Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Lens choices for Canon EOS 30D

    After having done all my research for Nikon lenses, I'm starting over with Canon- what a pain! Please offer comments/suggestions on the lenses I've picked or others if they are better choices.

    Ultra Wide
    -Tokina 12-24 f/4 $499
    -Canon EF 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 $690
    -Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $499 (concerned about vignetting)

    Normal
    - Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM $1149
    - Tamron SP AF XR 28-75mm f/2.8 $449
    - Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG $429 (added as choice per Coldrain)

    Telephoto
    - Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM $1699
    - Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM $1139
    - Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM $1075
    - Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM $ 585

    - Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM $ 559 (added as choice per Coldrain)
    Last edited by RichNY; 09-03-2006 at 10:33 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    With the Canon 10-22 USM (nice lens) you have to factor in the purchase of its hood that is not standard. It will add a bit to the price.

    The Tokina is of course also a nice lens.

    The"standard" lenses you list both are good of course. The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG has its fans too. And then there is the very affordable yet surprisingly well performing (for the price) Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II.

    The longer end...
    Of course the 70-200 lenses are good lenses. But as you probably know, the f2.8 lenses are heavy. So it does depend on what your purpose is. I personally do not want a 70-200 f2.8 because of its weight, I would not want to lug that around all day.

    There is one lens that misses there though. The Canon EF 70-300 IS USM is a very good lens. I would prefer it over the 70-200 f4 L IS USM and also my 70-200 f4 L. Why? Because it is lighter. It is black. It has 100mm more reach. At the long end it is only one f-stop less, but has IS to more than make up for that in most situations. And it performs AMAZINGLY well, totally different from any other 70/75-300 lenses in the market.

    It is so sharp it rivals the 300mm F4 L IS for instance... and that is very surprising, and its price is very nice.

    So.. depending on what you want to use the tele for... I'd seriously consider the 70-300 IS.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    If I was going for 30D I'd buy

    30D, 17-55 IS EF-S, 10-22 EF-S and depending on if I was going low light or not 70-200 F2.8 L Is or 70-300 IS.

    Thw 17-55 is a nice companion to the 30D. If price is no object.

    Tim

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    If I were buying today, I would also get the 30D, 17-55 IS and a 70-200 of some sort. The 17-55 is pricey and requires you to fork over $50 more for the hood, but it's very versatile, giving you both f/2.8 when you need it and IS when you need to handhold in low light (at smaller apertures). Its price is slowly coming down, and you can now find it for $1049 at a few places like Buydig.com and for $1099 at B&H (psaug).

    It really depends on whether you'll find yourself in low light a lot or not. If you see yourself in that situation, or if you love that shallow DOF that comes with faster lenses, then the f/2.8 zooms are the way to go. If you don't, buy the third party lenses along with the 70-300 IS. They'll serve you well for a lot less, and if you still need the low light performance from time to time, you can buy a fast but lightweight prime to supplement your collection.

    Just make sure that what you're buying is what you want and that you don't bump into surprises. The 70-200/2.8 and its IS counterpart are quite heavy for the uninitiated, so make sure you've tried that combination out in the store before committing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,205
    If I were in your shoes:

    30D
    24-70 f/2.8L
    70-200 f/2.8L IS
    Tokina 12-24 f/4

    If you want, save up for a 5D and use the 30D as a backup

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Esoterra
    If I were in your shoes:

    30D
    24-70 f/2.8L
    70-200 f/2.8L IS
    Tokina 12-24 f/4

    If you want, save up for a 5D and use the 30D as a backup
    *looks at my empty wallet..LoL

    Yea I agree with the lens picks although you could save waht? like $500 on the 70-200mm f2.8L w/o the IS. Like f2.8 is pretty fast already. You can use the $500 for a nice bag, maybe a Speedlight if you into that, tripod, some filters to protect your nice lenses etc.
    ================================
    Gallery : DeviantArt

    dSLR : SAMSUNG GX-1L
    dP&S : CASIO EXILIM EX-S500
    35mm SLR : PENTAX MZ-M w/ PENTAX FG Battery Grip

    SIGMA 24-135mm f2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF (Pentax AF Mount)
    18-55/3.5-5.6, 35-70/3.5-4.8, 70-210/4-5.6, 80-200/4.5
    28/2.8, 50/2, 135/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/3.5, 300/5.6

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,205
    True true words you speak! Money is the problem...where is it when you need your new camera gear? Say, why not just get a new credit card and charge a 5D, Tokina 12-24, Canon 24-70, and Canon 70-200 IS to it... your closing in on what... say $8,000 USD or there abouts... then go downtown where ever you live, and take pictures of people and charge them 5$ per picture....you should have your credit card payed off in....no time!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by RichNY
    After having done all my research for Nikon lenses, I'm starting over with Canon- what a pain! Please offer comments/suggestions on the lenses I've picked or others if they are better choices.

    Ultra Wide
    -Tokina 12-24 f/4 $499
    -Canon EF 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 $690
    -Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $499 (concerned about vignetting)

    Normal
    - Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM $1149
    - Tamron SP AF XR 28-75mm f/2.8 $449
    - Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG $429 (added as choice per Coldrain)

    Telephoto
    - Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM $1699
    - Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM $1139
    - Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM $1075
    - Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM $ 585

    - Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM $ 559 (added as choice per Coldrain)

    if starting over today i'd get:

    17-55 IS
    70-200 f2.8
    10-22

    of course this is assuming you'll be sticking with the 1.6x crop since 2 of the three lenses listed above are EF-S. personally, full frame is a likely upgrade path for me so i'll just stick to the stuff in my sig for now . if you've got the coin, i'd suggest the IS version of the 70-200. and this is just me, but i can't imagine the 70-200 without a 1.4x TC. good luck in your decision
    canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes

    note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.

    "anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,200
    I'm under no budget constaints but see no reason to 'waste' money were its not needed. For example, at my beginning level a 5D would be way overkill (except I'd love the wide angle of FF). I'd much rather purchase but capable camera now and then replace it with the latest technology available when I'm at a point to put it to good use.

    I'm willing to invest in glass now because I'll be keeping that long term, although I'm not thrilled with purchasing expensive lenses that won't work if the universe goes full frame- but I'm sure they will have some salvage value

    I know lenses are a compromise- you can't have low cost, great quality, and great flexibility. But what is driving me nuts is that even removing budget as a constraint I don't like the way the focal lengths for quality lenses.

    For example, the 24-70 2.8L lens will give me great photos but it has range of focal lengths as a walk around lens on a 1.6 camera. The 17-55 works better on the wide end but doesn't offer much range. And even if I went with that it leaves the 55-70 range without coverage- or 55-100 range if I went with a 100-400 instead of the 70-200.

    Image quality and shutter lag aside, there is something to be said for those 12x digicams.

    - A very confused and frustrated guy in NY

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    i don't miss the 50-70mm gap at all (i think others will tell you the same) - the problem is having to switch lenses to access the focal lengths.

    the 100-400 IS and 70-200 f2.8 IS + TC are very different lenses. the decision to go with one over the other is pretty drastic IMO.
    canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes

    note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.

    "anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •