Tom,
What lenses do you have and use with your 10D? Any comments on them?
I just bought a Canon 20D and am looking at the:
EF 70-200 f4 L
EF 70-200 f2.8 L
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS,
EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Any comments on these?
Oohhh boy that’s a big camera!! I have a puny digital rebel!! Have fun! and make sure you spend as much on lenses as your bikes are worth!
Well… I’ve been wanting to jump from my Elan 7e to a digital for a while now, and since I’m leaving next Friday for Europe and watching some of the Tour I thought it would be a good time to pony up the bucks for the 20D. And like you said, to do the camera justice I need some “camera porn” lenses so I need some help on the pros and cons of these lenses.
Irondad,
I picked up a 1DMk2 with the 24-70 and the 70-200 IS a few weeks back. Shot a tri in Maui – loved the lenses. If you get the 70-200, pony up the money to get the IS (Image Stabilized) version – it’s awsome.
Both lenses are amazing. If you’re going to Europe & shooting the tour, I’d say get the 24-70 over the 17-85, and the 70-200 2.8 over the f4. You’ll want the fast lenses – blurred out pictures from too slow of a shutter speed suck. And the big apertures give you great background blur while keeping your subject razor sharp.
Get a nice backpack though – those monsters are heavy…
Noah
VERY nice camera, Sir. How extreme of a close up can you shoot your wife with now? Are pics too much to ask for? 
those monsters are heavy…
And expensive… and I’m purely an amateur photographer running around with two kids which is why I’m liking the f4, which is a third the price and half as heavy. Here’s a review on a site I saw:
"The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is relatively light. Actually it is very light and small compared to the much more substantial Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Lens or the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS Lens.
The Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is a GREAT upgrade from the 70-200 f/4 L, but only if you need f/2.8 and/or IS. I don’t think you will find the IS version’s image quality to be much better than with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens. The IS version carries significantly more weight and costs much more than the smaller f/4 version.
If you cannot afford a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L Lens or a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS Lens, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is for you. If you do not need your 70-200mm lens faster to be faster than f/4 and don’t need IS, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is your lens. "
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx):
VERY nice camera, Sir. How extreme of a close up can you shoot your wife with now? Are pics too much to ask for?
Well… I’m SINGLE IronDad… so no wife… but none of those lenses would be good for what you’re asking me for 
Shoot I have you confused with someone else. Now I feel like a perv…
Shoot I have you confused with someone else. Now I feel like a perv…
My ex wife was hot… an ex-model… have you seen the pictures of my kids? LOL!
Just not gonna take any pics of her
Hopefully, since you’ve been in Canon for a while…you have the 50/1.8 Mk 1…that lens is indispensable for street shooting…with the 20D it makes a good portrait lens. Plus its cheap as dirt and sharp as a razor. A 20 prime is a good wide angle lens for the big mountain shots, which I’m assuming you’ll want to take in France. For the cycling action…I’d stick with the 70-200/4 L. All of that makes a super small kit that will take all of the shots you’ll want to take while on a trip like France. Hauling a bunch of zooms around covering focal lengths of 15-300mm is just silly, most of the time. Some of my best vacation street shots have come from walking around with just the 20D and 50/1.8 mounted, without the battery grip…that’s light and small enough to be easy to carry unobtrusively, yet have it ready for those requisite intimate “cafe shots”…if your first framing doesn’t work…just get a little closer…usually folks don’t mind…and since it’s 1.8 you can take those at night as well without much issue…the 20D’s night images are pretty astounding…
Anyway…that’s my thoughts: 50/1.8 Mk 1, 20/2.8, and 70-200/4 L…If you have the battery grip, take it for the long days at the race…leave it in the hotel and go light afterward.
Can you still get the 50mm MkI? I only see the MKII’s.
You can usually pick one up on Ebay for fairly cheap. I paid $90 for mine…I think they are worth the investment over the current Mk II model…just for having a focusing scale, let alone a decent focus ring. The focus scale is key for doing hyper-focal street shooting. But, if you can’t stomach Ebay…a new Mk II will suffice…Or you can pony up the $350 for the 50/1.4, which I also own…nice lens, and it HAS a focus scale, unlike the Mk II.
And on my 20D the 50mm becomes an 80mm, right? What’s the most a MKI should go for?
Tom… any input on my other questions?
“And on my 20D the 50mm becomes an 80mm”
Well, yes and no. It will produce an image with the same field of view as an 80mm lens. That part is correct. However…the depth of field characteristics remain the same as any 50mm shot. If you shoot it at 1.8, it will become fairly shallow…though NOT as shallow as an 80mm 1.8 (a standard high-end portrait lens). Even my 50/1.4 does not quite equal the dof of my friend’s 80/1.8 used on my camera…VERY close…and eminently useable…but not absolute. So if you really count on the ability to seperate your subject from the background…its a consideration…but for street shooting it is more than adequate. Anyway…that’s the long story.
As far as what I would pay for a Mk 1…I don’t think I would bid more than $125 for it, and, depending on how soon you REALLY need it (soon, if you want it for your TdF trip, I’d assume)…I’d wait…I’d really want to pay no more than $100…but they’ve become a really popular cult item among the EOSers…so their prices have gone up. At $125 its still a better choice than $89.95 for a new 50/1.8 MkII. Another difference it has is the metal lens mount (the Mk II is plastic…not bad for a cheap lens…but still, the Mk I is better)