i have 1000$-what to do??

i have just bought 10d body and now i need some lenses for it.
i am considering:

70-200 2.8 L or
70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or
28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

or is there something else worth investing??

i am not a profesional photographer and i use my camera just personal use.

can anyone give me a clue what to do??

thanks

If you don't need a very wide angle, I'd go with your second pairing.

I'd probably take 28-135IS, 50 1.8, 550EX, another 1GB CF card.

pawlik said:

i have just bought 10d body and now i need some lenses for it.
i am considering:

70-200 2.8 L or
70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or
28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

or is there something else worth investing??

i am not a profesional photographer and i use my camera just
personal use.

can anyone give me a clue what to do??

thanks

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

May I suggest
1. Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 (very close to Canon 17-40L sharpness): $ 480
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8: $70-80
3. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L: $580

I personally would not buy the 28-135 (heavy!) or the 75-300 IS (not sharp enough).

Anil

You didn't indicate how much experience you have with film SLRs or other digital cameras, what type photos you make most often (or are likely to make), and how many other $$$s you might have later to invest in your hobby. So at the risk of covering well-trod ground, my advice is to go slow. Buy the f1.8 50mm mkII first. Use it for close-up work, landscapes, and candids both indoors and outdoors. Notice how distance-to-subject and perspective interact. After awhile, you'll know if your next lens needs to be a wide angle, or a telephoto. You'll have a better idea if you need a set of primes (fixed focal length lenses) or zooms. Rather than trying to learn everything at once, learn what you need as you need it. That process becomes experience, and experience is something you'll know not temporarily in your brain, but permanently in your bones.

Of course, if you're well past those stages, sorry for the rant.

pawlik said:

i have just bought 10d body and now i need some lenses for it.
i am considering:

70-200 2.8 L or
70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or
28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

or is there something else worth investing??

i am not a profesional photographer and i use my camera just
personal use.

can anyone give me a clue what to do??

thanks

Click to expand...

--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
Equipment history listed in profile.

The 28-135IS is 100g heavier than the 17-35 you recommend, and 200g lighter than the 70-200 f4L

How is the colour and contrast on that 17-35? It isn't all sharpness you know.

saaketham1 said:

May I suggest
1. Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 (very close to Canon 17-40L sharpness): $ 480
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8: $70-80
3. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L: $580

I personally would not buy the 28-135 (heavy!) or the 75-300 IS
(not sharp enough).

Anil

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

The 28-135 is nice and light. Especially compared to the L lenses.

Rich

peteb said:

How is the colour and contrast on that 17-35? It isn't all
sharpness you know.

saaketham1 said:

May I suggest
1. Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 (very close to Canon 17-40L sharpness): $ 480
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8: $70-80
3. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L: $580

I personally would not buy the 28-135 (heavy!) or the 75-300 IS
(not sharp enough).

Anil

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Click to expand...

jnat said:

Of course, if you're well past those stages, sorry for the rant.

pawlik said:

i have just bought 10d body and now i need some lenses for it.
i am considering:

70-200 2.8 L or
70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or
28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

or is there something else worth investing??

i am not a profesional photographer and i use my camera just
personal use.

can anyone give me a clue what to do??

thanks

Click to expand...

--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
Equipment history listed in profile.

Click to expand...

well--this 1000$ is what i ahve for now---i will surely invest some more money in the future ---i have always dreamed about 70-200 2.8----is there a really such a big difference between 70-200. 4 L in the quality of the photographs??? mabe it is not worth investing so much in 2.8??

instead of that i thought that i can buy 70-200 4 + a nice flash??

I took to mean you didn't onw any lenses yet, just the body?

What other lenses do you have. I cannot imagine just owning a 70-200 being enough.

If I were spending the cash I'd either get the 2.8IS or the 4. The 2.8 non-IS is neither here nor there. Rather than that I'd get the 2.8 200mm L fixed.

pawlik said:

jnat said:

Of course, if you're well past those stages, sorry for the rant.

pawlik said:

i have just bought 10d body and now i need some lenses for it.
i am considering:

70-200 2.8 L or
70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or
28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

or is there something else worth investing??

i am not a profesional photographer and i use my camera just
personal use.

can anyone give me a clue what to do??

thanks

Click to expand...

--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
Equipment history listed in profile.

Click to expand...

well--this 1000$ is what i ahve for now---i will surely invest some
more money in the future ---i have always dreamed about 70-200
2.8----is there a really such a big difference between 70-200. 4 L
in the quality of the photographs??? mabe it is not worth
investing so much in 2.8??

instead of that i thought that i can buy 70-200 4 + a nice flash??

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

peteb said:

The 28-135IS is 100g heavier than the 17-35 you recommend, and 200g
lighter than the 70-200 f4L

Click to expand...

100g is a lot, especially when attached to a DSLR that weighs 875g

But, the focal length range makes it perfect for most folks. And with any L telephoto lens, you not only have to worry about the weight, but the length as well. The Tamron 17-35 feels much lighter than my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro as well.

peteb said:

How is the colour and contrast on that 17-35? It isn't all
sharpness you know.

Click to expand...

I loved the photos that came out my lowly film Rebel G, taken with the Tamron. Very nice saturated, colors and very nice contrast. Its a very nice lens as far as I can tell. I am excited about using it on a DSLR in a couple of months hopefully. I dont have my scanner anymore, otherwise I would have scanned my photos and posted some as samples.

Tamron Listed at 440g, 28-135IS listed at 500g, 100 Macro listed at 600g.

The 28-135 IS is not heavy by anyone's defenition (except perhaps yours?) ) It is a little heav_ier_ than the 17-35 you reference, but for the range there is nothing lighter I think?

saaketham1 said:

saaketham1 said:

The 28-135IS is 100g heavier than the 17-35 you recommend, and 200g
lighter than the 70-200 f4L

Click to expand...

100g is a lot, especially when attached to a DSLR that weighs 875g
But, the focal length range makes it perfect for most folks. And
with any L telephoto lens, you not only have to worry about the
weight, but the length as well. The Tamron 17-35 feels much lighter
than my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro as well.

saaketham1 said:

How is the colour and contrast on that 17-35? It isn't all
sharpness you know.

Click to expand...

I loved the photos that came out my lowly film Rebel G, taken with
the Tamron. Very nice saturated, colors and very nice contrast. Its
a very nice lens as far as I can tell. I am excited about using it
on a DSLR in a couple of months hopefully. I dont have my scanner
anymore, otherwise I would have scanned my photos and posted some
as samples.

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

My preference is for a slightly wide "normal" and a medium telephoto as my primary lenses ... A Canon 28/1.8 USM and 50/1.4 provide this and would cost you about $700 or so. Once you have these two, you can decide whether you need more reach or a wider field of view, make additional lens purchases based on need.

Also remember that you should have 512M-1G of CF storage media to make the camera useful, if you haven't thought of that already. A spare battery is another "must have".

Godfrey

pawlik said:

i have just bought 10d body and now i need some lenses for it.
i am considering:

70-200 2.8 L or
70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or
28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

or is there something else worth investing??

i am not a profesional photographer and i use my camera just
personal use.

can anyone give me a clue what to do??

thanks

Click to expand...

Going for the lenses is the hardest part to satisfy. You have got to get a pair of lenses that will cover a range that will satify you for a time. My choices for the grand are as follow

35 f/2- Great lens for the general shooting person, and it just feels perfect on the 10-d...Did I say SHARP! $230

50 1.8 @ $69.00 best buy for the money for anyone. Again SHARP.

85 1.8 @ $320.00 Great for people headshots Also SHARP

Canon speedlight 420Ex @ $169.00

Lowepro Mini Trekker Bag to carry your goodies @$110

And last but least a SLIK 300DX Tripod @ $100.00

There you go, as it has all the best lenses that Canon makes shy of the 135L f/2. You can pay more for the 'top notch' primes, but by stepping down a notch, your getting a great value for your dollar. These lenses are not budget breakers, but rather the best mix you can get for the $1000 you have. You can also get full out on just one lens, a Sigma 50-500 at $980 or so. It is a good lens, but it limits you only by the sheer size of it. Save the larger lenses for the next purchase. You will have a short wide with the 35 f/2, and a medium telephoto with the 85 1.8. the 50 is a gimme, as it comes too close to the coveted 'L' qualitiy for scratch money.
Let us know what you decide....

I love my 70-200 f2.8 IS zoom. I looked long and hard at the 70-200 f4. I know 2 people that have them, and their "excuse" was, they didn't have the money for the f2.8. That's fine. But everytime I see them, they wish they'd bought the f2.8.

And, for those that are touting the non-Canon f2.8 zooms... Look at the sharpness at f2.8. If it isn't sharp enough for you, forget it. Who pays big $$ for an f2.8 lens that isn't sharp at f2.8? You might as well get the Canon 70-200 f4 then.

Another advantage to the 70-200 f2.8 that is rarely mentioned? 1.4x teleconverter, and 2x teleconverter. Cheap way to get more zoom at teh cost of an f-stop or 2.

I think the other suggestion... get a 135 f2 is ok... but if you're going to get a 135 f2, why not just get the 200 f2.8? It's cheaper than the 135 f2, you get more range. And, either lens will work with the teleconverters.

I just think that the f2.8 gets you more shutter speed. There's nothing that beats that. The 70-200 f2.8 is also the sharpest lens (wide open) that I've ever seen or used. That's very rare, especially in a zoom.

Good luck.

as always these questions strongly depend on what you want to do with your camera, but I have a couple of suggestions:

1) two lenses (35mm f/2 and 85 f/1.8 USM) and a plane ticket to a photogenous destination. This suggestion probably makes the most sense in photographic means.

2) EF 17-40 f/4 L USM and EF 28-135 IS USM - excellent combo

3) EF 17-40 L f/4, EF 85 f/1.8 and a 420EX flash - if you plan to do some flash work

4) if you don't care about wide angle lenses: EF 28-135 IS USM and EF 200 f/2.8 L USM no overlap; fast, light and bright tele with excellent optical characteristics

5) a combo of the EF 17-40 f/4 L USM and EF 70-200 f/4 L USM is a little over your budget and the f/4 is limiting on a tele lens in my opinion.

The 70-200 f/2.8 L USM is a very nice lens optically but huge, heavy and expensive.

just my thoughts,
Cheers,
Sharif

--
Sharif El-Hamalawi
http://www.el-hamalawi.net
http://www.pbase.com/alfalfa

I usually never answer to these lens posts because people should decide for themselves but here goes...

pawlik said:

70-200 2.8 L or

Click to expand...

umm... you would buy that as you only lens? have you ever seen the FOV of the roughly 100mm lens that that lens makes? not really usefull if you need to take anything that requires any wide-angle at all such as casual pictures of people...

pawlik said:

70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or

Click to expand...

pawlik said:

28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

Click to expand...

When starting out SLR-photography people usually want a lot of millimeters... and then when htey've bought them they start craving a wide-angle lens... so you could tyr getting them both at once

I would in your case maybe look for solutions like these... I'm talkign prices here in europe, you might get them a bit cheaper. the prices are of the top of my head.

1500+ euros
Canon 17-40/4, tack sharp wide-angle 700 euros

canon 50/1,8, very sharp and light to carry around prime that has a very large maximum aperature. 100 euros. If you're into macros take a look at the tack-sharp sigma 50/2,5 1:1 macro.
70-200/4 L Super sharp tele 700 euros

budget-version 800+ euros

Sigma EX 24-60/2,8DG, this lens is designed for digital (and only works with digital 1,6 bodies), I don't know much about this lens it's just been anounced, but i would dare guess it's cheaper then the old 24-70/2,8 that goes for 450 euros... 350 euros is probably not a bad guess.
50/1,8 look what i said earlier

canon 75-300/3,5-4,5, Image stabilization and a long range at 450 euros, and not all bad quality... not a bad idea...

--
also known as PT Kitty > ^..^
http://www.pbase.com/ptkitty/galleries
http://www.achaikin.com/
My favorite picture is the one I'm taking right now

The first lens to jump on my list would be the inexpensive 50mm MK II F1.8. I have the 28-135 IS lens and its pretty good all round lens for everyday use. I would chose the Sigma Apo II 70-300 over the 75-300 USM.

If I was going to go for an L lens and as your an amature I would choose the 70-200 F4 L lens. If you bought this lens it would also allow for the 28-135 IS and the 50mm 1.8 which would allow fast low light photography.

My choice would be the latter one.

Howie

pawlik said:

i have just bought 10d body and now i need some lenses for it.
i am considering:

70-200 2.8 L or
70-200 4 L + 28-135 usm is or
28-135 usm is + 75-300 usm is

or is there something else worth investing??

i am not a profesional photographer and i use my camera just
personal use.

can anyone give me a clue what to do??

thanks

Click to expand...

Jim Garnish said:

Going for the lenses is the hardest part to satisfy. You have got
to get a pair of lenses that will cover a range that will satify
you for a time. My choices for the grand are as follow

35 f/2- Great lens for the general shooting person, and it just
feels perfect on the 10-d...Did I say SHARP! $230

50 1.8 @ $69.00 best buy for the money for anyone. Again SHARP.

85 1.8 @ $320.00 Great for people headshots Also SHARP

Canon speedlight 420Ex @ $169.00

Lowepro Mini Trekker Bag to carry your goodies @$110

And last but least a SLIK 300DX Tripod @ $100.00

There you go, as it has all the best lenses that Canon makes shy of
the 135L f/2. You can pay more for the 'top notch' primes, but by
stepping down a notch, your getting a great value for your dollar.
These lenses are not budget breakers, but rather the best mix you
can get for the $1000 you have. You can also get full out on just
one lens, a Sigma 50-500 at $980 or so. It is a good lens, but it
limits you only by the sheer size of it. Save the larger lenses
for the next purchase. You will have a short wide with the 35 f/2,
and a medium telephoto with the 85 1.8. the 50 is a gimme, as it
comes too close to the coveted 'L' qualitiy for scratch money.
Let us know what you decide....

Click to expand...

thanks guys and girls for all the clues---i think i will decide on having 17-40 l and 28-135 is usm---that sould be good for some time untill i save some money for a nice telephoto (300 l 4)

thanks again

1) 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS is a good combination if you need long zoom. You will appreciate the IS.

2) If you need wide ange more than long zoom, choose the 20-35mm instead of the 75-300mm. That "8mm" makes a diefference...

3) 35mm f/2 is a very fast lens for low light situations. I am sure that you will decide to get it at a later stage.

These are the 4 lenses I have, by the way, and they give me a great versatility... I do not regret any of them...! They are all excellent.