Looking at some new glass...

Ground Zero · Nov 9, 2003

I recently parted with all of my old FD lenses and am looking a building a stable of nice lenses for my 10D as well as future bodies. I currently have a 28-135IS that I bought with my 10D and a cheap 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I was thinking of the following lenses:

EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
EF100mm f2.8 Macro USM
EF17-40mm f4.0L USM

Any comments on these choices would be welcome.

Thanks
--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

Melanie Kipp · Nov 9, 2003

Actually, those look like a great line up.
I have all except for the 17-40. I opted for a Sigma 15-30 to cover that range.

Ground Zero said:
I recently parted with all of my old FD lenses and am looking a
building a stable of nice lenses for my 10D as well as future
bodies. I currently have a 28-135IS that I bought with my 10D and a
cheap 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I was thinking of the following lenses:

EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
EF100mm f2.8 Macro USM
EF17-40mm f4.0L USM

Any comments on these choices would be welcome.

Thanks
--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

David Scheffler · Nov 9, 2003

I could have mistaken your post for one of mine if not for the 50 1.8 mention. I currently have a 10D and 28-135. I also just picked up an EF 17-40 f4L and have the 70-200 IS USM in my near future and will include a macro like the one you mentioned later down the road.

I have not done a great deal of research into the macro lens (that purchase is years away) but the others are the top of the line in their categories.

Ground Zero said:
I recently parted with all of my old FD lenses and am looking a
building a stable of nice lenses for my 10D as well as future
bodies. I currently have a 28-135IS that I bought with my 10D and a
cheap 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I was thinking of the following lenses:

EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
EF100mm f2.8 Macro USM
EF17-40mm f4.0L USM

Any comments on these choices would be welcome.

Thanks
--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

--
David
San Antonio area - TX
http://www.atvoutdoors.net (my other hobby)

Melvin Shaffer · Nov 9, 2003

Melanie Kipp said:
Ground Zero said:

I recently parted with all of my old FD lenses and am looking a
building a stable of nice lenses for my 10D as well as future
bodies. I currently have a 28-135IS that I bought with my 10D and a
cheap 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I was thinking of the following lenses:

EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
EF100mm f2.8 Macro USM
EF17-40mm f4.0L USM

Any comments on these choices would be welcome.

Thanks
--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

--

All Sigma, 50mm macro, 105mm macro, 180mm macro, 500mm tele, 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. No zoom that I have seen can touch these lenses for sharpness and clarigty, Canon just costs too d---- much.
Might buy the new Sigma 14mm.

For nature stuff I mount two cameras on a double header mount with my Rebel and 10D.

FretNoMore · Nov 9, 2003

I'll echo the "you can't go wrong" comment. My lens collection is almost the same as your list - 17-40, 28-135, 50 (1.4), 70-200. I'm very happy with both L zooms. I have not tried the macro 100 but it gets good reviews. Only minor complaint I have with the 17-40/4 is I'd like more light, so I'm looking at eventually buying a fast wide angle (20,24) prime for indoor shooting without flash. Outdoors or with (external) flash it's great.

-Anders

Ground Zero said:
I recently parted with all of my old FD lenses and am looking a
building a stable of nice lenses for my 10D as well as future
bodies. I currently have a 28-135IS that I bought with my 10D and a
cheap 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I was thinking of the following lenses:

EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
EF100mm f2.8 Macro USM
EF17-40mm f4.0L USM

Any comments on these choices would be welcome.

Thanks
--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

Ground Zero · Nov 9, 2003

Is th IS version of the 70-200 worth the extra $500 over the non IS version?

FretNoMore said:
-Anders

Ground Zero said:

I recently parted with all of my old FD lenses and am looking a
building a stable of nice lenses for my 10D as well as future
bodies. I currently have a 28-135IS that I bought with my 10D and a
cheap 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I was thinking of the following lenses:

EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
EF100mm f2.8 Macro USM
EF17-40mm f4.0L USM

Any comments on these choices would be welcome.

Thanks
--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

RBray · Nov 9, 2003

Melanie--

How do you like your 15-30? Have you had any time with the 16/17-35 to compare?

Thanks

Melanie Kipp said:
Actually, those look like a great line up.
I have all except for the 17-40. I opted for a Sigma 15-30 to
cover that range.

--
Pleased 10D owner
'Never give up hope, Quantum Tunneling exists!'

SOCAL · Nov 9, 2003

Ground Zero said:
Is th IS version of the 70-200 worth the extra $500 over the non IS
version?

I'd say get the IS anytime you can afford the cost. It is amazing on my 100-400. I get shots that I know my shoddy technique would not allow without the IS.

As far as lens kits, here's mine:

16-35L
50 1.4
100-400L IS

I am thinking of a couple of new ones soon.

Maybe the 24-70L or the 85 1.2 to fill the gap. The 70-200 L IS looks good to me too!! Too much good glass and not enough money!!!

This all goes on a 10D for now. That is until Canon comes out with a $1,500 full frame DSLR!!! OK, I can dream, can't I??

But back to glass. I always feel you should buy the best and fastest glass you can afford.

--
Bill in SOCAL
'Stuff' Listed in profile

FretNoMore · Nov 9, 2003

If you can afford it - absolutely. In many real-life circumstances there will not be perfect strong light, and IS gives you a few stops extra. I also use both 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters which steal some light and also magnify the shaking of my unsteady hands. I drink too much coffee

. If you are steady and have good light most of the time it's an expensive option, but I can pretty much guarantee you'll get more useable shots with IS. You'll notice the difference in the view finder right away. I guess it's down to how myuch you will use the lens - I use it more than I expected because it is a nice one. If it's worth the price difference is up to you of course.

-Anders

Ground Zero said:
Is th IS version of the 70-200 worth the extra $500 over the non IS
version?

Karl Gnter Wnsch · Nov 9, 2003

Ground Zero said:
Is th IS version of the 70-200 worth the extra $500 over the non IS
version?

into a false sense of safety with regard to the shutter speed. You most of the time need a certain shutter speed to freeze the motion of your subject. With the non-IS version I know what shutter speed I need to achieve to hand hold without hand shake coming into play, which is fast enough (most of the times) to freeze the motion of my subject sufficiently. There are situations where I would need the IS but on those occasions I better bring the tripod anyway and use mirror lock up (which helps by 4-6 stops on a tripod to get a super clear picture).

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

FretNoMore · Nov 9, 2003

Karl Günter Wünsch said:
Ground Zero said:

Is th IS version of the 70-200 worth the extra $500 over the non IS
version?

Click to expand...

into a false sense of safety with regard to the shutter speed. You
most of the time need a certain shutter speed to freeze the motion
of your subject. With the non-IS version I know what shutter speed
I need to achieve to hand hold without hand shake coming into play,
which is fast enough (most of the times) to freeze the motion of
my subject sufficiently. There are situations where I would need
the IS but on those occasions I better bring the tripod anyway and
use mirror lock up (which helps by 4-6 stops on a tripod to get a
super clear picture).

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

Ground Zero · Nov 9, 2003

Thanks for the responses. Since it is the most expensive, and I will have enough 'play money' to get the 70-200 IS, I think I will pick that one up first. My brother is probably going to give me a couple of his lenses that he no longer uses (no time with a new career); a 100-400 L, 17-40 L, and a 50 1.4. If I have enough left over after my 70-200, I hope to get the 100 macro.... I just love macro photography. These lenses should hold me for a while

Thanks again for your input.

Mike

Ground Zero said:
I recently parted with all of my old FD lenses and am looking a
building a stable of nice lenses for my 10D as well as future
bodies. I currently have a 28-135IS that I bought with my 10D and a
cheap 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic).
I was thinking of the following lenses:

EF70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
EF100mm f2.8 Macro USM
EF17-40mm f4.0L USM

Any comments on these choices would be welcome.

Thanks
--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

--
http://www.pbase.com/ground_zero/galleries

Ryan Witham · Nov 9, 2003

I wish i had a brother like that

That is a very strong setup.

Ground Zero said:
Thanks for the responses. Since it is the most expensive, and I
will have enough 'play money' to get the 70-200 IS, I think I will
pick that one up first. My brother is probably going to give me a
couple of his lenses that he no longer uses (no time with a new
career); a 100-400 L, 17-40 L, and a 50 1.4. If I have enough left
over after my 70-200, I hope to get the 100 macro.... I just love
macro photography. These lenses should hold me for a while
Thanks again for your input.

Search

Looking at some new glass...

Ground Zero

Active member

Melanie Kipp

Forum Pro

David Scheffler

Forum Enthusiast

Melvin Shaffer

Leading Member

FretNoMore

Veteran Member

Ground Zero

Active member

RBray

Leading Member

SOCAL

Well-known member

FretNoMore

Veteran Member

Karl Gnter Wnsch

Forum Pro

FretNoMore

Veteran Member

Ground Zero

Active member

Ryan Witham

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts