[Badger]

After much soul searching and debating Nikon vs Canon etc. I have purchased a second hand Canon 10d. It doesn't come with a lens. Now, here is the $64m question. I intend to take mostly portrait and sports photographs. Which lenses would you recommend? I was thinking of a 28 - 90 for the portrait (canon MkII) and something like a 100 - 300 for the sports photography (mainly football). Please help with some recommendations.
Any pointers on where to get them would help too

By the way what about CF cards? 1Gb or 2 x 512mb and what make?

[fingerz]

Buy the biggest CF card you can afford because changing them does get annoying. 1GB cards are only £40 for cheapies these days, although if you're doing sports it might be worth getting a faster card (SanDisk Ultra II should do it). Not sure what the 10D's buffer size/speed is like.

Whatever lenses you get, you'll probably be wanting f/2.8 throughout the zoom so you can get bokeh in portraits and fast action in sports.

[Garnock]

Welcome to the forum badger.

For portraits you can't beat a prime lens.
You're close enough to move towards or away from your subject to get the correct framing.
Normally a focal length of around 85mm is considered a good portrait lens.
The 10D has a focal length multiplier of 1.6, so 50mm lens equates to 80mm.
I dont know what budget you are considering but the 50 f1.4 is a nice lens and would be a good starting point.
The 50 f1.8 is great value for money.
Both these lenses are fast and can achieve a shallow depth of field if required.
The 50 f1.4 has a better bokeh IMO.

Sport I think it would need to be a fast lens to get the action shots, which means expensive.

Where to buy ?
You could try here for starters.
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/

Cameron

[dazzajl]

Hi Badger,

As Cameron has said either 50mm lens would be a great addition to any kit. As for what else, Depends on your budget of course but one of the Canon 70-200's would be a very versatile choice too. If you get the 1.4x conveter to go with it then you'll get pretty close on a 10D and at f4 or 5.6 it's still perfectly usable.

I have the f4 version and it's been really really great. So far I've used it for landscape, a bit of wildlife, a load of motorsport and it's fast becomming a fave for studio portraits too.

If you can go a bit further too then the optional grip is a good bet as you double you're battery life and it's much nicer for shooting portrait format.

[Badger]

Thanks guys. There seems to be a myriad of lenses out there ..... EF Mk1's 2's etc ... totally confusing Not even sure whether to buy Canon's own zooms or something like a Sigma ! All help greatly appreciated. By the way the 50mm prime I cant see me affording the f1.4 (at the moment), but the f1.8 should I go for a MkI or II?

Also, I am already looking for the battery grip.. it was the one thing I realised I would need.

[dazzajl]

The one best piece of advice is always get the best lenses you can. It's always so tempting to stretch your budget and cover the biggest range possible but you'll be happier in the end with less choice and more quality.

And it really will make a huge difference on the 10D too. My wife has the 10D and a Sigma 28-300, I quite often steal her camera as a backup body and it produces great results with a decent lens on. Going the other way, my 1D II with the Sigma on is very nasty indeed.

It looks like you're already familiar with picking good 2nd hand kit and a bit of patience and dedication to searching the listings at places like Jessops and Ebay can have huge rewards.

[Garnock]

That's a good piece of advice from dazzajl .

If I could stress one point it would be buy a prime lens for portraits....always.
I don't care if it's the 50 f1.8 mkI or mkII ( I believe optically they are the same although the mount may be different) just make sure it's a prime.

Cameron

[dazzajl]

If I could stress one point it would be buy a prime lens for portraits....always.

I'm a bit curious about that one. I agree of course that a prime lens is always going to outperform an equivalent zoom but are you saying this is more important for portraits than anything else? Or am I just reading you wrongly?

[Garnock]

Originally Posted by dazzajl

I'm a bit curious about that one. I agree of course that a prime lens is always going to outperform an equivalent zoom but are you saying this is more important for portraits than anything else? Or am I just reading you wrongly?

Hi dazzajl,
What I mean is, for me, portraits mean a sharp focal point ( the eye for intance ) and a shallow DOF to throw the background sufficiently out of focus.
Less expensive zoom lenses tend to be slow and lack sharpness therefore causing a double whammy ( Subject not as sharp as the prime lens and background not as OOF ).
Nothing wrong with a zoom lens for portraits but I think a prime is a far better tool for the job and since Badger specifically mentioned potraiture as being important I suggested a prime.

Cameron

[SammyC]

Maybe look at one of the macro prime lens too, double the functionality!

[dazzajl]

What I mean is, for me.........

Got ya... and yup.

Although, just to back track a bit, if you aren't able to go down the prime route. The Canon 70-200 L's are as good as you'll see from a zoom and the f4 version is just great value for money.

[Garnock]

Originally Posted by SammyC

Maybe look at one of the macro prime lens too, double the functionality!

I'll second that.
Just bought the Sigma 150 macro and loving it.
It takes a nice portrait shot too.
Maybe a bit on the long side for the 10D and portrait work. So a macro with a shorter focal length might be worth considering.
Macros by design are very sharp.

Good call Sammy.

Cameron