avocado8

I don't have the answer, but I'll ask my boyfriend. He's got a lot of the professional Canon cameras and lenses, so he may have a suggestion. Myself, I just bought a Canon Rebel XT and that's really pushing it for me. :)

Posted by: Gail at June 6, 2006 9:05 PM

Judging from the pictures of camera equipment you have displayed, it appears that your dream lens is the EF 24-70 f/2.8L. It is indeed a dream lens, it produces very sharp and contrasty images and is very fast focusing. Also it is very big and heavy. It is my favorite lens and is on my camera all the time.

Have you looked at the EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 (about $300)? It has about the same focal length range and has about 1 stop less light? It is also small and light. It was my favorite until I bought the EF 24-70 L lens.

Have you thought about the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS (about $500)? Oh I forgot that you have a 10D, although the lens can be modified to fit it. I had modified the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5(about $800) to fit the D30, D60, 10D.

I see you also show the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS which sells for about $400. I have no personal experience with this lens. The focal length range is wider and the Image Stabilization is nice to have.

For a little less money and no Image Stabilization the EF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6(about $360) might be a good choice also with a much wider focal length range, and is small and light.

I have the Canon Speelite 580EX (about $390) and I use it on a Stroboframe Pro-T (about $89) with Canon's Off-Camera Shoe Cord 2 (about $49) to elevate the flash for more natural looking shots and to prevent red eye.

I am also not a big fan of flash, but in one of my classes the teacher advocated using the flash at all times to get more consistent results and of course to lower the lighting contrast in sunlight.

That's all I can think of right now. Hope it helps.

Posted by: Elliot at June 7, 2006 12:39 PM

Wow, THANKS, Elliot! This is great info!

You are correct that the 24-70/f.28L is my dream lens. (The photos actually link to Amazon.com, but I removed the link underlines because they looked funny on the floating photos. :) I had heard that this lens was big and heavy; as an amateur photographer, I honestly have no idea what makes one lens weigh a ton and another not. I would have thought that the focal length range had something to do with it, but the 28-135 is smaller and lighter, according to the specs.

I hadn't looked at the EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 until you mentioned it. I did just look at the reviews on Amazon, and I'm waffling; the mention of lack of sharpness and color shifting worry me a bit.

Good point about the EF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6; if I got this one, I could sell my 70-200mm zoom.

I can't get behind using a flash at all times, but I definitely do in bright sunlight. I do think I'll get the Speedlite eventually; I just need to figure out whether it's a higher priority at the moment than the new lens. :)

Thanks again!!

Posted by: Lori at June 7, 2006 1:19 PM

The EF 24-70 f/2.8 is a professional grade lens that is weather sealed and contains 2 aspherical lens elements and an Ultra-low dispersion lens element to control distortion and chromatic aberration. Sounds like an add for this lens.

The EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 is an excellent consumer grade all purpose lens that is of course not as sharp as the EF 24-70 f/2.8 but also does not cost over a thousand dollars either. There is some barrel distortion at around 24mm and pincushion distortion at around 85mm, I discovered this when I photographed a brick wall, unless of course they used curved bricks. I have not had any experience with color shift with this lens.

Which 70-200 lens do you have? It seems all of Canon's 70-200 zooms are very sharp and would out perform the EF 28-200 in the 100-200 range. I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8L that I use alot for Gail's hockey games. I also have the EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS for use at the Sharks games because it is only 4.8 inches long at 70mm and passes the HP Pavilions requirement of no lenses longer than 6 inches will be allowed.

Posted by: Elliot at June 8, 2006 11:58 AM

We haven't bought a digital SLR yet, but we have a similar flash for our Nikon film SLR, and it's very nice. I would often just bounce it off the ceiling, and the resulting pictures looked naturally lit--no evidence of flash.

Posted by: Michele at June 9, 2006 4:52 AM

Elliot: I knew the 24-70 was a pro lens -- it's why it's my dream lens! I've seen photos taken with it, and they are sharp and amazing. Al explained the reason for the weight was the optics.

Thanks for the extra info about the 24-85; what I ended up going for was None of the Above. :) I bought a (gasp!) non-Canon lens that a colleague of Al's recommended: the Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). The price was reasonable, the reviews on Amazon were great (including a rather influential one from a guy using the same 50mm/f1.8 lens I have), and the lens doesn't weigh a ton. We figured we could try it out and see if we like the range and versatility without spending a fortune.

We're going to keep the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L that we already have, since there's little overlap between it and the new Tamron, and more importantly, because it takes great photos. I bought it with the 10D body because I wanted to get shots of our hockey games (I don't think it passes HP Pavillion's 6" test, but I have brought it to Flyers practices :), but I've found it even more useful for capturing my niece's and nephew's outdoor lacrosse games.

Michele: After much discussion, I think we're just going to buy the flash separately, windfall or no. :) It'll be handy to have.

Posted by: Lori at June 9, 2006 11:53 AM