| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/14/2005 12:32:24 PM · #1 |
I own the Canon 20D and now am finally able to update the my lenses. I read the most recent thread with some in my position and took that information with my own research and put together a long - short list which I am hoping you all can help me narrow down. I need versitility and quality. I take both portraits and landscapes; candids and posed. That being understood - here is the list:
Standard Zoom
Canon28-135mm f4.5/5.6 is usm
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Ultra-Wide Zoom
Canon 10-22mm f3.5/4.5 usm
Canon 16-35mm 2.8 usm
Canon 17-40m f/4l usm
Standard - Medium Telephoto
Canon 85mm f1.8
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX HSM
I have already ordered the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8II, but let me know if there is another lens you can recommend, not on the list.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2005 12:53:29 PM · #2 |
Just as a suggestion... the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS. You've already got a longer telephoto and the kit lens for wide, but 24-105 covers a lot of ground. It might fills most of your needs. Otherwise, I'd say go for the Tamron, the 10-22 (if you're gonna go wide...) and either of the medium telephotos (those two are really suited to different purposes).
Message edited by author 2005-10-14 12:56:39. |
|
|
|
10/14/2005 12:56:17 PM · #3 |
| The 10-22 is pure love, or Tokina's 12-24 equivalent. But hey, I just love ultra-wide. |
|
|
|
10/14/2005 01:20:20 PM · #4 |
Just keep in mind that the lens categories you listed (standard zoom, ultra-wide zoom, standard-medium telephoto) apply to full frame cameras, not to your 20D. For example, the 17-40mm lens is a wide angle lens on a full frame camera, but on the 20D it is more like a standard zoom.
Message edited by author 2005-10-14 13:20:43. |
|
|
|
10/14/2005 01:27:54 PM · #5 |
You have a wide range of lenses here, price wise. In your Ultra Wide category the 10-22 IS that, but the otehr 2 are not. Also, the 16-35 is over a grand, the 17-40 $650 ish and do consider the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC for about $500 (i got mine for $440 new off ebay).
If you do enoght portriatsl the 85 1.8 would be good, but it kind of duplicates the range (not the DOF though) of others on your list.
The 28-135 is not in the same class as the other glass here, F stop wise if nothing else. If just wnat a walk around, the one of the 18-200 lenses might be a better choice, or the 24-105 L glass. (not a cheap option at $1250)
The 70-200 sigma 2.8 is great. add in a 1.4X converter and you're good to go, and can probably skip the 85 1.8.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2005 01:36:19 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
10/14/2005 01:36:58 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just as a suggestion... the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS. You've already got a longer telephoto and the kit lens for wide, but 24-105 covers a lot of ground. It might fill most of your needs. Otherwise, I'd say go for the Tamron, the 10-22 (if you're gonna go wide...) and either of the medium telephotos (those two are really suited to different purposes). |
What he said.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2005 05:33:42 PM · #8 |
First,
Congrats on your upcoming lens purchase.
Do you intend to get a lens in each of the category?
Do you have a budget in mind?
Which lens do you intend to use most.
As for what you listed
Standard Zoom
Canon28-135mm f4.5/5.6 is usm
**Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (Had the Canon-soft images, sold it for the Tamron, much happier, Bob Atkins have good review of the Tam. with the Canon as comparison too)
Ultra-Wide Zoom
Canon 10-22mm f3.5/4.5 usm (if the EF-S mount doesn't bother you then go for it, the other lenses are quiet differenct in range, good lens for landscapes, etc)
Canon 16-35mm 2.8 usm (great, but expensive lens, may not be wide enough for some landscape/nature shots)
Canon 17-40m f/4l usm
Standard - Medium Telephoto
Canon 85mm f1.8 (optically better)
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX HSM (more versatile, but I think the Canon version is optically better, see photozone.de, they reviewed the Sigma and all three of the Canon versions, if you want to go high end, I'd recommend the Canon 70-200 f2.8L and if you want to go the low end, either a Sigma or a Canon 70-200 f4L).
I have a Tokina 12-24 for ultra wide, Tamron 17-35 for Wide, Tamron 28-75 Walking around, Canon 70-200 f2.8L for sports/portraits, Sigma 50-500 candid/animals. I've thought about all the lenses you mentioned but thought my list was a better bang for the bucks.
Message edited by author 2005-10-14 17:43:15.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2005 06:12:47 PM · #9 |
Left the post and have been gone all day,
First Thank you all so much for the information and anyone else that may want to give me added information is welcomed I am so excited about the upcoming purchase.
Second- I am very limited on my knowledge of lenses and through reviews formulated came up with the list I provided.
Price? I want to start with what will work the best and go from there, I am not fortunate enough to say "money doesn't matter", but do believe I can purchase and two to three of any combination of the lenses listed.
Type- I don't have a studio or anything close to that, so I love to take pictures outside..I live in Florida and try to use our weather to my advantage. The shots I do take inside tend to have either too little lighting or to harsh of a flash, so a couple of the lenses I listed have a high rating for dim light shots.
Keep the suggestions coming and if the information I provide has changed anyones mind, let me know as well. As I said, I am learning and don't want to spend too much on something that was a bad decision.
Although I am almost certain on the 10-22mm - it was already at the top of my list and reading your posts I feel better that it will be a great lens for me. |
|
|
|
10/15/2005 12:56:00 AM · #10 |
The Canon 10-22 is a good but expensive ($700) lens.
A Tamron 28-75 is fast for low light, has good range, optically excellent and relatively cheap at about $350.
If you still have money and want a telephoto for low light, a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is more versatile than primes and is about $800.
You can also consider primes like Canon 135 f2.0 but it's about $850.
If you like nature, and mostly landscape type shots with varying lighting situations, I'd recommend a ultra wide zoom and a 28-70 ish range zooms for a grand and considering the new 430EX flash, I think it works for as wide as 14mm and would do wonders as a fill in flash rather than the pop up flash that's in the camera. I think I'd recommend a flash more than a telephoto zoom, as I think it would serve you better.
Also, if you are new to dSLR and are learning about lenses, etc, it may be better to start with one or two lenses rather than getting a bunch of lenses. You already have a kit and a telezoom, so unless you plan on selling those, you would have a lot of overlap in focal length coverage as well. But not so if you get a 10-22.
That way with one or two lense, you can master the lens and the type of photos you can get with it. Then you can slowly expand. Also if you are shooting poorly lit or unevenly lit subjects, consider experimenting with fill in flash and getting a flash with a diffuser.
I would recommend starting with the 10-22 and maybe a flash, keep the kit and the 75-300, learn about wideangle photography. Then as you expand, replace the kit for a general walking around lens, like a Tamron 28-75, and lastly replace the 75-300 with a nicer telephoto zoom like the Sigma 70-200 you're looking at.
Message edited by author 2005-10-15 01:05:32.
|
|
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: 08/25/2025 08:02:37 PM EDT.
