FIRST lens for Canon 20D?

[Yakim Peled]

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.wlcastleman.com/

[dot-borg]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC is excellent.

[Yakim Peled]

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.

[katemann]

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.

[tshort]

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., 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).

[Yakim Peled]

>> 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.

[oldcsar]

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.

[katemann]

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*