New 20D needs lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Dale, Dec 26, 2004.

  1. Dale

    Dale Guest

    Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
    lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
    years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
    Yosemite type scenery.

    Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
     
    Dale, Dec 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dale

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
    Since you didn't give us a budget, and want to hit the football shots...

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=162616&is=USA

    Now, back to budgets of mortal proportions. As for family holiday
    pictures, I really, really like my Sigma 28-105 f/2.8:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=129503&is=USA

    Sharp, good pictures, and the 2.8 f-stop helps both with softening the
    background of portraits, and letting in lots of light in indoor settings if
    you don't have a good flash. With the 20D, that will come out to the
    equivalent of about a 45-170mm. I was worried that I would miss the
    wide-angle shots, but I have to say that my Canon 18-55 just sits in the
    bag, and is never missed. : )

    For the longer shots, I've used a Sigma 70-300 macro-capable lens for just
    a few minutes, and found nothing wrong with it upon a superficial inspection
    of the shots:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=163657&is=REG

    The equivalent on the D20 would be 112-480, which is pretty long. In
    macro mode, the minimum focal distance is something like 3 feet (more like
    6-10 at max zoom, if I recall), but with an equivalent 480mm focal length,
    it doesn't take much to fill the frame.

    I thought about the Sigma 18-125 DC lens (made for the APS-C sensor, no
    crop factor), but there were a lot of reports of vignetting, and the
    smallest aperture is 3.5. If you have a good flash, that shouldn't be a
    problem - but if you're only using the flash on the camera, every f-stop
    counts.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dale

    dylan Guest

    if you like Canon try...

    28-135, 17-40, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 , 400 f5.6 (or 100-400 which doesn't get
    quite as good comments)
     
    dylan, Dec 26, 2004
    #3
  4. I have the Canon "L" series 17-40 F4 and it is a wonderful lens. I couldnt
    give a higher recommendation. It replaced a Smegma (Sigma) 15-30 that I
    owned for 1 week. Pure crap optics on that one. Lens flare, fall-off. Ugh.
    never again that brand for me.
     
    Nunnya Bizniss, Dec 26, 2004
    #4
  5. Dale

    Musty Guest

    Have you considered the EF-S IS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 ?

    It has excellent range, the IS is wonderful and the pictures come out very
    sharp. It is also lighter than say the 17-40 f/4L. It is built for Canon
    20D.

    I also recommend the 70-200mm f/4L which is great value under $600. If you
    can spend extra $$'s, you can get the IS version which would be great for
    the football stuff, but at twice the price.

    I have a 20D with the 17-85 EF-S and the 70-200mm f/4L and I am very please
    with both.

    Thanks
    Musty.
     
    Musty, Dec 26, 2004
    #5
  6. Dale

    Chuck Guest

    28-135 USM IS ? That piece of junk ?

    But agree on the rest of your list...
     
    Chuck, Dec 26, 2004
    #6
  7. Dale

    Chuck Guest

    anothier piece of crap... avoid that lens at all cost !

    Get the 17-40 L or the 24-70 L instead of the toy above
     
    Chuck, Dec 26, 2004
    #7
  8. Dale

    Musty Guest

    What an insightful analysis "piece of crap". Have you used the 17-85?

    There are quite a few users that have both the 17-40 L and the 17-85 and can
    attest that the 17-85 takes same quality as the L. Keep in mind that the
    17-40L is an "affordable L" being in the $650 range. The EF-S being about
    $100 cheaper. What you get with the EF-S ofcourse is the much larger range
    and the IS - not to mention the size and weight, making it possibly the
    best walk-around lens for the 20D.

    Do you have any images to back up your claims? Like I said, there have quite
    a few posts on r.p.d from users who own both lenses and "piece of crap" is
    not what they are saying. I also own L-glass and can tell you that the
    17-85mm is an excellent and versatile performer.

    Just another basher...

    Any posts from owners of the 17-85mm would be appreciated here. Even more
    important, any owners of both lenses (17-40 L and 17-85).
     
    Musty, Dec 26, 2004
    #8
  9. Dale

    Bill P Guest

    A lens I use on both a 10D and a 20D is the Canon 28-135 IS. While some
    of you dislike it, it gives me generally excellent performance. Any
    faults can be easily adjusted for in Photoshop (now using CS). And its
    price is excellent. However, for a wider-angle lens, you may want to
    consider one of the zooms starting at 17mm (or thereabouts); the Canon
    17-40mm gets very high marks, and there are also much cheaper non-Canon
    zooms in that range.

    Take a look at the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com for more info.

    Bill P
     
    Bill P, Dec 26, 2004
    #9
  10. Dale

    Bill P Guest

    A lens I use on both a 10D and a 20D is the Canon 28-135 IS. While some
    of you dislike it, it gives me generally excellent performance. Any
    faults can be easily adjusted for in Photoshop (now using CS). And its
    price is excellent. However, for a wider-angle lens, you may want to
    consider one of the zooms starting at 17mm (or thereabouts); the Canon
    17-40mm gets very high marks, and there are also much cheaper non-Canon
    zooms in that range.

    Take a look at the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com for more info.

    Bill P
     
    Bill P, Dec 26, 2004
    #10
  11. Dale

    Skip M Guest

    I bought that Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 for my wife for Christmas a few years ago,
    it was the single worst lens I have ever seen in my photographic life. It
    gave new life to the term soft. And for the price of the Sigma 70-300, you
    can buy the Canon 75-300 USM, a better lens.
     
    Skip M, Dec 26, 2004
    #11
  12. Dale

    Skip M Guest

    Skip M, Dec 26, 2004
    #12
  13. Dale

    Musty Guest

    Skip,

    The guy is a basher. He also called the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens a piece of
    junk. Obviously does not own any equipment or has any experience with Canon
    EOS system. Please ignore his posts.

    BTW, love the shots.

    Musty.
     
    Musty, Dec 26, 2004
    #13
  14. Dale

    Skip M Guest

    Thanks!
    I figured him for a basher, but wanted to set the record straight for the
    OP.
     
    Skip M, Dec 26, 2004
    #14
  15. Dale

    Musty Guest

    I am fairly new to the DSLR and DigiCam newsgroups, but I am appalled at the
    amount of bashers especially in regard to the 20D. The funny thing is that
    when you hear from actual owners, they are very happy. Having said that,
    there are also some very knowledgable posters, so overall it is a positive
    experience.

    BTW, that was a Maserati, right?
     
    Musty, Dec 26, 2004
    #15
  16. Dale

    Dave1 Guest

    Just one small point, even though the 18-125 is made for digital, the
    designation is still as per normal lenses. On an APS-C sensor the lens
    is actually 28-200.
     
    Dave1, Dec 26, 2004
    #16
  17. Dale

    Ryadia Guest

    An interesting observation I'll share with you is the way this group is
    fanatically Canon biased. Canon make some pretty awful lenses. They make a
    lot of pretty good ones too but when someone tells you about one of the
    awful lenses, everyone seems to give out a flood of "you don't know what you
    are talking about" disciple jargon.

    Sigma make a lot of bloody awful lenses but they make some pretty good ones
    too. Whenever someone recommends one of the better Sigma lenses which
    incidentally are as good optically as the corresponding Canon lens, the
    disciples start with their flood of "you don't know what you are talking
    about" posts.

    So let me give you some 'good' advise. Unless you intend to spend big bucks,
    stay away from an "IS" lens. The cheaper ones from Canon are so slow that to
    focus on a scratching dog, he will have time to get up and leave the room
    before the lenses can go from 300 mm infinity to their close range!

    If price is a prime consideration you will go a long way before faulting the
    Sigma EX, DG range of lenses with Canon mounts. One in particular that
    stands out is the 24~70 f2.8 DG, DF lens. This is 1/3 rd the price of the
    Canon version and apart from a slower focus motor and the occasional
    inability to grab focus on low contrast, low light subjects, is optically
    close to equal to the Canon lens.

    The Canon 17~55 plastic lens which comes with the 20D kit is a pretty good
    all-round lens for most people. It is sharp and relatively free of flair. At
    the price it is a rare bargain. Pity it only fits a D300 or D20 but I guess
    that's the price of digital only lenses. This would suit your scenery
    photography in all but the most demanding situations. Use it between 20mm
    and 45mm and never stop down past f11 for the best results.

    If you need reach (and you will for football games) you really have no
    alternative but to spend money. The 100~300 f4 Sigma is no match for Canon's
    lens. Pity about the cost but sometimes you have to cough up or go without.
    Stay right away from monster range zoom lenses. Lenses like 28~300 are no
    value at all when at some point of their range they are poor... That'll be
    the range you need!

    Good luck,
    Doug
     
    Ryadia, Dec 26, 2004
    #17
  18. Dale

    MarkH Guest

    I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the 28-135
    IS lens all the time on my 10D and I have found it to be quite fast at AF
    even in fairly low light. Unlike the 75-300 IS (which is really quite
    poor), the 28-135 IS has the ring-type USM with full-time manual focus.
    The sharpness and contrast won't equal what you get on a good 'L' zoom, but
    the price doesn't match either.

    Of course it is possible that you may have experience of a 'bad' 28-135 IS
    that had a serious problem with its AF.
     
    MarkH, Dec 26, 2004
    #18
  19. Dale

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    I bought that Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 for my wife for Christmas a few years
    ago,
    There's also a much cheaper 28-105 f/3.8 lens, but I'll assume that you
    really had the f/2.8 model. In any event, the two that I have used have
    both produced sharp, clear images when I and the camera have done our
    parts - but I don't doubt that you had a bad experience with yours. Without
    having the two lenses in question to fiddle with, there's not much I can
    say. : )

    As for canon-vs-sigma in the 75-300 models, the canon doesn't have a macro
    capability, but that's a side concern. I'd love to hear in which ways the
    Canon lens has worked out better for you than the Sigma, as I may be
    purchasing a lens of that range soon.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Dale

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    It seems more and more to me that for any given lens that costs less than
    $1000, you will find at least one person who has had a terrible experience
    with it. : )

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 26, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.