Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Same old topics - 20D with choiced of 4 lens?  (Read 2552 times)
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7970



WWW
« on: July 02, 2005, 10:44:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if you need that much speed with your 20d? If you aren't doing a lot in dim indoor situations, you could save a little by going for the 70-200/4L instead of the 70-200/2.8L. It is lighter and a very fine lens. I have that and a 17-40/4L, which I use for most of my shooting. I have a gap between the 40 and the 70mm, which I seldom find a need for, but which I have recently plugged with a 50/1.8, which is cheap, light, fast, and good. So I would save the big bucks for the extreme ranges: the 10-22 sounds likea good match for the 20D (I have a 10D, so I can't use the 10-22 without modification), and I have a 1.4x extender which I sometimes use with my 70-200 to get up to 280mm.

I hope this helps, and I hope you get other opinions as well.

Happy shooting (and shopping).  

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 808


« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2005, 05:31:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I do shoot a lot of interior, landscape, travel & outdoor activities, then portrait & macro.

While I do love all the f/2.8 zooms, if I were in your shoes, I'd go a little different direction.

Interiors and landscapes is all tripod work, so a fast lens isn't really necessary. I'd choose the 10-22mm for the wide end of things, it's really your best option for this range.

The 24-70 seems like a logical match with the 10-22mm, but my tastes run a little towards the wider focal lengths, so I would find myself limited by the 24mm. The 24-70 is also a very large, heavy lens. The mid range would best be covered by a 16-35mm or 17-40mm, it's like a normal zoom on a 20D. If you don't need the speed of the f/2.8 version, I'd pick the 17-40mm. It's the lens I use myself about 80% of the time. However, your personal tastes should dictate above mine.

For the telephoto end, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is the best choice. However, there is a significant weight penalty compared to the equally sharp 70-200mm f/4 version. Depending on what you mean by "travel and outdoor" and how important weight considerations are to you will help you make that decisions.

For portrait work, I would get two lenses - the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8. Two very sharp fast lenses, sharper than most all of Canon's lenses. Both are also small enough to be discrete on the 20D, yet still provide a good telephoto lens for candid work.

Depending on how much macro work you do, you might be able to get away with using a diopter on the 70-200mm, either Canon or Nikon's dual element diopters will give good quality results. If you do a lot of macro work, then the 100mm Macro would be worth it. I personall have gone the diopter route, rather than investing $450 in a very specialized lens.

If you went 10-22, 17-40, 50, 85, 70-200 f/4, that's only $2600 in lenses, and a fairly portable kit. If you went to the 10-22, 16-35, 50, 85, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, then it's more like $4300, with an added 2+ lbs of weight.

If you went with the cheaper option, it could free up some funds for a couple potential lenses. The 24mm f/1.4 L would be a great fast wide lens, the 300mm f/4 L IS would be a great telephoto, and the 1.4 extender would be useful as well.

Anyhow, hopefully my thoughts are of some help to you.

Sheldon
Logged

10K
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2005, 11:38:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for all the comments & advises.  It does help me narrower my decision.
Logged
10K
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2005, 03:01:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm quite new to this forum, just get into it accidentally from other sites link and found it is very useful.  My question is pretty much the same old things, which lens to got with 20D.

I have a budget of around $4.5-6K to get into a completely new set of D-SLR & lens where I can live with for at least 5 years or more.  From my style of shooting, I figure I will need at least 4 lens to cover all the range.  I do shoot a lot of interior, landscape, travel & outdoor activities, then portrait & macro.

Here are 3 choices of the sets I have been thinking and can't make up my mind.

1.) Most expensive, best optics, but less wide angle coverage for my interior and very heavy for travel & outdoor.
20D + 16-35 f/2.8L USM + 24-70 f/2.8L USM + 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM + 100 f/2.8 Macro USM

2.) Mid range choice but should answer my need and left some $$ for more accesories like hi-speed CF card or flash
20D + EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM + 24-70 f/2.8L USM + 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM + 100 f/2.8 Macro USM

3.) Light weight for my travel & outdoor shoots, less optic quality but get extra $$$ to go for more 1 or 2 more good optic prime lens like 50 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4
20D + EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM + EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM + 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM + 100 f/2.8 Macro USM

Your comments should give me a better idea which set to go for.  Thanks a lot.
Logged
Pete68
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2005, 05:21:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi !

1. If you want wide angle more than 28mm in real world, you need the EF-S 10-22, I have one for two weeks now, and I'm very happy with.
2. I have the Tamron 28-75mm, not USM, not L, but quality is wonderful for that price, you can save money for other things
3. I have the 70-200 mm f.2.8 without IS, if you can without..

Hope it helps you !

Regards
Pete
Logged

Canon Eos 20d, Canon EFS 10-22mm, Canon EF 24-105 L,Canon EF 70-200 L, Canon f2.8 300 IS L, 1.4x and 2x. Canon EF Converter, Sigma 150 EX.
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2005, 05:43:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll comment from my rather brief experience as a 20D owner; it's a bit over half a year, but I've gone through a few lenses already.

Quote
I do shoot a lot of interior, landscape, travel & outdoor activities, then portrait & macro.
(...)
You then proceed to list various combinations of lenses, from the following selection:

1) EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
2) 16-35 f/2.8L
3) 24-70 f/2.8L
4) EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM
5) 100 f/2.8 Macro
6) 70-200 f/2.8L IS
7) 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

First, I'd admonish you to remember that you also need a good tripod with a good head (I prefer a ball head), a good flash (I recently tried a Metz that I don't recall the model number of, it's expensive but oh-so-much better than Canon's 550EX, which I have), a decent camera bag and backpack, polarizing filter(s) for most lenses, a remote control for those long exposure shots, etc, and that this doesn't come cheap.

Then you need to consider your computer system: do you have access to monitor calibration equipment, and is your monitor easily calibrated? Are you going to make prints, and if so, are you going to do them yourself? These things cost money, too.


Now, to the lenses!

When you're going to do interior shots and you want a super wide angle, there is no other Canon way for the 20D than the EF-S 10-22. IMHO the 16mm of the 16-35 is not wide enough. Also, the 10-22 is light. I own the 17-40 f/4L myself, and while it makes nice wide angle shots, it just isn't as super wide as the 10-22. But I actually sold my 10-22 and later got the 17-40, because I don't do interior shots as much as I thought I would. You can also look to offerings from Sigma and Tamron, I have no first or second hand knowledge about these.

If I hadn't started with the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6, I'd have bought the EF-S 17-85. This lens appears to be so good, combined with a very handy weight, that it would be a very decent walk-around lens. I'd recommend starting with this one, and rather upgrading later if you find it lacking. Bonus: if you think 17mm is wide enough for your interior shots, it's a good way of seeing whether you think it would be worth shelling out a lot more money for a 16-35 f/2.8L or a 10-22 later.

I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. I'll just have to repeat the sentiment of several other photographers in this forum: it "lives" on the camera (lens hood attached), in spite of its heavy weight. It's a very versatile lens, I just wish it had a greater reach, to e.g. 135mm. It's also sealed against dust and moisture, a fact I'd appreciate more if the 20D had been. But then the optical quality would suffer, and the 20D would make you suffer for that immediately.  I like it's "macro" possibilities. While certainly not as excellent as the 100mm Macro, it's still useful enough for my toying around. This is on the recommended list for future upgrades should you not be satisfied with the 17-85.

The 100mm f/2.8 Macro is generally renowned for excellent quality. It's not environmentally sealed, though. If you want better than life-size, consider also the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo.

I'd also recommend the 135mm f/2.0L. Great for many purposes, portraits is not the least of those. I've seen the images taken by others, and I've had the chance to test a sample on my 20D. The contrast! The sharpness! The colors! The bokeh! I'm trying hard not to just run and buy one of these before I'm sure I need this focal length. I recommend this over the 85mm f/1.8 for pure quality, and it's not a very "obvious" lens, either.

I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It's heavy and it's good. I love the IS function, both for hand-held shots and tripod shots at 200mm when there's wind. I love the IS function for tripod shots when I use the 1.4 Extender II, also. In spite of the continued recommendations of the 70-200 f/4L and its potential optical superiority, I don't think I could live with the compromise. But that's how I feel. If I wanted to get a walk-around lens with this range, I'd sooner consider the 70-300 DO IS you mention, even though it pretty clearly doesn't have the optics to match either 70-200L model. The 70-300 DO IS is light, and a fairly anonymous lens, while the 70-200L models almost scream "PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER". I get enough attention as it is with the 24-70!


To sum it up:

Don't spend it all at once. Try some of the easier, cheaper solutions first. You may not get all your money back if/when you sell, but you'll get to know your equipment and what you want from it. Remember that you'll need money for other stuff than the camera and lenses, too.


As Eric, I hope that my meager experience (I don't mean to imply that Eric's experience is meager :cool:) can be of some help in your decision making process, and that the other, very knowledgeable and experienced photographers with Canon gear can add their opinions as well.
Logged

Jan
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad