| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2005 02:36:35 AM · #1 |
| I decided to buy a Canon 20D. However, I am not sure which lens I should buy. I've read that the lens the camera comes with is low quality. I want to get a quality lens (preferably a Canon lens, but I'm open to suggestions) but I don't want to spend a fortune. Which Canon lenses would work as good "all purpose" lenses (with a half-decent zoom)? Also, how do Sigma lenses compare to Canon lenses? I don't want to spend more than $500. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 02:47:07 AM · #2 |
sounds like you want a convenient lens. the thing with L lenses is that their focal range is often not large enough for some casual photographers. i would suggest the 17-85 IS, 3rd gen IS gives you three stops compensation, very useful focal length, not L build or image quality but still a pretty good lens. it's about 550$ ish. if you dont want to spend that much go for the 28-135 for like 300$ i think? something around there.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 02:57:47 AM · #3 |
| I'm also looking for the same kind of thing and more or less have my heart set on the 17-85 IS. Gonna take a bit of saving though :( |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:08:19 AM · #4 |
A lot of people have bagged the 17-85. I have one and love it, it is a great all round lens, the 17-85 working range is fantastic. It is the lens I take on vacation if I only want to carry a single lens.
The only thing I have against it is that it is fairly bulky if I am trying to travel light. It is also somewhat overpriced I think, but that does not negate the quality of the lens.
I wonder if there have been good and bad batches of this lens, as I can't fault mine but others have had real problems.
When I ordered my camera I got it with this lens. However, the store did not have any "body only" kits, just the kits with the cheaper 18-55 (I think it is) lens. They basically gave me the body/lens kit for the body only price, and then added in the 17-85 and charged me the usual body +17-85 price.
I had a play with the 18-55 mm and quite frankly did not like it at all. To be fair, I did not give it a heavy work out optically, but it just felt plastic and very fragile. Obviously with the better lens covering the same range I really do not need it. I am simply keeping it so that if I sell the 20D sometime I have a lens I can throw in with it.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:08:50 AM · #5 |
imo, the 17-85 isn't worth the money, it's decent, but it falls short in image quality. i would suggest buying a cheaper econo zoom then moving up after you find out a focal length you use frequently.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:10:07 AM · #6 |
the 17-85 feels good on the 20d though, my cousin has that setup, very balanced...it almost seems like that lens was made for that camera...
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 03:21:25 AM · #7 |
All I have to say is buy very fast pro glass. That's the point of a SLR. Make the investment in glass, not bodies. Any ƒ2.8 will be a dream and you will be happy. Even a 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8, will be better than a 5.6 zoom.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:13:34 AM · #8 |
| Get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. It is superior in image quality to both the 18-55 and the 17-85, and selld for about $360. |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:18:52 AM · #9 |
The lens doesn't make the man.
Some lenses make the man all he can be.
Have you checked out the lens list here and see the shots that others have done using them? I think seeing actual images that a particular lens can produce is worth as much as the various opinions people may have about the lens.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 06:38:32 AM · #10 |
I like the 17-85mm. It is the equivalent of a 28-135 on a 35mm camera, which has become a standard "walkaround" length for good reasons. It is well made and, while admittedly not as fast as a good prime or L glass, it does well for what it is intended: acting as a lens for all purposes.
Personally, I think that a 28-105mm lens falls short when attached to the 20D as an all-purpose lens, as the 1.6x multiplier turns it into the equivalent of a 45-170mm lens. 45mm is just too long for general purpose wideangle work, and 170mm is not quite long enough to be useful as a telephoto. It really falls between stools.
You need c.17mm in order to obtain a true wideangle capability (though 12mm or 14mm would be nice!). At the other end, 85mm, or 135mm equivalent, makes no pretensions as to being telephoto, but there are plenty of true telephoto lenses starting at 70mm or 75mm, which conveniently does not overlap too greatly with the 17-85mm.
I would also recommend as a second lens the very cheap but high quality 50mm f1.8 Canon lens, which gives you some further options. Switching lenses from my 50mm f1.8 to 17-85mm f4.5-5.6 is a bit of a drag as far as low-light and small DoF photography goes, but it represents for me the reality of not being able to afford L glass, and the desire to combine a number of useful focal lengths in a single lens rather than carry around a backpack full of glass.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:10:35 AM · #11 |
I have the 17-85 and the 50mm 1.8 combination and am very happy with them.The IS in the 17-85 is very good and allows hand hald photos at 1/20 to come out sharp.
I admit that it was pretty expensive, but I bought my 350D body only & invested the savings in this lens.
The 17-85 range has been perfect for me up till now, and the Newer generation IS is also worth a few extra bucks.
Sure a 2.8 would be nice, however don't forget that at 2.8 you will have a very narrow DOF, so in many sithations a 5.6 with IS is better as you will get more in focus, and can hand hold with a slower shutter speed.
Basically:
There is no lens that is ideal for everything. Try to find a lens that fits your needs, then use it to the max and be happy with it. In some situations another lens will be better, but if your choice is right for 90 to 95% of the situations, then that should be enough.
Another point:
I realy hate changing lenses when on the field. I always feel I don't have enough arms, as you usually can't put things down, therefore you have to hold your camera body, two lenses and the end cap and do the change as fast as possible to minimize the risk of getting dust into your camera. I would much rather have one lens for a larger range than haveing to constantly juggle lenses & camera bits at the risk of dropping something.
On another site there was a complaint that the 17-85 focused wrong consistently focusing 2-3 cm behind where it should. I tested mine last night, and it was exactly right.
And Here endith the first lesson, Amen, Halleluja
;-) Peter |
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:49:11 AM · #12 |
I want something with a bit of range like 18 - 300mm. Can you get this with image stabilization?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:50:05 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I want something with a bit of range like 18 - 300mm. Can you get this with image stabilization? |
You can get the Canon 28-300L IS, which costs ~$2200.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:51:06 AM · #14 |
I am also lucking for all around lens like
Canon 28-135 is usm , or Tamron 28-200 check this review on fredmiranda
Canon 28-135 IS USM
Tamron 28-200 xr
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 07:55:46 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by oksamit:
Canon 28-135 is usm , or Tamron 28-200
What do you think? |
It's hard to tell which is best with only two reviews of the Tamron.. There's a fair old difference between 135mm and 200mm, however. I suspect the Canon may just edge ahead on quality, but the Tamron has that little bit more range.
If it was me, depending on sample shots, I'd be tempted by the Tamron.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 01:31:07 PM · #16 |
Just beware with those 28-300 lenses that 28mm on a 1.6 crop camera (300d, 350d, 20d) is not very wide angle. There are limited choices at the 10-20mm range (super wide - wide angle range on a 1.6 crop camera). The 17-85 offers the longest zoom while retaining a wide angle capability, I believe. Next best range for wide angle zooms is the much maligned 18-55mm, then the more expensive (but I am sure very nice) L lenses.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 01:55:42 PM · #17 |
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC is very nice and can be had off ebay new for $420 or so. Fast, sharp, good build quality and comparable to canon 17-40L f4.
Here is a shot i took last night. Ignore the extreme dynamic range please. All the same shot, ISO 200, f4.5, 1/400. The main images ihave sharpened, the others are untouched.
Here is a 100 percent crop from the middle of the image
And at 18mm, the upper left corner - no vignetting i can see. and that is with the tulip lens hood in place.
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 13:57:30.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 06:57:41 AM EDT.
