| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2006 06:30:38 AM · #1 |
Hi All,
I have just upgraded from a decent point and shoot digital camera (5mp) to a Canon 20D. I wanted a tried and tested DSLR camera that won't cost me the earth, mortgage, marriage etc. I want to expand my photography horizons and get 'into' an interesting hobby cum lifestyle etc.
I intend to make landscape and nature photos as my primary photographic themes with a little portrait work as well. This will give me the reason to get my bum off my couch and get about into the countryside and enjoy life. I also like the thought of macro photography but I have never done it. I live in Australia and I have heaps of good subject matter for photos.
I need some advice as to the approriate set of lenses that will cover what I want to do.
I have read a bit and understand that the Canon 'L' series lenses are the best quality and that IS is a good feature to have. I have a good tripod and I will use it when necessary.
I cannot decide between the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as my general purpose 'walkaround' lens. There is a $900 difference in price. Which one do you recommend?
I am also looking at the EF 17-40L f/4 USM as my wide-angle lens. Later I will buy the EF 70-200 f/4L USM when I have the dosh.
Also what do you think of Sigma and Tamron lenses? Are they an adequate replacement for the Canon lenses?
There are so many choices and a lot of discussion as to which lens is good but there is not much talk around about which lens is good for what and what compromises have to be made.
I know its trite to say that it is not the lens that counts but rather the photographer's creativity that is more valuable. Hopefully I can learn to make good photos but I want to use the better lenses to do so within the realms of a realistic budget.
I would really appreciate your advices. I apologise for the long post.
Cheers
George |
|
|
|
03/19/2006 07:05:48 AM · #2 |
George, I am a Nikon user but the EF 17-40L f/4 USM seems to have a great reputation. I have only read great reports about it...you might want to check fredmiranda.com under the reviews.
I must say that I own several Sigma lenses and I love them all. I particularly like my 70-200 f 2.8. It is the sharpest tool in the shed.
Some people say they prefer them over similar top equivalents (even L Series) in some cases. I love the 105mm 2.8 Macro as well...all of them really. I cannot see the value in spending almost twice the amount of money whne the results are so good with the Sigmas.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 08:14:28 AM · #3 |
Woah, big topic to open here.
I'm a Canon inclined guy and have been doing research on lenses for some time.
The 17-40 is a decent peice of work, but isn't really wide enough to do serious wide-angle work.
If you want to go wide-angle, the Canon 10-22mm is tops. Some people worry about getting an EF-S lens, but this sensor size is going to be around for a long time and this lens is good enough that it's keeping it's value just as well as L lenses do.
If you want a mid-range zoom, the general concensus on the subject is the 28-75mm f/2.8.
It holds it's own VERY well against L series lenses in build quality, optical quality and only loses the tiniest point in focusing speed. It's still very good there anyhow.
A constant aperture lens is preferred by almost all that have used them.
This will especially be true in the case of yourself as you use a 20D. The 20D contains an extra set of Autofocus sensors that allow the camera 3 TIMES better focusing accuracy when using a lens that has a max aperture of f/2.8 or wider.
While the 17-40 is affordable and has great optics, it's an F/4.0, so somewhat loses out here. It has less range too.
The 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 is another interesting option here, but can't stand up to the optical or build quality of the Tamron and because it is actually 2 stops slower at telephoto, the 2 stops of the IS (or 3... whatever), would be VERY hard pressed to make up for the slower shutter speed. The decrease in light entering the 17-85 IS could also exacerbate low light focusing issues as well as make it difficult to get sharp images if it is the SUBJECT that is moving, rather than your hands. It becomes nearly useless if you use a tripod.
My personal list includes the following lenses in the ranges that may interest you:
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (also includes a 1:2 macro ability)
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II (wickedly sharp and fantastically cheap)
Canon 10-22mm (straight as can be and sharp as you need)
Canon 80-200 f/2.8L (Ok, I already have this, and it was originally a 70-200, but either will do. The Sigma would be my 3rd choice in this area (I have read that it's sharpness is less than Canon L glass) and the Sigma 70-300 APO would be my 4th choice, particularly if there was a budget limitation and telephoto lengths were used less often)
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro (any similar length lens by Tamron, Sigma or whatever will do just fine, but I like the Internal Focusing on the Canon)
This list is nothing surprising and if you look around on the forums, this is the advice you will generally get.
As I compiled this list with the 20D (or now, possibly the 30D) in mind, you will notice that every single one of them is f/2.8 or better.
These are all quite affordable choices in their ranges as well and can often be found cheaper at a 2nd hand dealer.
In the longer telephoto range, if budget was more important, you could look at the 70-200 F/4.0L which is quite a bit cheaper.
Message edited by author 2006-03-19 08:17:39. |
|
|
|
03/19/2006 10:42:17 AM · #4 |
Only advice I can give you is I got the 24-105L about 3 weeks ago, and I love it. Great pictures, and a great focal length range for what I typically shoot just "walking around." Kids, houses, friends, etc. I like to be able to zoom in from a decent distance away, so that poeple don't always feel there is a camera "in their face", because then they don't act as natural.
You also mention you want to do "nature" pictures. By that do you mean wildlife? If you do, I can recommend the canon 100-400mm L lens. I've got it and use it for sports where I want reach to get up close on players out in the middle of the field. It is also a great lens. While I don't do wildlife much at all, I've heard people say you want lots of reach there too, because you can't get close to the animals without scaring them.
Good luck!
Doug
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 10:48:41 AM · #5 |
Without a doubt, since you're a landscape shooter, you want to go WIDE; wider than the 17-40 allows. The Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens is without compare in this range. I couldn't live without mine.
This brings you up to your "walkaround", and you have 3 legitimate contenders; Canon's 24-70L, Canon's 24-105L, and Tamron's 28-75. The Tamron is substantially more compact and lighter, substantially less expensive, and optically as good, or very nearly as good, as the Canons. I Have one in my bag because when I bought my 20D a few months ago, starting from scratch like you, budget was an issue for me. The 24-105, however, is just lovely; I'd give it serious consideration, but it wasn't available when I bought the Tamron. Regardless, the Tamron will not disappoint.
For your moderate telephoto zoom, Canon makes three evrsions of the 70-200mm "L" glass, and all are optically simply outstanding; the f/2.8 IS, the f/2.8, and the the f/4.0 ΓΆ€” of these, the f/4.0 is considerably less bulky (though it's still a hunk of glass) and it's the one I chose. No regrets, it's an outstanding lens at a fraction of the cost of the other two.
Many recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 glass, but I have no experience with it.
In any event, a 3-lens combo from amongst the above would have you up and running very nicely. As a wild card, if you opted for the 24-105 mid-range zoom, a nice complement would be Canon's excellent 100-400mm f/4.5/5.6L big zoom at around $1,200.00, a great value and not all that much more bulky than the 70-200mm f/2.8L.
Obviously, I've concentrated on Canon glass here. There are less-expensive alternatives if budget is a real concern, but these are all proven performers that will hold their value nicely.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 11:44:22 AM · #6 |
TO keep to your original Q:
Sigma and Tamron make pro glass (EX and SP respectively, and tokinas' Pro line) that are good and sometimes very good or better than canon lenses, and usually the better bang for the buck.
Unless you ahve physical issues with your body, you don't need IS below 50mm or so focal length. IF it's too dark to handhold at 1/15 or 1/30 of a second then guse a tripod. FOr telephoto (80+mm) then it can indeed be handy. SO i think 17-85 IS is a waste of IS - it adds cost,l complexity, battery drain for no reason. A better choice is teh Tamron SP24-135 3.5-5.6 at $400. Less costly, as good or better image quality optically. This is a great walkaround lens, extremely sharp, does macro, and has the perfect range.
Indoors and for landscape a wide angle (10-25 range) is what you want. People rave about teh Canon 10-22, but at $800 or so i just don't know the Tokina 12-24 F4 for $400 or so is my recomendation.
Alternatives:
Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX - as good optically and more range than the canon 17-40 f4,and a stop faster when you need it. a bit soft wide open, but good from 3.5 and up. less costly than the canon as well.
Canon 50 1.8 (or 1.4 if you have the money/interest) great for shalolow DOF shots, sharp, and at $75 a steal
Sigma 70-200 2.8 the best deal in a fast telephoto - good for portaits, weddings, sports and more. The canon 70-200 comes in an F4 for $550 (very good lens) or a 2.8 for $1200 or a 2.8 IS for $1600. All very nice and worth the money. At times F4 is not gonna be fast enough though.
Canon 100 2.8 Macro - or the sigma/tamron/tokina versions, but all about the same price so why not get the canon?
Canon 85 1.8 or 1.2 - nice lenses, but sort of a luxury item unless you love primes, portraits wiht shallow DOF, weddings, etc.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 12:08:46 PM · #7 |
The Tamron SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 is a mighty nice Wide, It is darn near as good as the Canon 17-40mm 4L. I tried both and couldn't justify the extra cash for the Canon. I use it for all my landscape, group photos, large event shots.
My walk around, I use the Tamron SP 28-75mm 2.8 and my workhorse lens is the Canon 70-200mm 4L coupled with a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DC x1.4 it gets almost all of action shots.
I picked up a "Fantastic Plastic" Vivitar 100mm 3.5 Macro the other day for $60 so I would have a macro in the bag.
It's a usable kit with pretty good results... Lacking on the long end, the 70-200mm 4L is one of my favs but not quite long enough for birding.
One thing you will find out with the 20D is the noise levels are very workable at higher ISOs... If, like me, you went from Peashooter to the 20D, you might get trapped in the I have to shot ISO 100/200 to avoid noise sydrome. It took me 6 months to break that old P&S habit. The f/3.5 and f/4 lenses work pretty darn good at ISO 400/800 and even 1600.
Message edited by author 2006-03-19 12:09:13.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 12:34:12 PM · #8 |
Don't be fooled into thinking that Canon's L glass are the only great lenses. Sigma and Tamron are just like Canon and Nikon in that they make some great lenses and some less expensive ones.
I have personal experience with the Tamron 28-75 and the Sigma 70-200. You won't be disappointed in either of them.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 12:45:12 PM · #9 |
I have the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and have been happy with it. However, I'm going to sell it because I just bought the 10-22 Canon and the 24-70 f/2.8 L. At 17 mm, I was able to get some good wide-angle landscapes, but the 10-22 seems like a whole other ballgame (I haven't had the chance to try it out too much yet).
As for selling the 17-85, I have no idea how much I should ask for it, but if anyone is interested, feel free to PM me. Note that I live in Sweden - I'm not even sure how high the shipping charges are.
Good luck with your lens hunting! One thing I can promise is that no matter what lens you settle on now, you'll be wanting another and another ... |
|
|
|
03/19/2006 02:22:48 PM · #10 |
If you decide to build your lens collection around Canon lenses, then I recommend the new 24-105 f4L as your primary walk-around lens. The size/weight, focal range, sharpness, fast autofocus and L build quality justify the cost in my opinion. Personally F4 doesn't bother me at all, especially considering the high ISO's you can get away with on the 20D, coupled with the IS on this lens.
With the mid-range covered, you will probably want to consider the super-wides next, especially for your landscapes. If it were not for the fact that the Canon 10-22 was an EF-S lens, this decision would be a no-brainer IMO. You may still opt for it, but take into account that it doesn't work on most other Canon bodies, including Canon's most recent ones (5D and 30D). For me, I plan to one day own a second Canon dslr, and I want a lens collection that can be used on both cameras. I don't own a super-wide now, but if/when I do purchase one, it will probably be the Tokina (12-24, I think).
For your big gun, I think bear_music's thought of the 100-400 is worth serious consideration. Currently my longest lens is the 300 f4L IS, and while it does a superb job, I could use even more reach for photographing birds, which is something I enjoy. Another contender might be the Sigma 50-500. Tons of reach, and the reviews are pretty good, especially considering the huge focal range.
Have fun sorting it all out... nothing like new toys to motivate you to get off the couch!
|
|
|
|
03/19/2006 02:59:43 PM · #11 |
I say get a 2.8 lens for a 'walkaround' lens. Like eschelar said about the focusing, it'll be a lot better than a slower lens, plus you can shoot wide open and isolate the subject a lot better than with a smaller aperture.
Plus 2.8 is great for long exposures since you can shoot at 2.8 and ISO 1600/3200 for a test exposure and then adjust from there for the lower ISO one you want, and usually 30 seconds at 2.8/1600 is bright enough so you don't have to mess with bulb mode for the test shot. It might not be at 4.0, or 4.5 or whatever.
My vote goes to the Tamron 28-75, it really is an awesome lens for the price. Got to be at least as sharp as the 50mm 1.8 when you stop it down a little. |
|
|
|
03/19/2006 10:49:32 PM · #12 |
:)
Yeah. Madman referred to me.
I refer to Bear_music.
Regarding the 10-22 as an EF-S mount lens, a lot of people don't like this whole idea of a lens that only works on their 20D, but think about it.
There's a HUGE difference in each MM of "wideness" when dealing with the extreme wide end.
If you had a 10-22 on a FF camera, and zoomed from 10mm to 16mm, you would be amazed at the difference in perspective.
In fact, outside of fisheye lenses, you generally don't get tooooo many lenses below 15mm in FF or film settings...
Even my friend's 14mm Sigma lens is a seriously bulbous peice of glass.
The point is though that on an APS-C camera, most of the important range (I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people that buy a 10-22 are keenly interested in the 10mm end and significantly less worried about the 22mm end) is simply out of context with FF or film.
The 10-22 is designed for APS-C specifically because it is a range that APS-C does not already have.
This is seriously at the extreme limit of what can even be taken with a rectilinear lens.
Because the differences are physical, you won't find this lens to behave in a way that could legitimately be compared from APS-C to FF.
Not to worry, if you don't like what it can do, you can always sell and get something else. It's a pretty popular lens. |
|
|
|
03/19/2006 11:52:15 PM · #13 |
I had the opportunity to test side by side the Tokina 12-24, the Tamron 17-35, and the Sigma 18-50. The Tokina is the one I kept because of it's sharpness and wide range. My next lens up is the Tamron 28-75mm so it was also nice to minimize the overlap. The Tamron has also be an excellent lens which I recommend to anyone.
I think if you fancy taking pictures of flowers or bugs, a macro is a must-have. I have the Sigma 105mm macro which I love. It also makes a great, super-sharp medium telephoto/portrait lens. I'd like to have the longer 150mm macro, but it's a lot more than the bargain I got on the 105mm.
I had the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 lens for a year, and I agree with the others that it is a great lens. I sold it and got the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS so I wouldn't have to use a monopod at indoor weddings. I had a chance to test the Canon 70-200 F/4 along side both of these and it was noticably sharper than the other two (and they are both really good), a great bargain if low light isn't an issue. It's also significantly smaller and lighter than the other two.
I do also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens and it is great fun to play with in low light and makes a nice portrait lens. I like to challenge myself sometimes with the fixed length since I compose a lot with the zooms on my other lenses.
I also have the Tokina 24-200mm, which makes a fair walk-around lens, though I haven't gotten to use it much yet.
I'm a shrewd "bang-for-the-buck" shopper and these have been great "bargain" tools for me.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2006 12:37:38 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by nova:
If it were not for the fact that the Canon 10-22 was an EF-S lens, this decision would be a no-brainer IMO. You may still opt for it, but take into account that it doesn't work on most other Canon bodies, including Canon's most recent ones (5D and 30D). |
The Canon 30D is an APS-C sensor body, uses the same sensor as the 20D in fact. It most definitely DOES take the EF-S lenses.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2006 08:51:36 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by nova:
If it were not for the fact that the Canon 10-22 was an EF-S lens, this decision would be a no-brainer IMO. You may still opt for it, but take into account that it doesn't work on most other Canon bodies, including Canon's most recent ones (5D and 30D). |
The Canon 30D is an APS-C sensor body, uses the same sensor as the 20D in fact. It most definitely DOES take the EF-S lenses.
Robt. |
Pardon me, my mistake! |
|
|
|
03/20/2006 12:53:15 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by nova:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The Canon 30D is an APS-C sensor body, uses the same sensor as the 20D in fact. It most definitely DOES take the EF-S lenses.
Robt. |
Pardon me, my mistake! |
No problem. For the record, Canon says they are committed to the APS-C sensor for future development as well. These lenses will not be orphaned in the forseeable future. The market for full-ftame-sensor dSLRs is a whole other market, as far as they are concerned.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2006 03:35:21 PM · #17 |
I hope the OP doesn't mind my reviving (and hijacking) his thread, but I'm about to make the same jump and I want to make sure I'm getting all this right.
I'm most interested in cityscapes and candids, and often find myself in low-light situations. I'm sick and tired of just ever so slightly out of focus and/or blurry shots (sometimes even in daylight).
I've looked over this thread and a couple of others and have come up with the following list of lenses to go with a brand-spanking new 20D (body only):
Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
All of that (with the camera) is pushing $2300 from B&H ΓΆ€“ without the extra battery, 1GB card, and something to lug them all around in. It's a bit above my limit, but I can live with it if it's what is best.
So. Basically, I'm asking if this is a good mix of lenses for the kind of photography I'm interested in. I'm still worried about the money, so if anyone has a suggestion for another vendor, that would be great. Also in that vein, will the 20D price be dropping in the next few weeks now that the 30D is more widely available (or has it already dropped)?
Thanks! |
|
|
|
04/06/2006 03:40:43 PM · #18 |
Consider the tokina 12-24 f4 for $400 instead of the $800+ canon 10-22. gets you back in your budget.
for a memeory card you can get a sandisk ultra 2 igb most places now for $90.
20D price has dropped, and from what I hear are beginning to disapper from the shelves. 1100 or a bit above is the price i hear most. there was a rebate but it might be over now.
b&h is good and reputable.
you could try uniquephoto.com - they deal mostly with pros via mailorder and claim they will match anyone's legit advertised price. i've bought a couple of things from them and they seem ok.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2006 04:31:15 PM · #19 |
I cannot speak on all of the technicals, but a few months ago I went from a 5mp pocket camera to the 20D, and when I did I got the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as my first lens and I am happy with my choice.
I just ordered these two yesterday from buydig.com they are fast, most shipping is free and their prices are really good on the big ticket items, accessories are another story though.
$669.00 - Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
$69.00 - Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
Good luck,
Maya
p.s. - the 20D body only is going for $1079 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens is $348 at buydig.com right now.
Message edited by author 2006-04-06 16:35:17. |
|
|
|
04/06/2006 05:34:51 PM · #20 |
Also for anyone interested in the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, there's a $30 rebate on it now through April 30th.
Liz
Message edited by author 2006-04-06 17:35:36. |
|
|
|
04/06/2006 07:00:01 PM · #21 |
| Thanks all! May have to place that order tomorrow. Or tonight. |
|
|
|
04/07/2006 05:07:00 PM · #22 |
I would take:
17-40/f4L
50mm/1.8II
70-200
|
|
