.

Michael