| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2005 02:28:05 AM · #1 |
I'm shopping for a DSLR setup and have a little over $3K to spend...
Are the two lenses EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM & EF 17-40mm f/4L USM discernable on a Canon 20D? I wonder if I really need the expensive f/2.8 lens... most of my photos are of still people/objects & landscapes; though I like having flexibility to shoot anything.
What other lenses should I consider? (Note: I prefer Canon.)
I enjoy taking close-up photos, as well as wide landscape vistas.
My current shopping list includes, but is not limited to (only firm on the body):
Canon 20D body
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Circular polarizer x2
Tripod
Backpack for camera & lens
A nice flash for Christmas would complement the list, I think.
I bought a book on DSLR photography and hope to come to speed in the next couple weeks on what I want/need/don't really need. This web site is proving very valuable as well. |
|
|
|
09/29/2005 02:32:20 AM · #2 |
You will be using the 17-40 F4 for landscapes where you will be shooting F8 - F16 anyways, so you don't need a faster more expensive 2.8L lens.
For macro, buy the 100mm 2.8 lens. Its pretty good and works for portraits as well
|
|
|
|
09/29/2005 02:41:57 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by slo007:
...
Canon 20D body
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Circular polarizer x2
Tripod
Backpack for camera & lens
A nice flash for Christmas would complement the list, I think.
... |
That's an excellent selection...for landscapes you will need something wider though...the EF-S 10-22mm is highly regarded in that respect, only disadvantage is should you upgrade to a full frame sensor camera later on, it won't work on them.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2005 09:51:23 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
09/29/2005 10:08:21 PM · #5 |
Give it to me and I'll buy everything you need for you, and ship it as a gift. ;).
Just kiddin.
p.s. - I'd skip the 10-22 and go for a prime 12mm. Just IMHO.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2005 10:25:48 PM · #6 |
The 10-22 is a great suggestion as a landscape lens on a 1.6-crop cam. It won't overlap with the 24-70 as much as the 17-40. I agree that you don't really need f/2.8 at the ultra-wide focal lengths.
You'll never be sorry with the 24-70/2.8, it is absolutely fantastic. The 70-200/4 is also a great lens; you may or may not eventually find that you need/want 2.8 in this range, but if you do, you're not going ot lose a lot of money on the f/4 anyway, it is very much in demand.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 12:18:33 AM · #7 |
If you like macros, landscapes, and prefer Canons, I'd recommend considering the following.
EF-S 10-22: Good lens and really wide/a must for landscapes.
EF 24-70L: An excellent all around lens
EF 17-40 or 16-35, really good lenses, but not as wide with the crop factor.
EF 50mm f1.8: why not, it's cheap, fast, and sharp
70-200L f4: nice lens but I'm not sure if it's gonna fill your needs, have you thought about the Canon EF 100mm 2.8 Macro? Maybe more up your alley.
They also make EF-S 60mm macro as well.
I'm a bit wary about the EF-S mount, I think Canon will be moving away from the cropped sensors except in the Reble line and if you are looking to upgrade, then you'll need new lenses if you get EF-S.
Lastly, have you thought about a grip? It is really nice to have. I personally know of two that got it for their 20D after trying out my Reble with the grip. It's much nicer to hold, especially if you shoot a lot of verticle shots.
Good luck and have fun with your purchases.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 01:06:49 AM · #8 |
The 10-22mm Canon EF-S lens is as fine a wide-angle zoom as I've ever seen. I have no complaints with mine. I'm not worried about upward compatability; the likelihood of my upgrading to full-frame sensor in the foreseeable future is nil, and even if I did the lens would be resellable for a significant percentage of its original cost.
The 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron is a very fine lens at a third the cost of Canon's 24-70mm, and I don't regret opting for it for cost reasons. It's a better walkaround lens than the 24-70 just because it's quite a bit lighter and more compact. Optically it's very fine, and it does near-macro performance; 1:2 I think. It's the lens I leave on my camera.
The 70-200mm f/4L is a fantastically sharp zoom and substantially lighter and more compact than the f/2.8 version. Sometimes I wish I had the faster glass, but not often. I usually work with a tripod.
My 4th lens is the 60mm macro from Canon, and this one is a gem. Again, it's quite a bit lighter than the 100mm macro, and 2.5 inches shorter. Very, very sharp lens. I was able to afford it by choosing the Tamron over the 24-70mm L lens.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 04:25:23 AM · #9 |
| Spend $25 of it getting a membership ;) |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 05:28:08 AM · #10 |
I cannot speak to all of your choices, but I can very highly reccomend the 24-70. It is the one lens that practically lives on my 20D. I would also echo Yido, and advise picking up the grip. It really does make the camera easier to hold onto, and convenient for vertical shooting. The other thing I got to go with the grip was the wrist strap, or really more of a hand strap.
Whichever way you go, good luck, and happy shooting.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2005 09:03:16 AM · #11 |
The 24-70mm was designed to be an general purpose walk-around lens for FULL FRAME cameras. On the 20D, the crop factor makes the effective focal length more like 38-112mm. Not the best range for a general purpose lens, IMO. The 17-40mm, which is super wide on full frame cameras, is a GREAT general purpose lens for cameras like the 20D. With the 1.6 crop factor, 17-40 becomes more like 27-64mm, which is a great range.
But I suppose it comes down to your personal shooting style, and I know that people who have the 24-70mm really love it. I also agree that the 10-22 would be great with the 24-70. The 10-22mm rocks.
Message edited by author 2005-09-30 09:11:45. |
|
|
|
09/30/2005 11:14:10 AM · #12 |
A 2.8 lens on a 20D will enable the camera to focus faster and more accurately, so there is a 'hidden' benefit to a 2.8 lens besides the large ap. Also, a 2.8 lens at f4 will be a bit better than a f4 lens at f4. Also a 2.8 lens can take a 2X extender if you ever need to do that. a f4 lens can only take a 2.4x extender.
Canon has their new 24-105 L IS lens. If you don't need 2.8 it might be a great choice.
Sigma has some great lenses also - the 18-50 2.8 EX DG and 70-200 2.8 EX DG are both as good as L glass, optically, and lots less cash. The 18-50 is as sharp as the 17-40, has a stop more light, and more range.
Alot depends on what you shoot, or plan to shoot. Indoors a 2.8 lens is great. I love the 18-50 for museums, weddings, etc.
If you pick lenses carefully you can get by with 1 Circ polarizer.
What, no macro lens?
Flashes...conside the canon 580, the new 430 looks interesting but perhaps underpowered, the Metz 54 is great, or perhaps the Sigma DG500 Super 2 which i hear very good things about. The metz has a fantastic auto mode that practically elminates the need to bump FEC like you do for eTTL becuase it meters completely differently (in the flash not hte camera, so you can compose and adjust exposure just as if no flash was present and get the proper exposure) |
|
|
|
10/02/2005 09:17:35 PM · #13 |
| Thank you for all your comments! They are very helpful. |
|
|
|
10/02/2005 09:27:21 PM · #14 |
| i agree with keith....swap that 24-70 for a 17-40 and you're set. you've got the 50mm for that middle focal length. wider is better, but I wouldn't get the 10-22 if you ever get a pro body you cant use it. |
|
|
|
10/02/2005 10:51:20 PM · #15 |
While it's true that the 24-70 was designed with full frame in mind, it LIVED on my 10D. Did I find myself wishing the wider end was wider? Yes, occasionally. If I were staying with 1.6-crop, I might have gone with the 10-22, which would make an awesome pair with the 24-70. The 24-70 is a better lens than the 17-40. It's a stop faster, and it is at least as sharp at f/2.8 as the 17-40 is at f/4. As far as zooms go, it doesn't get much better than the 24-70L.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2005 10:57:24 PM · #16 |
Overall, if you don't know what you need to do what you want, you have no business buying a $3K camera setup. You should just send it all to me because I know what I want, I just don't have the cash.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2005 11:01:01 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
While it's true that the 24-70 was designed with full frame in mind, it LIVED on my 10D. Did I find myself wishing the wider end was wider? Yes, occasionally. If I were staying with 1.6-crop, I might have gone with the 10-22, which would make an awesome pair with the 24-70. The 24-70 is a better lens than the 17-40. It's a stop faster, and it is at least as sharp at f/2.8 as the 17-40 is at f/4. As far as zooms go, it doesn't get much better than the 24-70L. |
Wow, I just noticed that you got the 5D. Awesome!!! |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 07:25:08 PM · #18 |
| What did you get in the end? |
|
|
|
10/13/2005 09:51:24 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by samchad:
What did you get in the end? |
I bought the 20D camera today, along with the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, B&W circular polarizer, and a Canon EG200 backpack. That's $2,712 with 2-day shipping.
I'll research another lens after I'm more familiar with the camera and have a more clear idea of what I really need.
I can't wait for the camera to arrive!! :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 11:56:52 PM EDT.
