Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 22, 2004, 11:00 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 18
Default

Take a look at the Sigma EX DG lenses. I have both the prime 20mm f/1.8 (great for indoor, wide angle stuff) and also the new 17-35 f/2.8.

You could buy both giving you a wide prime with fast glass and a wide zoom which is also pretty fast for about the cost of the Canon 17-40 which is slower.

The Canon may be better in some respects, but the 10D will probably be pretty forgiving.



Have a ball and take pictures that look good to you!
mscott821 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2004, 12:20 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 39
Default

My vote is for the 17-40 L from cannon. I bought mine from buydig for 659.00 and got a $40. rebate from canon. I had to pay $10. shipping from NJ to NY. The auto focus on the lens is a lot faster then the tamron(28-200) that I also own and the pictures are crisp and clean at both ends of the zoom.
jjgncmg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2004, 4:14 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 24
Default

Don't forget the Sigma 18-55mm DC lens especially for digital SLRS such as the 10D. Very sharp and also very compact. Unfortunately it vignettes onstandard 35mm film using EOS cameras
geoff.rio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2004, 5:37 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 89
Default

I'd go for

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Image Stabilized $579

I have a (non-IS) 35-135 5.6 on my 300D. The zoom range is about what I had from my previous digital compact, and it's a smooth sharp lens. The IS will give you better low-light performance or allow you faster shots on sports.

I think you'll find anything that doesn't go over 100mm won't be long enough.
ccomley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2004, 11:00 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Canons 17-40 f4.0 is a great lens.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-17-40.shtml

Sigma 20-40 f2.8 sounds ok.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&thecat=29

Sigmas 17-35 f2.8-4.0 is a bad lens i´ve heard.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&thecat=29

__________________________________________________ ___

I wouldn´t go less wider than that ´cos of the 1.6x field of view, but I love widezoomes.


JackWorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2004, 8:10 AM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI

http://www.tipa.com/awa_detail.lasso...&-KeyValue=113
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 AM.