Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Craig Arnold on February 15, 2005, 10:22:17 am
-
If you're going to start with just a single lens then it depends on your photographic style. For me there would be only 1 choice really:
17-85mm.
Sure it's EF-S, but it'll last you at least as long as your camera body, and quite likely for your next body too and it's not VERY expensive.
For a main zoom the 24-70 isn't really wide enough on its own on the 1.6crop - I think you'd soon want a wider angle, similarly the 17-40 just isn't long enough on its own you'll be champing to get your hands on something longer. Your needs may vary of course.
Regarding quality: the MTF charts show that the Canon engineers really do gain a lot from only having to cover the smaller sensor. Compare it to the 17-40L's chart and you'll see what I mean; I was shocked to see how much better the 17-85 was, I expected the L to blow it out of the water in terms of sharpness.
Of course the 17-40L is a better long-term "system" lens, covers full-frame, suffers less CA, suffers less vignetting, has better build quality, etc. But the 17-85mm is a great match for the 20D and will keep you going until you decide what your later needs are.
17-85mm chart:
http://www.canon.com.hk/En....d=10515 (http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/Product.aspx?product_id=10071&tag_id=10515)
17-40mm chart:
http://www.canon.com.hk/En....d=10161 (http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/Product.aspx?product_id=315&tag_id=10161)
Unfortunately I was in a rush to get my 20D and couldn't get hold of the 17-85 in time for my holiday, so I got the 18-55 kit lens which now sits in a cupboard. The 17-85 is MUCH better.
I currently have the 17-85 & the 70-300 DO and expect them to keep me happy for some time. :-)
-
You should be able to get a nice range of primes that could well suit your needs while being cheaper and maybe better than the zoom alternatives.
A 20/35/50/100 macro/200 combo, especially 2nd hand and if you're not scared of maybe trying for the sigma or tamron 90mm macro's, and going for the 50mm 1.8 instead of the 1.4 (both are easily as good as L zoom quality), then you should be able to get a wide ranging package for $1000-ish.
Otherwise, a 70-200 f4L with a 17-40L combined will cost about $1000
or a 70-200 f4L with a 20/35/50 (new) for about $1000.
Methinks that your opinions on focal lengths are not really valid, especially as you've never used them. Your opinions on the quality of them, well, pro photographers need one thing, you don't necessarily need the same thing and you've no experience in photoraphy to tell you either way. A prime will outclass almost any zoom, even L glass, if only for flare resistance. Saying that a 50mm FOV (35mm lens) would not be of any use to you, as a beginner, should make almost every photographer on this site groan, most of us learnt photography with a 50mm lens! Ditto the remark about f2 not being fast enough, bloody ####, how many Med format lenses are even f2.8 and anyway why do you need a faster wide angle lens, how much available light people photograph do you intend doing? you don't need ultra fast lenses for landscapes.
To give you some idea,
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/bonfire.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/bonfire.shtml)
was taken with a 24-70 f2.8, you don't necessarily need fast lenses for availible light photography (MR had his 50 1.4 with him didn't he), one of the advantages of digital.
Also this excellent article:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/d...to-analog.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-to-analog.shtml)
I'm not trying to patronise you mate, I'm really not, but until you know what each focal length is for, what you need fast lenses for, and have some experience, I wouldn't make judgements on lenses, FOV, and focal lengths so glibly.
-
Consider the 28-135 IS. I just started with a new 20D this week and got this lens. It gives a good range and even has decent macro ability. The IS, as many others have also stated, really works - I played today doing full telephoto at 1/16 sec with IS on & off. With IS on, the sharpness appeared to be just as good as at 1/125 (just eye-balling the LCD). With IS off - you can imagine the impressionistic effect.
-
I have that lens. It is loose as a goose. Point the camera downwards or upwards and the zoom changes.
Actually, mine didn't have that problem at all; it was "just-right" tight. Just the fuzzy-corner problem. Like I said, variation...
And I agree that, *if* you get a good one, it's a great walk-around range and the IS is icing on the cake. That's why I chose it to begin with.
Lisa
-
It all depends, really, on how valuable a wide-angle capability is to you. My choice, not yet regretted, was the f/2.8 16-35 as a first lens for my 20D, as I value a wide-angle lens greatly. It's quite a bit superior to the 17-40, according to Michael's tests. I'd then look for a reasonable f/1.4 used 50mm. You'd then have a high-quality, reasonably wide (25mm) lens up to just over what we call a 'normal' (56mm) and an extremely fast, high quality mild tele, at 80mm. Good way to start in my judgement. My philosophy is to get quality lenses. They make the photographs, not the body. And you'll keep them as you progress. Them's my two cents. Dan
-
I'm going to do the 17-85mm kit lens since it is what I can afford right now till I had others.
-
hey,
I'm new here so let me say "Hello!" first.
I'm in the same boat in needing a first lense for a 20d,
but for a completely different use.
I've been shooting skateboarding over the past year with
a "relic" Olympus C-720 Ultra Zoom...I've gotten some
very good results with it; but I've wanted to step up to
a better/quicker camera that I can also do other things
with eventually.
Since skateboarding is my main subject, I need to get in
as close as possible to my subjects...but I need to keep
things in budget. I'm looking at about $800 left after I
purchase the camera body.(with all it's accessories)
I'm going to be doing a lot of outdoors shooting(obviously)
as well as some _very_ low light situation shooting...I'm
not a big fan of using flash(due to time lag for the flash)
and try to avoid it if possible.
I've looked at both Sigma and Tamron lenses; any feedback
on how those interface with the 20d?
Thanks very much for your time, and I really appreciate any
thoughts/opinions/feedback you could throw my way.
Thanks!!
Chris Olden
-
My first and only 20D lens so far is the 24-70 F2.8 L. This lens was a curtain-raiser for me, as I now understand all the hoopla about sharpness, lens color, and speed. The auto focus is smooth, quiet, and fast. Manual focus is always available (a very handy feature). When I get my part right, the pictures are as good as anything I've seen. The 38 to 112 focal range (equivalent) is rarely inadequate for me. Nevertheless, today I ordered the 70-200 F2.8 L IS for those times when the extra reach is necessary. This will do it for me, since I plan to cover the rare wide anlge shot with a film body and the rare super-tele with a 1.4x extender. But if I never got another piece of equipment, I could make do with the 24-70 F2.8 L. It will always be my "default" lens and will always do most of the work.
-
For me, I started off with the kit lens (18-55). I dont have LOTS of money yet, so my first lens was a 50mm f/1.8. Absolutely LOVED the lens, but wanted a wide angle and something to replace the 18-55 lens. After being torn between the 10-22 and the 17-40, i decided to go with the 17-40 as the replacement for my 18-55.
Out of the 6 months that I had the 18-55, I found myself wanting something wide.
So now I just use 50mm, 17-40 f/4 L
I am now on the hunt for one more lens to complete my needs. Im looking at the 70-300 DO lens... but the 70-200 f/4 L seems like a great choice also.
*sigh* times i wish I had lots of cash to buy them all :laugh:
But my advice, for 60-80 bucks, the 50mm f/1.8 is the perfect lens to start with(or 50 f/1.4 if you got a lil more dough). Once you shoot with it, you can figure out what you want out of your next lens.
-
Hello all,
Now before I get into this, I'd like to apologize for having brought up this question so many times. I know these types of questions have been discussed ad nauseam, but I feel that this one is significantly different that I need to make my own thread about it. I appreciate the help that I have already been given, and hopefully this can be one of the last repeated questions I ask. But now to the point:
Please note that this question is in regards to my first lens for the 20D. While the eventual plan is to get lenses at least ranging from at least 17-200mm with a 100mm macro, this is a few years down the road and will depend on my initial experience with my first lens.
I've been recently been asking myself some questions as regards to what would be the best way to jump into the world of digital SLR photography. While I have most of my basic plans set out, camera body for instance, the lens has been something that I have been jumping off the walls about, having no idea what is the best course of action. I would like to state my concerns about the individual lenses listed above, so that you could get a better idea of the way that I am thinking:
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM: This is obviously a top grade lens that would last for a long time. There is no point in really going into the strengths as they are obvious, so I'll just go straight to my concerns: A rather weak wide angle as with the 1.6x crop it will be around 39mm. Good to start off be definitely will be lacking down the road. Price obviously, at a good 1,000$ more than any other lens listed it costs more than the actual body. My biggest concern would be that I wouldn't have a basis of comparison with other lenses. While I am sure that the pictures will turn out fine, I will have no war of comparing them to a weaker lens to see a difference in quality and whether it is really worth the extra price. A pro that is worth mentioning is that the 10-22mm would be well suited with it as there would be no overlapping mm. Perhaps not a great thing, but for someone on a budget it's not the worse.
EF 17-40 f/4L USM: This is the lens that I was pretty confident would be a good first, but i am no longer certain. While not the best lens in it's class, it's good for the money and preforms well. My concerns with it are that first, it is somewhat in a in-between field of view. With it's 17-40mm it would overlap with any standard zoom lens by at least a good 15mm, and chances are I'd still find it lacking on the wide angle side. I'd then set out with a wide zoom and a standard zoom and this would be left in the closet. Another problem is that I still wouldn't have a real feel for what is a good vs. a bad quality lens. While it isn’t the best, there still wouldn't be a real basis for comparison.
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: I haven't really considered this lens until recently. Michael's review says that it is a fine lens and that has somewhat opened a door for this lens. While it's angle of view is impressive it does have its shortcomings as well. It is an EF-S lens, so that it wouldn't work with any non 1.6x crop body. While canon says that these will stay in favour for at least a while, I am not so optimistic. In the end this lens would have to go, but that may not be such a bad thing. At a reasonable cost of around 1k$ it may be a good learners lens to learn to see and to experience first hand dSLRs. A somewhat lower picture quality is also a drawback.
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM: Also haven't considered any of the following lenses very much, this one included. It's pros are that it is fast, inexpensive compared to the others, and that no matter what it would always have a place in my arsenal. But the cons are there too: At an effective angle of view of 80mm, it is very much so lacking on the wide angle side of things, and doesn't have any extreme telephoto capabilities to boot. However it is a good sharp lens that would definetly stay with me for quite some time. Also, being a prime lens, it has its various advantages and disadvantages as well.
EF 35mm f/2.0; While taking off some of the wide angle problems of the previous 50mm lens, this one losses some pros as well. It's not as fast, it's not as sharp and after the learning days, it may no longer have it's place. In some odd years, I simply can't see myself using this lens for any purpose. And in the end, with its effective 56mm angle of view, it's still a little wanting on the wide side of things. Pros and cons of primes apply.
EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM: A cheap substitution of the 24-70mm lens. While it is cheap and with a good variety of angle of views, it will be found wanting on the performance wide of things, and it's speed isn't all that fabulous either. It's quality however, may not be such a bad thing in the end though. It may make me appreciate what in fact is good and what is bad, and will teach me to see the differences better.
EF-S 18-55mm f/3,5-5,6 USM: The cheapest of them all; at around 100$ it's practically being given away. It is obviously not a sharp lens, or a fast one, though its angle of vision isn't all that bad. EF-S isn't a good thing, but it's not like it would be used indefinitely in the best of circumstances. An option is to get this lens with the 20D, hold on to that for a few weeks, try out a better lens, see the amazing difference in quality and smash this with a hammer. Maybe not so extreme, but it would definitely make me appreciate the quality of good lenses.
I know that this is asking a lot but I would really value some input on this topic. I've been racking my brains over this for quite some time and I can't make any real progress in my decision until I get some advice.
The lenses are in order of most to least expensive, with the first one having a huge gap over the others. The next two are almost identical, followed by the fourth at around 600$. While prices in the States are cheaper, I know that I would have to hold any potential lens in my hands before I buy it.
Thank you all very much for your help and patience. I won't forget it,
Stefan.
-
Before you decide what lens to buy, the question to ask is "What do you what to take pictures of." Landscapes? Wildlife? Portraits? Are you going to use a tripod or handhold? Do you like low light photography, or are your shots going to be primarily daylight?
If you're like most of us, you likely haven't won any recent lotteries, so money is also a factor.
My recommendation is to start off with the lens you would use the most and the best you can afford, even if it means getting only one lens versus two. If you don't shoot off a tripod, then get an IS lens. If you haven't identified any specific photography niche, such as portraits or bird photography, then stick with an all around lens, probably a zoom that can go from landscapes to people, wide angle to a normal or small telephoto. Canon has a lot to choose from. But, again, get the best lens you can afford.
-
Stef - I just voted for the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but I have to tell you that it would not suit me because I have found that I have very similar needs as yours and generally find it very liberating to draw without encumberance from my modest collection, almost equally:
17-40 f4L
50 f1.4
70-200 f4L
100 macro
300 f4 L
1.4 TC
Point being, I get a lot of use from the long lenses. You may want to consider somthing long to go with the 17-85, even right out of the gate.
-
I went for an EF 28-135 1:3.5 - 5.6 IS.
-
I use my Canon 28-135 IS as the "standard" lens on this body. It's a great travel lens and I have produced some very sharp enlargements even when shooting as high as ISO 800.
Just a warning:
There seems to be a great deal of variability in the sharpness of the Canon 28-135 IS lens between one person's lens and another. I agree it's an extremely versatile and easy-to-travel-with lens, but, if you go that route, make sure you try several before you buy to make sure you get a decent one. Mine wasn't. It got progressively worse, and I finally sent it back to Canon for readjustment; even after that, it was still amazingly crappy in the corners at wider apertures. To give you an idea, the kit lens ($300 list price) on my D70 is *far* sharper.
Lisa
I have that lens. It is loose as a goose. Point the camera downwards or upwards and the zoom changes.
The concept, however, as a walk around is on target. I'll be using it handheld in my walk around Toronto city. ISO 200 during the day, ISO 800 at night. I did that in Manhattan last year and the IS worked great.
-
For what it's worth .. I had (have) a 10D, and recently added a 20D.
With the 10D, I had a 24-70l + 70-200 2.8IS, plus a handful of other lenses. Bought the 17-40 f4L on the ground that I wanted to 'fill out the range', and didn't like it much, so kept it in the bag. Slowly over time, the 17-40 became more useful and lived on the camera all the time, and I realised it is a wonderful lense!
I bought the 20D specifically for the 17-85, as I wanted a walkbout for a trip to Italy, and with the L lenses, I'd spend all my time changing lenses ...
So far the 17-85 look great on the 20D (although I would still use the 17-40 in preference when possible)
-
For myself I chose the 17-85 as the first lens for this camera. I was switching from Nikon film to Canon digital.
I would have preferred the 24-70 L also but for a basic walkaround lens the 17mm was better for me and the budget was $2000 so my choice was made. I added the 24mm Sigma 1.8 Macro for a faster lens. I would have preferred a little wider but I was hoping to use the Macro feature of this lens. After taking my kit to Asia I found that the 17-85 was used almost exclusively and the 24mm I only used for flowers. I borrowed a friends 70-100 IS and that was rarely used. SLR's strenghs are in the many lens choices but that also means it is hard to have just one lens.
In my thinking a 50mm is not a good option for a primary lens with a 1.6x crop factor, especially if landscapes are your interest. For portraits it is a good lens. For those of you not dealing with the small sensor remember to multiply. A 50 is an 80 so although many great photographers learned on 50mm, most of us would agree that if you only had one lens an 80 would not be your first choice for general use. Remember landscapes, street scenes .... I think if you only have one lens it is better to err on the wide side and crop. (I know the purists are moaning but this is the adobe age)
-
I bought the 20D specifically for the 17-85, as I wanted a walkbout for a trip to Italy, and with the L lenses, I'd spend all my time changing lenses ...
So far the 17-85 look great on the 20D (although I would still use the 17-40 in preference when possible)
So is the 17-40 noticeably sharper, or just faster?
I've got a 17-40 and a 28-105 that get carted around all the time. I've been thinking of getting a 17-85 and only having to carry one lens instead of two, but am worried about sharpness.
I've noticed that all of my favorite shots have been taken with my sharpest lenses - 50mm f1.8 and 17-40 F4L. The 28-105 has some good ones, but the very best ones all came from those very sharpest lenses and I'd hate to buy another lens and decide not to carry it for fear of fuzzy pictures.
-
I would suggest a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and a Canon 50mm 1.8.
With these you cover a reasonable range and you will soon discover your likes and dislikes.
-
I am biased towards primes but even if you like zooms it might be worth considering the 100mm f2.8 Macro defending on your subject type.
I have found this to be my favorite lens for many occasions. Sharp and providing focus from infity down to life size, good background blur, good for tight portraits and portraits of small children.
-
i would get the 50/1.8 or maybe a cheap one with about ~30mm and use that lense for some time, just to find out what your needs are.
-
I´ll add my 2 c. as a 10D shooter for over 2 years with a bunch of lenses( more than I thought Ill need). Keep in mindthat Ill give advise without knowing what kind of photography youll make.
- 24-70. I own and LOVVVE this lense. Its big, heavy, expensive and not very wide in an APS sized sensor...but to my surprise it´s the lense that spends the most time on my camera. It might not help a lot but the majority of the "great" photographers of the 20th century never went any wider than 35 or 40 and still manage to produce stunning images...I believe that having just one lense(even with the limitations in range) will help to develop an "eye", and give power to your compositional skills. I´ve found that owning so many lenses can be very distracting and gets in the way of getting the shot.I sustain the theory that shooting with limitations and difficuties(for a while) will make you a better photographer..you might not agree. The images out of this lense are beauifull, its fast and the bokeh is very pleasing.(That´s why I voted for it on your poll though I admit that the 17-85 is probably a more clever decission.)
-50 1,8. This lense is very cheap and makes a perfect complement to whatever you get.Whatever you decide, get one. Its sharp, small and a pleasure to use.Perfect for when you want easy,light,fun and laid back shooting.also great for low light situations.
17-40 f 4- When I bought this lense I was obsessed with the wide angle coverage. I,ve found to my surprise that I use it less and less.Dont get me wrong, its a fantastic lense, but I would´nt recomend it as the only lense in your arsenal. Its slow and the range is to short(for my taste).
17-85. Though I don´t own this lense,logic says its the right decision.Youll manage to cover the majority of the situatios with it, small, not to heavy and I believe the IS is tops. It seems to be the perfect walk-around/holiday lense and the one with which youll probably be less limited.If you decide to get this I still recomend you to get the 50 1,8 or even 1,4.About it being an EF-S lense, if you ever get a full frame or anything else I dont think youll have any dificulty selling this lense with your 20D body and I think this EF-S´s are going to become very popular and will be among us for quite a long while.
I used to "suffer" about which lenses I would be buying and in which order, and I´ve burnt my eye lashes reading EVERY review available on the net.Now that I own everything I wanted I find myself walking the opposite road, trying to simplify and allways wanting to carry the minimum stuff.Less gear means more energy spent in shooting and getting the images...I suggest you visit this site as an example of what can be achieved with just one camera and one lense(a 50mm).You might like his stile or not, but there will be no doubt about the comitment.
Heninger photographic (http://www.heninger.org)
Maybe we are spending to much time on this forums...
???
I hope this will be of some help and sorry for the long post..
good luck with your choice and most important: ENJOY!!
Erik
-
It really doesn't matter which lens you start out with. If you're new to photography, try the 50 f/1.4. Don't buy the 50 f/1.8, it really isn't as sharp and the bokeh is definitely not as good, I don't care what anyone says. Two totally different lenses in different leagues. I love my 50 f/1.4.
You might want to ask yourself whether or not you want more zooms, or more primes? Some people have nothing but primes, some have only zooms, and some have a combination, which is probably the best way to go.
Start out with either a 24-70L, or 50 f/1.4. Move on to a 100 macro, a 135f/2L (very sharp portrait lens/indoor sports), a 70-200 f/2.8 (IS?), and a 300 f/4 IS. Then complete it with the 10-22 EF-S for your wide angle. Depending on what you shoot, you should purchase these in a different order than listed. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Also, some very nice prime lenses, such as the 200 f/2.8L II, can be purchased for about $650. If you find yourself zooming in all the way with a 70-200 zoom, why not save the money and use the prime instead?
Good luck in making a choice!
T-1000
-
I use my Canon 28-135 IS as the "standard" lens on this body. It's a great travel lens and I have produced some very sharp enlargements even when shooting as high as ISO 800.
Just a warning:
There seems to be a great deal of variability in the sharpness of the Canon 28-135 IS lens between one person's lens and another. I agree it's an extremely versatile and easy-to-travel-with lens, but, if you go that route, make sure you try several before you buy to make sure you get a decent one. Mine wasn't. It got progressively worse, and I finally sent it back to Canon for readjustment; even after that, it was still amazingly crappy in the corners at wider apertures. To give you an idea, the kit lens ($300 list price) on my D70 is *far* sharper.
Lisa
-
Lisa, I thought you use the D70?
I got the D70 last spring. My previous camera was a Canon film SLR, used with the 28-135mm IS lens. The poor quality of that lens (and the lack of anything affordable in the Canon lineup to replace it with that covered the zoom range I wanted) was the last straw that caused me to throw in the towel as far as film was concerned and go digital with the D70 (and its kit lens).
Lisa
-
I see. Why didn't you simply go down the 20D line? Did you think Nikon would be better or was it not out yet at that point?
As for me, I am planning on stopping off at Henrys on Thursday before heading to Pikto, so hopefully I will be able to make a decision then and there.
-
As you, I angquished over which first lens(es) to purchase initially with my recently acquired 20D system and came to the following, and happy, conclusion. While I purchased 2 lenses, if I had to pick one to start with, it would be the 16-35F2.8L (my other initial lens is the 70-200F2.8L IS) Here's why I think the 16-35 is your best bet as a single starter. First, it will cover your wide angle needs at 16 and perform as a good standard at 35... I find it's range frames quite well (consider the 1.6x factor). It's a bit on the pricy side but it's a quality lens that will out-live your 20D and compliment the 1Ds series when you upgrade. My experience is that it performs superbly with the 20D. I initially thought about the 24-70L to meet up with the 70-200L, but then realized I'd miss the wide angle, not too mention I wouldn't have a wider diversity on the 70 end with my 70-200L. I've also found that I really don't miss (considering my budget at this time) the 35 to 70 range... if I find the 35 doesn't frame tight enough, in most cases taking a few steps forward does the trick.
The 17-85 most are recommending I feel is a bad option for several reasons: 1. it's not the last or only lens you will purchase, yet the scope of the 17-85 will most likely overlap other lenses you will purchase in the future. 2. it's a slow lens, this may not seem to be an issue prior to your purchase but it will be something you regret if you like capturing subjects in low ambient light. 3. If your second lens is an L, you'll find yourself reluctant to mount the 17-85 due to inherent quality issues. 4. With the 17-85 you're over-compensating for having one lens initially...trying to have an all in one lens that performs average at all ranges but not great at any specific one. This will make your investment in the 17-85 obselete as you acquire other quality (L?) glass.
I did quite a bit of research and analysis, and even after feeling 90% confident of the choice of glass when I ordered, I still felt a bit of anxiety (as I didn' thave the opportunity to test the lenses at a dealer prior to purchasing) Now that I've received my 16-35F2.8 L and the 70-200F2.8L IS, and have used them on my 20D, I'm 100% pleased with my choice, both in the quality and the range of the lenses.
Hope this helps!
-
Just got back from shooting the old city of Jerusalem at night. I had a 10D with a 17-40, 28-70 and 70-200. The 28-70 stayed in the bag, and all the keepers were with the 17-40L, I love the wide angle look on a 'normal' zoom for landscapes though it drives me mad when shooting weddings! That 17-40, whatever the 1Ds owners might say, on a 6-8 megapixel 1.6X body kicks serious butt.
-
Cheers Mr. Kulon, good to know that the 17-85 is a good choice.
Right now though, I have paused my quest to become an amateur photographer. I broke my foot the other week (hairline fracture in the right fibula) playing rugby, so photography of any sort is not really an option. I'd still like to get into it, but I'm trying not to think too much about it as it reminds me of all the things that I cannot do at the moment. Unfortunately the way it is headed, I might not get a camera for the summer, unless my foot mends, so that means (I know I've been saying it a lot) more delays. I definitely still want to get it, but it is going to have to wait.
Cheers, all the best.
Stefan
-
New to digital photography, with a 20D. I spent quite some time reading posts in many forums about lenses. My kit lens was the EF-S 18-55; tried to buy the 20D without it, but eventually gave in to its low price (part of the kit). My second lens, but what I consider my "first" lens is the EF 28-135 IS USM; I tend to use this one most of the time. I'm thinking about a short lens like the EF-S 10-22, but for now the 28-135 is a great first, walk-around lens.
- Pierre
-
Hi Stefan,
It is certainly a tough decision..one that I had to make not that long ago. First of all I decided that the 20D wouldn't be my last Canon DSLR, so I need to invest in good-great Canon lenses that would live on past the life of the body. With that in mind I past on the 17-85 EF-S kit lens. Not because I have reservations about image quality, but more that I have reservations about sensor size. In my opinion, $1500 US in 5 years will get you a Canon D-SLR with a full size (or closer to it) sensor. Just like PC's technology, digital photography gets better and cheaper every day.
With this in mind, I wanted the best quality lens I could afford. I thought seriously about the 24-70L and was willing to put up with that massive lens on the front of my lightweight body, but luckily the good people on this site pointed out the fact that I would really be missing the 17-24 range (27-38) with my landscape photography. So I looked into and eventually bought and now love my 17-40L. The slower f4 is not an issue for me and I haven't missed IS. It may be for you though and it is something you'll have to determine based upon what you'll shoot.
When I need a fast lens for indoor or outdoor low light shots I pull out my 50f1.4 and I have to say that this is my favorite lens. If I could only have one lens, I would still buy the 17-40 first though, but preferable buy at least two right off the bat because one can't do everything. Although it seems as if the 17-85 might come close. Now my third lens is a 100f2.8macro and I love this lens as well. I am now at a point where I'm trying to determine whether to get a 70-200 or a 100-400.
Basically my advice is to go with quality even if it means that you need to buy more than one lens off the bat and you won't regret it. Good Luck!
Andy
-
Thank you all for your advice so far,
As to what kinds of things I will be shooting, they will mostly be landscapes, family, abstract and macro. Nature and wildlife will no doubt be in that list later on when I will actually be able to go into the wild. I obviously cannot foresee all the types of things that I will be shooting, but landscapes and family are definetely going to be near the top, as will hopefully astronomy, but for that I'll make due with what I have and not get anything specific for it. I should add that almost certainly my second lens would be the 100mm macro, which I'd get soon after the first.
In order to keep this post as much on topic as possible I am going to refrain from asking more questions right now, and I will not make individular comments. I may contact some of you indicidually if I have any pressings question about your suggestions, but I'll PM you if it comes to that. i am still very attentively reading and still asking for your advice in helping me make my decision, just I don't want to clutter your advice with any more questions.
Thank you for your help so far and keep the ideas coming,
Stefan
-
I still have a soft spot for the 28-135 IS. My tendency is toward the longer end, rather than wide angle and I appreciated the IS. What you need will depend on how/what you end up shooting. In addition to the 28-135 I started with a sigma 17-35, sigma 14 (rarely used) and cannon 75-300 IS (this lens didn't last very long and after about 6 mos I upgraded to the 100-400 IS L). This was on a Canon D30 1.6x.
-
I sold my 10D on eBay and purchased the 20D about 3 months ago. I also have a 1DMk2.
Although the 20D came with 18-55, it's pretty much a throw away lens. I use my Canon 28-135 IS as the "standard" lens on this body. It's a great travel lens and I have produced some very sharp enlargements even when shooting as high as ISO 800. The IS feature works great and the lens is relatively small and light compared to my other Canon lenses.
In addition to the 28-135 IS, my arsenal of Canon lenses are as follows:
17-35 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS, 100-400 L IS, 24-70 f2.8 L, 100mm Macro, 1.4x II and 2x II teleconverters.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
Lisa, I thought you use the D70?
-
I see. Why didn't you simply go down the 20D line? Did you think Nikon would be better or was it not out yet at that point?
The 20D wasn't out yet. I could have gotten a 10D (its predecessor) instead of the D70, but it was the lenses that drove the decision for me. I only had two Canon lenses, and both were so poor that I didn't want to use them anymore, so I was effectively starting from scratch lens-wise. For lightweight traveling, I like to use a single zoom lens with at least a 28-105 mm (35mm equivalent) zoom range, and the Nikon kit lens did just that and is an excellent lens for the money. Canon didn't have any single lenses that would cover that range that looked reasonable to me.
Lisa
-
Tried to vote, message said I couldn't vote! Anyone know why? I've been registered on this site for quitre a while?
Peter
-
I answered the lens poll as other because the 10-22s was not listed. I think the combination of 20D camera and the 10-22s kicks some serious butt with the 1.6 cropping factor. Landscapes are my primary subject.
-
Having just used the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for week abroad, I would have to say this just may be the ideal partner for a 20D under 2 conditions...
1) Entry-level starter lens that covers many bases.
2) Exceptional travel lens when paired with the 70-200 f/4 L.
I have many other choices in my kit that I could have used...
- 28-135 IS
- 50 f/1.4
- 17-40 f/4 L
But I chose the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM based on its IS and lightwieght compact design. Most of what I shot was at f/8 or smaller apertures. All of what I shot was sharp, contrasty, and full of color. The IS worked like a charm when paired up with the 20D's amazing low noise at medium ISO settings. This is a walk-around dream. Downsides of this lens...
- no hood included and backordered
- obvious CA, but easy to remove with Photoshop Camera raw.
- barrel distortion at 17mm. Again, this can be removed if needed.
I won't be selling my 17-40 L or my 50 f/1.4, but I will be selling my 28-135 IS. This lens is built better and suits the ASP sensor size better. It is sharper and more contrasty. I suspect that degrades full open, but that isn't important for me under the conditions I just described.
This lens seems a bit pricey, but is comes very close to delivering the images I get from my L glass. I can't say that for my 28-135 IS.
So Stef, I'll cut to the chase, if and when you get back to us and actually buy your 20D, I am giving a thumbs up to this lens.
-
I have a 350D not a 20D, however I own, or have owned a number of the lenses mentioned here.
Currently I own a 10-22, a 17-85IS & a 70-300DO IS plus a 50mm Mk1 (the noisy one).
In the past I have owned a 28-135IS for a short while - I didn't think too much of it (it may have been a bad copy) - and a 100-400IS which was about the same size and weight as an anti aircraft missile launcher if I remember correctly ;-) all used with a 300D
I am an enthusiast, not a professional, I shoot mostly landscapes, and I'm not greatly experienced nor overly talented by the standards of some here, but I'm getting better and having great fun! I love gadgets, so I have experimented with a lot of software too, I'm currently taking part in the DxO Beta trials.
Of all these lenses I have used the 17-85IS most, and I am very impressed with it. Not only does it give me lively pictures - good contrast? with natural colour, but it is small and light - therefore easy to carry round - and relatively unobtrusive (I remember the white 100-400 attracted a lot of unwelcome attention).
Of course in buying a 17-85IS you are taking a bet on whether the EF-S has a future. Personally I subscribe to the view that if Canon can produce a great 8mp x1.6 chip now, it won't be too long before they produce a (say) 15mp x1.6 chip, and my guess is that not many of us will actually need much more than that.
-
One year ago my choice was 17-40 L + 50 mm f/1.8, here is why : WideAngleChoice (http://fovea.perso.cegetel.net/WideAngleChoiceE.htm)
I don't regret it a bit, especially now that the 5D is announced !
Xavier.
-
I voted for the 17-40/4 because it's range is very versatile on a 1.6X DSLR, because it is very good (better then the 17-85) and not so expensive as the 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 IS. Then again, lens selection is highly individual and what's good for me may not be good for you. It depends a lot on your shooting style.
Oh yeah. Add the 50/1.8 while you're at it.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html)
http://www.wlcastleman.com/ (http://www.wlcastleman.com/)
-
I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC is excellent.
-
It is, but the Canon 17-40/4 is even better, especially in the corners. This is logical as the Canon is FF and the Sigma APS-C.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
-
I have just emerged from lens choice hell - and made some purchases that will probably keep my creative options open for some time.
I have one of the first version of the Rebel. Still love it. I got the 18-55 with it.
I chose the basic EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 first, as I had few funds at the time. It was fun, though obviously just barely able to perform its functions. I have lots of pictures of soft birds! I enjoyed it nonetheless.
Last summer I purchased the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM to use on my trip to Cape Breton. I would have been miserable without a wide-angle choice in that landscape. I have been perfectly satisfied with it though I avoid the extremes at either end of its scope.
I finally replaced the 75-300 with the new
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. I tried out this lens alongside the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Both were great, but I found that the DO a joy to handle, and decided to spend the extra. I hike a lot, and found the dimension of the longer lens awkward.
To finish the job I chose the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM. It's lovely!
The weak spot is obviously the normal range - 50mm, though the original OEM lens will do in a pinch.
I read tons of reviews on these lenses - and proved once again that, if you try hard enough, you can find someone who will trash them. I was really not sure about the 70-300 DO, having heard bad things about lens flare, but Michael's good opinion reassured me.
No one seems to have much to say about the 60mm macro. I am looking forward to tiny abstractions.
I hope my presumption that Canon lenses are all good enough for a fussy old photographer will stand. I'm pleased as punch with my choices.
-
The fact that you're asking the question indicates you may be best off by starting with a 50mm f/1.4.
I got this lens myself when I bought my 20D in the Fall and the 24-105 was backordered. I figured it would be a good one to have regardless, and I could sell it easily for nearly what I paid for it.
That was a good decision. I've used it a bunch (also have a 70-200 f/2.8), and I am enjoying the lack of zoom - forces me to visualize my shots even better.
The problem with wide angles for newbies is that they use them. :-) Learn to shoot tight first. Then discover what a wider view would do for you. Going the other direction is, in my view, more difficult (and less likely).
-
>> The fact that you're asking the question indicates you may be best off by starting with a 50mm f/1.4.
I disagree. Not everyone likes this FoV on FF. I - for example - don't. It's a very personal issue.
-
i recommend the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 SP LD Di Aspherical lens.
it appeared in a luminous landscape article called "killer digital lens", i believe. Anyways, it got excellent reviews, and I'm very pleased with it myself. Outstanding picture quality, and it's designed for a "reduced frame" sensor, such as for the 20d or 300d.
-
The Tamron is one lens that I seriously considered. I noted the excellent review. Might get it some time. I have also considered getting a fast fixed 50mm. I was demonstrating aperture to my partner last night, using my old f2 50mm Nikkor and found myself missing that old camera. I spend some time winding the shutter and focusing on things ... *sigh*