Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: FIRST lens for Canon 20D?
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - 48 (18.3%)
EF 17-40 f/4L USM - 59 (22.5%)
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - 110 (42%)
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - 9 (3.4%)
EF 35mm f/2.0 - 7 (2.7%)
EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - 4 (1.5%)
EF-S 18-55mm f/3,5-5,6 USM - 5 (1.9%)
Sigma equivalent (please tell me which) - 4 (1.5%)
Other Lens (please tell me which) - 16 (6.1%)
Total Voters: 19

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: FIRST lens for Canon 20D?  (Read 24864 times)
EAD
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2005, 03:34:49 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Maybe we are spending to much time on this forums...


 Huh

I hope this will be of some help and sorry for the long post..

good luck with your choice and most important: ENJOY!!

Erik
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 591


« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2005, 10:41:45 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2005, 12:17:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2005, 06:33:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Stef_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2005, 06:39:42 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Metaphor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2005, 06:16:42 PM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2005, 07:22:38 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Stef_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2005, 06:45:27 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
pvonk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2005, 02:13:50 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Hutch
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2005, 07:49:35 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Stef_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2005, 06:18:43 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2005, 10:04:48 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2005, 04:14:42 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Stef_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2005, 03:12:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Lisa, I thought you use the D70?
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2005, 08:30:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

peterpix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2005, 10:51:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Tried to vote, message said I couldn't vote! Anyone know why? I've been registered on this site for quitre a while?

Peter
Logged

Peter Randall
jimbob
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2005, 08:59:49 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2005, 08:09:34 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
michael162
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #38 on: June 07, 2005, 12:25:12 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Fovea
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2005, 01:08:36 PM »
ReplyReply

One year ago my choice was 17-40 L + 50 mm f/1.8, here is why : WideAngleChoice

I don't regret it a bit, especially now that the 5D is announced !

Xavier.
Logged

Please view & comment my website: http://www.fovegraphy.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad