$2,000 for Canon Lenses - Need help!

11/28/2005 05:08:45 PM · #1

I am getting a 'bonus' at work, and have $2,000 to spend on lenses for my Canon 20D.

I currently have:
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III

I am looking for lenses:
1. to use in low light situations
2. that have excellent clarity and sharpness (even at extreme focal lengths)
3. to photograph scenery (without fisheye effect)
4. to photograph bugs, people (headshots), flowers, animals

I mostly enjoy photographing animals at the zoo, in nature, bugs/flowers in nature, scenery (from cliffs and on hikes), and I enjoy photographing indoors at weddings, concerts (no flash) and local events.

I have the 580ex flash.

I am most frustrated that I have to go to 1600 or 3200 when animals are in the shade (and far away). I want to use a telephoto, but then my aperature always closes to 5.0 or 5.6. I want to use telephoto with a large aperature like 2.8! I hate fringing and blurry 300mm shots.

I am also frustrated that when I take concert photos (no flash), my subjects (10 feet to 15 feet) are all grainy (high 1600 or 3200 iso). I'd like to use 400 or 800, but still zoom into their faces!

I am frustrated with my camera's 1.6x crop factor, but there's nothing I can do about it (can't buy a new camera). So, when I photograph wide angle shots, they don't look very wide.

Any thoughts on lenses that I would really enjoy?

DanSig

11/28/2005 05:17:31 PM · #2

first.. sell the lenses you got and get a few more $$$

then buy the 17-40L f4 for scenery
buy the 100mm f2.8 macro for the bugs and flowers
buy the 70-200L f2.8 for animals and portraits, the macro is excellent for portraits aswell..

this kit will set you back $2,289.85 at B&H, so if you sell your old lenses you'll have enough :)

besides.. when you start using L glass you'll never put those other lenses on your camera..

lowonenergy

Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/28/2005 05:18:51 PM · #3

maybe the EF 70-200 f/2.8L
Link

Ram21

Canon EOS-10D

11/28/2005 05:24:55 PM · #4

Grats on the bonus Arie! I like the 50mm 1.8, it's fast and cheep. I haven't tried any of the other lenses in the "L" area, but I would want to purchase the 70-200 F2.8L if I had the chance.

dswebb

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/28/2005 06:07:31 PM · #5

For animals, the 100-400mm L IS. Just took it to the zoo for the first time and it did great.

Doug

Prof_Fate

11/28/2005 06:18:23 PM · #6

If you want canon...

wide: 10-22
fast - the 17-40L or the 24-70L
long - a couple of options, but to meet you specs - the 70-200 2.8 and a 2x TC maybe... the 70-200 4L is lots cheaper, and you can use a 1.4x TC with that...but you'll stil be at 5.6 effective at 400mm instead of 300mm. Fixes your zoom at the concert issue though.

Alternatives to save $$...
Sigma 12-24
Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC or Tamron 28-75 2.8
Sigma 70-200 2.8

And yes, once you go to premium glass (be it sigma's EX, tamron's SP or canon's L) you probably won;t like your mid grade glass anylonger.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 18:19:16.

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

11/28/2005 06:19:09 PM · #7

You may also want to consider the Sigma EX 70-200mm f2.8

At 200mm it's marginally sharper than the Canon L version until around f8.0 but who cares....you'll be using it wide open, or close to it anyway. And you'll be happy to know you've got a lens that cheaper and sharper than the "L" fanbois.

I don't normally subscribe to the pros of aftermarket lenses but this one is an exception.

bazz.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

11/28/2005 06:30:02 PM · #8

You'll need a 50 1.4, 85 1.8 or the 85 1.2 for concerts at lower iso. I reccomend geting the 50 1.4 since on your 20D it will be close 85mm.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

11/28/2005 06:30:59 PM · #9

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

The autofocus is slower. Is it weather sealed?

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

11/28/2005 06:58:53 PM · #10

20mm 2.8 $400 or...24mm 1.8 $340
+
135L 2.0 $865
+
200L 2.8 $635
+
extension tubes (for macro on 135L) $160

total max cost = $2060

you could also put a $350 85mm 1.8 in there instead of something and save some money.

edit: i would keep the 18-55mm kit lens and sell the others.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 19:01:47.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

11/28/2005 07:05:16 PM · #11

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Also consider there is often a color cast with the sigma lens. The contrast is better on the : lenses, the autofocus is faster, and you can get weather sealing (with the IS version). Also you might consider a 80-200L 2.8 if you have to get a zoom lens. I have one and it's sharper than any of the other zooms, black (if you care), doesn't autofocus as fast, but is cheaper than all of them. Also note with this lens you cannot get it serviced by canon.

11/28/2005 07:33:53 PM · #12

congrats on the bonus Arie,
First sell all the lens, including mine to get a few more bucks.
I think you are looking for two lenses from what you are describing.
One for landmark and second for macro work for the bug, headshots, animals.

If you want a fast wideangle, then your only real choice is a Canon 16-35 L f2.8. The 17-40L is slow at f4. Another option is the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-3.5. It\'s fast at the wide end only. If you want to get a wider zoom like the Canon 10-22, they are all slow at f3.5-4.5. Now here\'s the bad news, a 16-35 is about $1300.

If you are going to do macro, then I\'d recommend a 100mm or so macro lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, or Canon. They are about $400-600 or so and are all fast at 2.8. If you want faster then a 85mm 1.8 or a 1.2 maybe better, but they won\'t do macros.

Only fast and sharp telephoto that goes to 300 is the Sigma 120-300 EX f2.8, but that costs about 2grand or more. So I'd recommend either a 70-200 from Canon or Sigma.

It really depends on your priorities. Which type of photography is most important to you? Landscape/architectural? Portraits/Animals? Macro?

If Landscape, then I\'d get the Canon 16-35, maybe a Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 and that would be 2K.

If Macro and animals/portraits, then maybe a Canon 100/Tokina 100/Tamron 90 or a Sigma 150/Tamron 180. Then a Canon 70-200 f2.8L.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 19:41:46.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/28/2005 07:44:35 PM · #13

My friend John told me to sell my 20D and get up to semi-pro with the 5D (due to the 1x crop factor). If I sell the 20D for $900, sell one lens, that almost puts me up there, but with no new glass. Hmmm... what would you do?

I like most of your suggestions. I am looking at that 70-200 IS 4L very seriously.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 19:45:16.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/28/2005 08:35:11 PM · #14

Originally posted by DanSig:

What he said, but maybe the canon 100-400L

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/28/2005 08:36:03 PM · #15

Originally posted by mirdonamy:

Arie,
As a 5D owner it really pains me to say this, but I'd recommend buying glass for the 20D and holding off on a camera upgrade. Prices on FF cams are bound to drop, and there is nothing forcing you to go FF at this point, correct?
With regard to lenses, you definitely want 1 or 2 fast primes, IMO. The 50/1.4 is a great choice, but do verify that you get accurate focusing on your 20D with this lens wide open. I did not get accurate focus on my 10D body with this lens, and had decided that the lens would need service... guess what, on the 5D it performs flawlessly.
For macro either go with the Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM, or just use extension tubes with the 50/1.4. The latter combination will do you just fine if you don't want to do extreme macro (greater than 1:1).
So with $2k to spend, I'd sell your 18-55 and 75-300, and get:
- Canon 70-200/2.8L (non-IS), $1100
- Canon 50/1.4, $309
- Kenko Extension tube set, $159
- Canon 17-40/4 ($650)
- Tamron 1.4x teleconverter (the cheaper one, around $79)
I can't believe I just recommended the 17-40/4 but... the 16-35/2.8 is just way too much of a premium, even I (Mr. L disease f/2.8 Zoom Maniac himself) won't even touch it. It's really uncommon that you need large aperture at wide angle (1), and the 17-40 is a great lens on 1.6-crop (even on 1.3) but soft in corners on full frame (as is the 16-35). With the above scenario you'd still be lacking a fast zoom in the 24-70 range, but you're reasonably covered by the 50/1.4 for speed and the 28-80 for the zoom range. Put a Tamron 28-75 on your wish list for the future.

(1) Before some smartypants observes "hey kirbic, easy for you to say, you bought the 24/1.4" let me opine that the 24/1.4 is a pretty special-purpose lens and not one I'd recommend unless the buyer has well-defined needs that DEMAND this speed and focal length.

11/28/2005 09:04:43 PM · #16

Wow, such detailed recommendations! I love it. Fritz & Louddog, I really like your ideas too.

So much to think about, but great ideas! I'll post back with some more solid thoughts. :)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/28/2005 09:06:34 PM · #17

Wow Fritz,
The equipment/L lens snob association is going to kick you out.

How refreshing. I agree, going from 20D to 5D will not give you better resolution, just more CA and softer edges. If you liook at DPR, then you will see that the 5D does not have better dynamics nor noise reduction. You may be able to print larger sized prints though. So if your default print size is like a 14x16 or bigger, then it may be worth it.

I have a hesitation about the 50mm focal length. I find that the normal perspective is a bit boring for my taste. It's just not wide or long enough for my needs. I seldom use my 50mm.

I'd recommend the EF-S 10-22 for wides (16-35 in FF format), it's a bit slow at f3.5-4.5 but very sharp and wide.
I'd also agree with 70-200 f2.8 non IS
Both of those lenses would just be under $2000. If she sells her lenses, then she maybe able to get about $200, which maybe enough for a 100mm macro lens, perhaps not Canon but a macro lens.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 21:07:44.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/28/2005 09:15:09 PM · #18

Canon 10-22 ($680) REALLY wide for landscapes
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 ($360) Great walkaround lens
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ($839) or Canon 200mm f/2.8 ($635) Sharp telephoto + speed
Kenko 25mm extension tube ($70) Serious macro

If you sell your other lenses, you'll have more flexibility to add a 1.4X TC and/or really fast 50mm or 85mm prime

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 21:17:32.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/28/2005 09:22:48 PM · #19

Tom, I agree that the EF-S ultra-wide, e.g. 10-22, is something very nice. It is an alternative to the 17-40L, though it leaves more of the mid-range to be covered by her 28-80... all depends how she feels about the IQ of the 28-80.
My strategy in recommending the 50/1.4 is that it would serve her as a fast portrait lens, looking like 80mm on the 20D. With the extension tubes it would serve admirably as a macro lens, thus doing double duty. On the tele end, the 70-200/2.8 is just the king of the hill, no debating it. Well worth the investment, IMO. The IS version would just be a nicety, f/2.8 is worth more, IMO, for what Arie seems to need to shoot (subject motion will be a concern at low shutter speed). With the 1.4x converter, she still gets close to 300mm at f/4, and stays darn sharp to boot.

11/28/2005 09:32:25 PM · #20

Good points Fritz,
I prefer to avoid the TC's as they really tend to increase CA's in my opinion.

If you want fast lenses for landscapes, portraits, animals, and macros, then I think you'll need four lenses and a bigger budget.
I'd think about 10-22, 16-35, 85 f1.2, 100mm f2.8macro, and a Sigma 120-300 f2.8EX, this would cost about $5000 though.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

11/28/2005 10:32:13 PM · #21

Right now, I am really looking at the Canon 24-105 f4L USM IS or the 70-200 2.8L

I am leaning on getting maybe 1 truly amazing lens, a polarizer, a new backpack, a cokin set with an ND filter. Any thoughts here?

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 22:39:01.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

11/28/2005 10:33:51 PM · #22

No Macro lens?

11/28/2005 10:39:42 PM · #23

Originally posted by faidoi:

No Macro lens?

I'd love macro! I don't know if I can do it right now though. I use my diopters all the time and do pretty well with them. I don't know :(

11/28/2005 10:41:24 PM · #24

Arie,
You are all over the place.
You should first decide what type or types of photography you want to do and then go from there.

If you want the most bang for the bucks,
I'd recommend selling all your lenses
then getting a Tamron 17-35 or Canon 10-22 for landscape
Tamron 28-75 for walking around
and a Canon 70-200 for sports/portraits/animals

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 22:44:21.