I,ve got a question about lenses

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/27/2006 10:05:47 AM · #1

First of all Hello I,m new here and would like to ask a few questions about some canon lenses..

I,m buying a canon 20D probably this weekend I,m still waiting to see what the real price of the 30D will be in canada.. whichever one i buy will have the kit lense on it the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Now I,d like to buy another walk around lense but I,m quite confused as which one to really pick up.. My choices are the Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM or the Canon EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM lens What I want is a good walk around lense any Ideas.

Thanks Tom

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

02/27/2006 10:10:09 AM · #2

If you get the Canon EF-S 17-85, there is little point in getting the kit lens because of the overlap. In fact, you can buy the 20D *with* the 17-85 as the "kit" lens (that's how I got mine).

I much prefer the 17-85 over the 18-55 ... much higher quality ... but it's a lot more expensive too.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/27/2006 10:21:24 AM · #3

well the main reason i,ll get the kit lense is its very minimal cost.. For now I won't be buying a lot of lenses and if I do have a problem with the extra usm is lense I buy it will make be a backup so I can at least continue to use the camera..

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/27/2006 10:28:59 AM · #4

For a walk around Tamron SP 28-75mm 2.8 the kit lens will get very lonely staying in the bag or at home...

Prof_Fate

02/27/2006 10:47:59 AM · #5

You don't need a 'backup lens' - unless you are dropping things all the time. while there are many moving parts etc ina lens, they don't fail.

the kit lens is an inexpensive lens yes, but you get what you pay for so to speak. you don't need two lenses to cover the same range unless there is specific reason to do so. Spend the kit lens money on teh canon 50 1.8, a sharp low light lens that you will use.

The 17-85 IS is a nice lens, but take a look at the Tamron SP24-135 3.5-5.6. $200 less money, 50mm more range, and optically better. You don't need IS under 50 to 70mm anyway, and IS will run the battery downa bit quicker, won't help with action shots, is more to break/fail, and adds parts in the optic path that will degrade the image (if only slightly).

teh 28-135 IS is just an average lens, you can do better. See above for my opinion on IS.

Lenses can be divided into 'consumer' and 'pro' categories, the better lenses being the pro ones, and if you want faster focusing, sharper inmages, more contrast, faster glass, better build quality, make larger prints - get pro glass. Once you see the image difference between pro and consumer glass, you won't use consumer glass again. Tamron's SP, Sigma EX, Tokina's Pro and canon's L are all pro glass.

Lenses can again be divided into 'fast' and regular. fast means the lens has a wide aperture, usually a constant aperture (as in the tamron 28-75 2.8 for example). Your 20D (and 30D) will focus faster and more accurtately with a 2.8 or lager fstop lens on it (extra sensors turn on with such a lens attached) so there is a real benefit to it. Unfortunately there are no goo fast ap 20-100 range lenses. Some are coming - the sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is out, then you have the aforementioned tamron, and sigma 18-50 2.8 EX, and tamron is coming out with a 17-50 SP 2.8 lens.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

02/28/2006 09:06:03 AM · #6

As Prof_Fate says, the 50 f/1.8 is a good lens. And it can be a backup to whatever lens you get if you feel the need for a backup (most of us don't)

There are other primes that are more expensive that may be better on a 1.6 crop camera. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 35 f/2 or Canon 28 f/1.8 are all interesting.

Canon has an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens that's soon to be available, but its a US$1000+ lens (and not quite an L). Depending on the size of your wallet, you may want to wait for this lens.

Get a f/2.8 lens as your main zoom. Your indoor pictures will show it. For example, an f/2.8 lens will let you get more of the background when you use flash fill (e.g. in Av mode). If you were to use f3.5 or so, you would often get a properly exposed subject, but the rest of the room would look like a dark cave. (And you often will get away with no flash).

Prof_Fate has some good lens suggestions, but I'd add that you should probably consider one of the zooms that start at 17mm or 18mm, 24mm is sometimes not wide enough on a 1.6 crop.

edited to add:
On second thought, get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 50mm f/1.4 as the "backup" lens. If you have this lens, you can avoid using a flash in any reasonably lit place.

Message edited by author 2006-02-28 09:08:37.

CarpeNoctem

Canon EOS-20D

02/28/2006 10:02:55 AM · #7

In my experience with Canon cameras/lenses off the shelf and I've owned 3: Get fast lenses. These kit lenses are okay, but you will always wish you had that extra stop or 2.

With my 50mm f/1.8 II I don't ever wish I had another stop or even half a stop. But that is an innexpensive lens, but pretty sharp in my opinnion.

With another lenses you can get into some serious money. My personal feeling is to stay away from the L lenses and the IS lenses to a lesser degree. This is because the cost benefits ratio is not in range for me. Good thing there are other options, the lesser priced lenses have good apertures and are almost reasonably priced at $1000 or less, with a majority in the $300 - $500.

Others will disagree with me, but I prefer to focus my purchases on prime lenses alone. Yet I did buy the 18-55 EF-S and the 75-300 III lenses with my 20D, I couldn't beat the price of the package. And I do use them A LOT. 600 pictures since I got the camera a few weeks ago, and I shoot 60% 18-55, 5% 75-300, 35% 50mm prime.

They are sharp in there own rights, as a matter of fact, without some serious pixel peeping I can't find areas of concern. (I don't pixel peep as a matter of judging sharpness, I am not going to look at my work on the wall with a loupe so there is no reason to put 'pixel peep' in the workflow)

It's just for me, I'd rather get the primes. 1, You dont have to fix anything that isn't included (moving elements) 2, By not having the extra elements for the zoom, the primes will be inherently sharper as a rule. Yeah I know there are going to be exceptions, but aren't there always?

As far as a good walk around lens goes, and zooms aside for a moment, I think going wide is a good choice. Say an EF 20mm f/2.8 for about $500 would do the trick for some serious street photography That's on a 1.6x-factor camera (20D, 30D). On a FF (5D), go for an EF 35mm f/2 for about $200. On a 1.6x the 20mm will crop like a ~35mm and the 35mm will crop like a ~55mm.

I'd also stay clear of the IS stuff unless you have an real need for it. Yeah you can handhold x stops slower, but do you really need to? What about the image quality? Just by the nature of the beast, moving elements/groups will cause anomolies.

Both of these lenses will give you great results while street walking.

Sorry to ramble on so much, I guess it can boil down to a couple opinnions from me, go for primes, and spend the money wisely by going as expensive as you can honestly and truely justify (better to cry once, than to cry everytime).

Best regards,

CN

Prof_Fate

02/28/2006 11:55:32 AM · #8

Purists like primes. Depends on what you shoot though - I shot a wedding on saturday and a prime won't cut it - perhaps 2 or 3 on 2 or 3 bodies, but things move to fast in too many places for a prime to keep up. So shooting sports is similar.

macro, studio work for the most part, landscapes - subjects you can take your time with are perfect for prime lenses.

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

02/28/2006 12:15:20 PM · #9

go with the 50mm 1.8 mark II. This thing is only $90. The housing is plastic, but the glass is canon sweetness. Very fast, very sharp. I shoot a lot of concerts in real crappy light. I can stop it down and still be under f3. For the money, can't go wrong, even if you drop it and have to replace it, only another $90.

For a zoom lens, the Sigma 75-300 APO macro is not bad. For right around $200, pretty nice. Not as fast as I would like, but in good light or w/ tripod very nice.

This is kind of an asshole assumption, but have you checked the Rebel XT in stead of the 20D. Assuming you are a serious amatuer and not a full out pro, the features that differ from the XT are not worth the xtra cash. Save money on body, spend it on glass.

CarpeNoctem

Canon EOS-20D

02/28/2006 12:18:36 PM · #10

There's the bait.

-CN

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

02/28/2006 12:23:36 PM · #11

its not baiting someone onto another camera body, but something that to me should have be considered. I went back and forth between those two bodies. I know the major differences. I think I made the right decision because instead of having a more expensive body w/ a kit lens, I have an XT w/ 3 different lenses. The only feature I would like is the 3200 iso. Didn't know I was going to be shooting for music websites at the time of purchase.

CarpeNoctem

Canon EOS-20D

02/28/2006 12:24:57 PM · #12

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:

its not baiting someone onto another camera body, but something that to me should have be considered.

Sorry wasn't directed towards you.

-CN

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

02/28/2006 12:27:35 PM · #13

no offense taken

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

02/28/2006 01:27:56 PM · #14

For my tastes, the 28-135 is a better walk around lens, due to the zoom range. I found the quality of the one I had to be more than acceptable, although I must say that I didn't find the IS to be such a useful asset on a relatively short lens. As for IS running down the battery, I've used it all day on a 20D and not had any problems with low power (the IS can be turned off, anyway). Some people, however, may find it not wide enough at the short end. As said before, if you get the 17-85, then perhaps don't get the kit lens. Save a little money and get the 50mm 1.8. You can have real fun with the shallow depth of field that that lens can give you.

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

02/28/2006 11:53:24 PM · #15

Well I am going to buy the 17-85 mm IS lense as I think it will be nice walk around lense.. I've also looked at that little 50mm 1.8 mark II and i,m picking that up looks like a real bargain and something I can use. Now as far as a 75-300 mm lense I think I,ll shop around for a good used one.. That should cover me for now.

Thankyou for all your suggestions and by the way i,ve looked at quite a few of your pictures in the challenge and I must say their is some very nice photographs in their.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

03/03/2006 03:20:07 PM · #16

Let me throw some more fuel into the fire and recommend the following.
Get the 30D. For a few hundred dollars more, you will get a lot of features. I think it's worth it.

Instead of the 17-85IS, Sigma has a 17-70mm lens that is pretty good and about equal to the Canon version, it's under $400 in the US.
See how it compres to the 17-85 here.
//www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/17701785

Next, unless there is something specific you want to do with a 50mm lens, don't get it. If you plan on doing portrait type stuff, especially in low light, it's a good idea. I have this lens and rarely use it.

Lastly, do not get the 75-300 lens from Canon. It's optically poor. For about $200, you can get a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. It's probably the best bang for the bucks in the under $200 telephoto zoom. Tamron just announced a new 70-300mm lens, but I don't know how much it costs or how it performs. Oh yeah, skip the kit. Even if it's only a $100.

Good luck

Message edited by author 2006-03-03 15:21:04.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/03/2006 05:19:18 PM · #17

If money's no object, there's the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS. And the Canon 70-300 IS (not the 75-300, not the 70-300 DO IS) is supposed to be a very good lens.

As others have said, consider the 350D and put the money you saved on the body into glass. In five years, you'll still have good glass, but you'll probably be eyeing a new body.

Message edited by author 2006-03-03 17:22:11.