What two lenses would you recommend for the 10D??

randy Senior · Jul 15, 2003

I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape, some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses? Thanks for your help

Tim Dolan · Jul 15, 2003

recommend the 50/1.8 (or the 50/1.4) which will cover your portrait needs at low cost for good quality.

for sports, if outdoors you can get away with the 75-300, if indoors then you almost need to go with 70-200/2.8L. And if you can afford it get the IS version.

I don't do landscape that often so can't recommend one for that, but the 50/1.8 should give you some capability towards that. Later maybe get 17-40 and 24-70L.

Just my opinions,
--
Quality is in the setup, Quantity ensures one good shot.

Toshi · Jul 15, 2003

With only this information to work with, I'd suggest a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 prime to cover the landscape end, and the 50mm f/1.8 prime from Canon to cover the portrait end. Going with zooms will net you less sharpness ultimately, and if you don't know the difference between the f/1.4 and f/1.8 Canons, you're probably better off with the f/1.8.

randy Senior said:
I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape,
some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would
you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses?
Thanks for your help

randy Senior · Jul 15, 2003

I also hear that the 135mm is a great portrait lense so I amy consider the 50mm you recomment or the 135. Any thoughts?

Toshi said:
randy Senior said:

I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape,
some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would
you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses?
Thanks for your help

Click to expand...

brooke · Jul 15, 2003

If you're looking at 2 lenses in the "very best glass" catagory, then you're looking at spending upwards of $2000. That having been said ...

Sports calls for the 70-200. The f4 is under $600. If you need f/2.8, $1200. I opted for the IS version at $1600. Six months from now I won't miss that extra $400, but I'll have the lens for years. I know the 2.8 seems like a Beast at first, but you'll come to love it.

Landscape requires a wide angle. Primes are a good option here. The 20mm goes for $400. I like my 24/2.8 @ $275, but really like the flexibility, width, and color of the new 17-40/4 L zoom ($800).

Portraits can be done well with your new 70-200.

I like the 85/1.8 for 10D portraits. It's also a nice fast medium tele (effective 135mm) that would be useful for low-light sports - especially if you go for the f/4 version of the 70-200.

randy Senior said:
I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape,
some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would
you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses?
Thanks for your help

Lee Rothman · Jul 15, 2003

I'd start with a 16-35 2.8L (the last wide zoom you will ever need). From there go for a 24-70 2.8L for the mid tele stuff. Sounds like these 2 would already meet most of your stated needs..........

SteveDude · Jul 15, 2003

You're probably already familiar, BUT...

135 turns into 216 - which strikes me as a VERY long portrait lens.

The 50mm 1.8 turns into about 80, which is a nice portrait length. I think this is why many like the 50 (not to mention that it's less than $75!!)

randy Senior said:
Toshi said:

randy Senior said:

I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape,
some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would
you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses?
Thanks for your help

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/stevegrillo , Equipment on profile page

Lars Johnsson · Jul 15, 2003

randy Senior said:
I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape,
some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would
you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses?
Thanks for your help

Brian Kennedy · Jul 15, 2003

randy Senior said:
I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results.

If you "really want tack sharp results," then buy and use a tripod. Seriously. In all likelihood, you will find it is the one piece of photo equipment that most visibly improves your pictures -- in fact, they'll not only be sharper but also better composed and better thought out. Just a suggestion!

As for specific lenses, choose based on focal length, not based on MTF curves. Pick lenses that will get you the pictures you want, and buy something of at least decent quality. Lenses are like furniture -- surprisingly expensive, but you only feel the pain once. Then you have to live with your purchase for a long time, so don't skimp much. You don't have to buy "L" series lenses. If you buy regular old Canon lenses, you really can't go too wrong.

I strongly suggest you take a look at a book like National Geographic's "Photography Field Guide" to get a feel for what different lenses will do what, and also to give you inspiration to go out and shoot. It's one thing to have nice camera equipment, it's quite another (and MUCH more fun) to actually use it! ;-)

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/

Greg66 · Jul 15, 2003

and suggest 3.

1. 50mm f1.8. With the FOV crop, as a pp pointed out, you've got an effctive 80mm. Ideal for portraits, and as sharp as they come. Go for the Mk I used over the Mk II new (and if you find one, let me know, I want one!!)

2. 17-40mm f4 L for WA/landscapes. Also on my wishlist, and about to come off and go onto my lens list. Seems to be at least as sharp as the more expensive 16-35mm. If that's too expensive, a cheaper alt is the Sigma 15-30mm. But look a the weight and the vulnerability of the front element first.

3. Kids sports means 70-200 L. If the sports are fast moving, you need fast shutter speed, and that means lots of light - so the 2.8 over the 4, although thats $$ over $. You might be able to get away without IS if you're using a fast shutter speed to freeze action. Conversely, you might kick yourself if you don't get IS, because chances are if you have one of these lenses, you'll shoot more than kids' sports. The advantage of getting any of the F4, F2.8 or F2.8 IS is that you could later get a 1.4x teleconverter, to bump the lens to a 98-280mm, at the cost of an f-stop.

Toshi · Jul 15, 2003

To aid in comparison, here are two shots that are fairly typical of how I frame images when using the 50 and 135mm lenses.

50mm f/1.4, shot wide open:

http://tjclark.ath.cx/images/HRO/Images/39.jpg

135mm f/2L half body, wide open at ISO 800, from about 25 feet away:

http://tjclark.ath.cx/images/mihnuet/summer%20mihnuet%20at%20jeanne%20jugan%20-%20july%2012,%202003/Images/1.jpg

a more typical perspective from the 135, complete with extremely shallow dof:

http://tjclark.ath.cx/images/mihnuet/summer%20mihnuet%20at%20jeanne%20jugan%20-%20july%2012,%202003/Images/3.jpg

While I find the 135 to be a fabulous lens, especially since I shoot across the room at performances often, it's too long imo for typical portraiture use, unless you like extremely tight crops.

Pekka Saarinen · Jul 15, 2003

randy Senior said:
I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape,
some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would
you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses?
Thanks for your help

70-200 f/2.8L (IS or not, does not matter to me). You'll end up wanting and needing it sooner or later so better get it ASAP so you can enjoy it all day long.

50/1.4 is another lens which has good karma. 1.8 version may be slightly sharper, but bokeh and build is better with 1.4 version. I've done my most beautiful portraits with this lens - it really likes 10D's resolving power and low noise for bokeh.

I use those two 80% of time, then comes 35/2 with about 15% of on-time and Sigma 20 and 14 I keep for wide angle needs. I have thought about getting 85/1.8 or 100/2 but I have come to conclusion I really don't need them now.

--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net

randy Senior · Jul 22, 2003

Thank you for your comments and insight

Tim Dolan said:
recommend the 50/1.8 (or the 50/1.4) which will cover your portrait
needs at low cost for good quality.

for sports, if outdoors you can get away with the 75-300, if
indoors then you almost need to go with 70-200/2.8L. And if you can
afford it get the IS version.

I don't do landscape that often so can't recommend one for that,
but the 50/1.8 should give you some capability towards that. Later
maybe get 17-40 and 24-70L.

Just my opinions,
--
Quality is in the setup, Quantity ensures one good shot.

randy Senior · Jul 22, 2003

Brian Kennedy said:
randy Senior said:

I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results.

Click to expand...

If you "really want tack sharp results," then buy and use a tripod.
Seriously. In all likelihood, you will find it is the one piece of
photo equipment that most visibly improves your pictures -- in
fact, they'll not only be sharper but also better composed and
better thought out. Just a suggestion!

As for specific lenses, choose based on focal length, not based on
MTF curves. Pick lenses that will get you the pictures you want,
and buy something of at least decent quality. Lenses are like
furniture -- surprisingly expensive, but you only feel the pain
once. Then you have to live with your purchase for a long time, so
don't skimp much. You don't have to buy "L" series lenses. If you
buy regular old Canon lenses, you really can't go too wrong.

I strongly suggest you take a look at a book like National
Geographic's "Photography Field Guide" to get a feel for what
different lenses will do what, and also to give you inspiration to
go out and shoot. It's one thing to have nice camera equipment,
it's quite another (and MUCH more fun) to actually use it! ;-)

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/

randy Senior · Jul 22, 2003

Greg66 said:
and suggest 3.

1. 50mm f1.8. With the FOV crop, as a pp pointed out, you've got an
effctive 80mm. Ideal for portraits, and as sharp as they come. Go
for the Mk I used over the Mk II new (and if you find one, let me
know, I want one!!)

2. 17-40mm f4 L for WA/landscapes. Also on my wishlist, and about
to come off and go onto my lens list. Seems to be at least as sharp
as the more expensive 16-35mm. If that's too expensive, a cheaper
alt is the Sigma 15-30mm. But look a the weight and the
vulnerability of the front element first.

3. Kids sports means 70-200 L. If the sports are fast moving, you
need fast shutter speed, and that means lots of light - so the 2.8
over the 4, although thats $$ over $. You might be able to get away
without IS if you're using a fast shutter speed to freeze action.
Conversely, you might kick yourself if you don't get IS, because
chances are if you have one of these lenses, you'll shoot more than
kids' sports. The advantage of getting any of the F4, F2.8 or F2.8
IS is that you could later get a 1.4x teleconverter, to bump the
lens to a 98-280mm, at the cost of an f-stop.

Floris · Jul 22, 2003

Like your choices!

Greg66 said:
and suggest 3.

1. 50mm f1.8. With the FOV crop, as a pp pointed out, you've got an
effctive 80mm. Ideal for portraits, and as sharp as they come. Go
for the Mk I used over the Mk II new (and if you find one, let me
know, I want one!!)

Mail this guy: [email protected] Big chance he'll be albed to help you, but rest assured, this is in the Netherlands, where a 50mm f/1.8 sells for $145,- so it won't be cheap.

Greg66 said:
2. 17-40mm f4 L for WA/landscapes. Also on my wishlist, and about
to come off and go onto my lens list. Seems to be at least as sharp
as the more expensive 16-35mm. If that's too expensive, a cheaper
alt is the Sigma 15-30mm. But look a the weight and the
vulnerability of the front element first.

3. Kids sports means 70-200 L. If the sports are fast moving, you
need fast shutter speed, and that means lots of light - so the 2.8
over the 4, although thats $$ over $. You might be able to get away
without IS if you're using a fast shutter speed to freeze action.
Conversely, you might kick yourself if you don't get IS, because
chances are if you have one of these lenses, you'll shoot more than
kids' sports. The advantage of getting any of the F4, F2.8 or F2.8
IS is that you could later get a 1.4x teleconverter, to bump the
lens to a 98-280mm, at the cost of an f-stop.

--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Tom McCallion · Jul 22, 2003

I agree with the 134 becoming a 216 and being kinda long. I have the cheap 50mm f/1.8 and like it alot for portraits. If you have the $, then the 80mm L lens is supposed to be a great portrait lnes. It will almost be too long with the 10D's 1.6X.

My friend has the equivalent high end 80mm Nikon lens for his D1X... it is a fanastic lens for portraits.

cheers,

tom

SteveDude said:
135 turns into 216 - which strikes me as a VERY long portrait lens.

The 50mm 1.8 turns into about 80, which is a nice portrait length.
I think this is why many like the 50 (not to mention that it's less
than $75!!)

randy Senior said:

Toshi said:

randy Senior said:

I just bought a 10D and want to buy the very best glass for it but
I can only afford one or two lenses right now. I really want tack
sharp results. I live in Vermont and so I do a lot of landscape,
some portrait and definately some of my kids sports. What would
you recommned as a starting point to build my stable of lenses?
Thanks for your help

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/stevegrillo , Equipment on profile page

Search

What two lenses would you recommend for the 10D??

randy Senior

Member

Tim Dolan

Leading Member

Toshi

Leading Member

randy Senior

Member

brooke

Senior Member

Lee Rothman

Guest

SteveDude

Senior Member

Lars Johnsson

Senior Member

Brian Kennedy

Guest

Greg66

Forum Enthusiast

Toshi

Leading Member

Pekka Saarinen

Senior Member

randy Senior

Member

randy Senior

Member

randy Senior

Member

Floris

Well-known member

Tom McCallion

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts