Canon EOS 20d Lens Recommendations
Roger
I'm a first time digital SLR camera buyer, and based on my research, have
decide to purchase a Canon EOS 20d camera and had some questions regarding.
First and foremost, I need some lens recommendations for this camera. I
know little about the subject, other than the "L" series, is Canon's top of
the line brand. I am primarily seeking one lens to start me off with taking
photos, and later buy more. Right now, I think I would like to photo people
[portrait style], wildlife, nature, and maybe some architecture as well. I
think a medium to high quality lens would be worth the investment right of
the bat, no?
Secondly, I plan to purchase through B & H Photo Video .com. Any thoughts?
Malcolm Stewart
news:whk0f.1993$AY4....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> Hello,
> I'm a first time digital SLR camera buyer, and based on my research, have
> decide to purchase a Canon EOS 20d camera and had some questions
regarding.
>
> First and foremost, I need some lens recommendations for this camera. I
> know little about the subject, other than the "L" series, is Canon's top
of
> the line brand. I am primarily seeking one lens to start me off with
taking
> photos, and later buy more. Right now, I think I would like to photo
people
> [portrait style], wildlife, nature, and maybe some architecture as well.
I
> think a medium to high quality lens would be worth the investment right of
> the bat, no?
You said one lens "medium to high quality".
Get the EF 50 f1.8 (version II). It's not expensive, ideal focal length for
portraits on the 20D (due to the 1.6x crop factor), and very sharp. It's
somewhat cheaply made with a poor lens hood fitting. But it's sharp. If
you don't like it, there's not much lost! If you want a faster lens, get
the EF 50 f1.4 - quite a bit more money, bit faster, perhaps sharper, better
built - unless you can find one of the original EF 50 f1.8s. These
relatively old lenses are now going for premium prices.
There's a range of zooms which cover the range you indicated, from the kit
lenses with adequate performance for small prints, to expensive, and heavier
"L" zoom lenses. (None of the zoom lenses are likely to beat the EF 50
f1.4 - certainly not at f1.4!)
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
Joseph Meehan
Get the kit lens. It is cheap but it does a good job. Some may shame
it because it is small, light feels plastic and does not do as well as a
lens costing 10 times the price, but it is a very good lens. If you find
you are disappointed in it, and I doubt you will, then you are out very
little and you can use it as a back up lens.
I have one and I do like it. I has done well against some far more
expensive lenses I have.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
C Wright
whk0f.1993$AY4....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net, "Roger"
<fastnfu...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
One lens is not going to meet all of your requirements. For wildlife most
photographers prefer super telephotos, 400 mm+. Your other requirements
however could be all be reasonably met with a wide to modest tele zoom.
Right now if I could only have one lens for a 20D it would be Canon's new
24-105mm L lens. That is a lens that would probably remain a favorite even
years from now after acquiring other glass.
Chuck
Derek Fountain
> know little about the subject, other than the "L" series, is Canon's top of
> the line brand. I am primarily seeking one lens to start me off with taking
> photos, and later buy more. Right now, I think I would like to photo people
> [portrait style], wildlife, nature, and maybe some architecture as well. I
> think a medium to high quality lens would be worth the investment right of
> the bat, no?
Advice I heeded when I started with DSLR was "don't buy cheap glass if
you know you're not going to be satisfied with it in 6 months time." I'm
really grateful to the people from this newsgroup and others that
repeatedly told me that. I'd hate to have one, never mind a set of
lenses which I never used because they were poor quality. I started off
with a single lens - a 17-40mm f4 L - and bought my second lens several
months later when the bank account recovered. :o)
You won't get a single, good quality lens to do all you want. Most of
your requirements are telephoto, but architecture requires wide - 17mm
works very nicely on a 20D. Have a look at this gallery, which sadly
isn't mine:
http://users.skynet.be/marcvc/portfolio/toscane/index.htm
But most of your requirements appear to require telephoto, assuming
those really are your requirements. A lot of people are lured by the
idea of zooming in on things, but in reality most newbies really need
wide angle (because landscapes, mountains, streets, waterfalls,
buildings and so on are all easier subjects to learn with).
But if you really do require telephoto you could start with a 70-200mm
f4 L. Top quality and excellent value for money despite the red ring.
If you choose a more general range, the 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM is well
regarded, although I don't actually have one. It's a kit option I think.
But I suspect Joseph's tip is spot on, as usual. Get the normal kit
lens. It costs pittance when bought with the camera, will do nicely as a
learning lens and beyond, and will allow you to work out whether you
keep saying "argh, this lens isn't wide enough" or "argh, this lens
isn't long enough."
Will Boon
I'll jump in on this point. B & H and probably the best online
retalier for photo and video equipment. I've used them a few
times and never had one problem. Their customer service is
good - which is important when buying expensive photo
equipment. They're also one of the few online retailers that
will ship outside the US (Europe, etc) and still remain
competitive with local prices - even with shipping. Have a
read of the reviews on http://www.resellerratings.com/ for them.
As for your first point. I was fortunate enough to travel
around the world last year and just had 2 SLR bodies(EOS 650
and EOS 30) and 2 lenses (35-70mm F3.5-4.5 and a 28-105mm
which came with the EOS 30). My site is still in the process
of being built but you can view quite a lot of my photos
through the links on this page.
http://www.photoboon.com/tdm/gallerymainpage.html
Will Boon
David Littlewood
<fastnfu...@sbcglobal.net> writes
Portraits - 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8, depending on whether you want full
length or close-up.
Wildlife - How serious are you? The 70-200 f/4L is high quality,
reasonably priced and works with the Canon teleconverters, but is a
little short for serious work. At the serious end, the super-teles are
world renowned but very expensive. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM makes
a good compromise at a price which is high but not buttock-clenching.
Nature - In addition to a long lens, think about the 100mm f/2.8 USM
macro. An excellent lens. BTW, if you see the older (discontinued)
non-USM lens at a good price, don't worry about the lack of USM, as it
is almost always best to use manual focus in serious macro work.
Architecture - There is only one front runner here, the 24mm f/3.5L
TS-E; it's expensive, but there are no runners-up even close in the
race.
In my experience, buying cheap lenses is too expensive; in every case I
have had to go out sooner or later and buy the expensive one I should
have bought in t he first place. YMMV.
David
--
David Littlewood
Derek Fountain
> TS-E; it's expensive, but there are no runners-up even close in the race.
24mm on a 20D? Is that going to be wide enough?
Joseph Meehan
Not for me, but it would be fine for a lot of people. I like the 10mm I
David Littlewood
Derek Fountain <nom...@hursley.ibm.com> writes
It's not as good as it is on a 36x24 sensor or film - but it works fine.
It's as good as it gets short of using a 5x4 view camera.
David
--
David Littlewood
Frank ess
The OP is getting some excellent insight. I'd add thatlow-light indoor
stuff will not be easy, if that is an interest. It is possible to do
pretty good with a kit lens and the right flash and techniques, but to
get really fine photos takes money and learning. My first two 20D
lenses were the kit and a 50mm 1.8 that at least ot me in the ball
park. The50mm comes at around $75 including shipping. You should be
punished if you don't have one.
--
Frank ess
David Littlewood
<sligojo...@hotmail.com> writes
David
--
David Littlewood
Joseph Meehan
It is there 10-22 zoom. Not bad distortion considering everything and
the low price. Frankly I have not done any testing or critical work with it
so I have not notice any distortion. It might be better than I expect. I
have not used it on any subjects where it would be apparent.
>
> David
Rich
<sligojo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm a first time digital SLR camera buyer, and based on my research,
>> have decide to purchase a Canon EOS 20d camera and had some questions
>> regarding.
>> First and foremost, I need some lens recommendations for this camera.
>> I know little about the subject, other than the "L" series, is
>> Canon's top of the line brand. I am primarily seeking one lens to
>> start me off with taking photos, and later buy more. Right now, I
>> think I would like to photo people [portrait style], wildlife,
>> nature, and maybe some architecture as well. I think a medium to
>> high quality lens would be worth the investment right of the bat, no?
>>
>> Secondly, I plan to purchase through B & H Photo Video .com. Any
>> thoughts?
>
> Get the kit lens. It is cheap but it does a good job. Some may shame
>it because it is small, light feels plastic and does not do as well as a
>lens costing 10 times the price, but it is a very good lens.
It's a piece of junk and you'll hobble the sensor in the 20D (as it
does in the Rebel XT/350). Canon's 18-55mm kit is one of the worst
on the market.
-Rich
Frank ess
Here are a few views from the 10-22 Canon EF-S (old news to many):
http://www.fototime.com/inv/ED197013B72D13D
--
Frank ess
Bruce Graham
says...
> > Get the kit lens. It is cheap but it does a good job. Some may shame
> >it because it is small, light feels plastic and does not do as well as a
> >lens costing 10 times the price, but it is a very good lens.
>
> It's a piece of junk and you'll hobble the sensor in the 20D (as it
> does in the Rebel XT/350). Canon's 18-55mm kit is one of the worst
> on the market.
> -Rich
>
my 28-105 (the old f3.5-4.5 good one, not the new cheapy f4-5.6).
It makes an excellent lightweight walk-around lens. For your people
shots in low light, and for separation of the subject from the background
it is nice to also have a fast 50mm which you buy for almost free (the 50
1.8) or for a better build quality, the 50mm f1.4. Alternatively, you
could buy the 17-85mm IS if you want a single lens and that is available
as a kit with the 20D. It is stabilised which allows for handheld
shooting in low light, as well as having a longer zoom range and better
build quality than the kit lens.
For your wildlife, you need a different lens which you should buy later
after you have got used to your camera for a while. Canon is releasing a
new 70-300 IS which they claim is much better than the just obsoleted 75-
300 IS (if Rich doesn't like the old 75-300 then I would agree with him
:) More money and more size and weight will buy more capability - it
depends on your needs, which you will understand after you have had the
camera a while.
Bruce G
Randall Ainsworth
Graham <jbgr...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
> Rich either got a bad one or has no clue.
That would be Choice B.
mark
Randall Ainsworth schreef:
cos, in randalls world, Canon doesn't make bad copies?
Randall Ainsworth
mark <ms...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
That would be because Rich has shown himself to be a victim of Clue
Deficit Disorder.
Rich
<jbgr...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>In article <8qu5k1l4phflekhdu...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com
>says...
>> > Get the kit lens. It is cheap but it does a good job. Some may shame
>> >it because it is small, light feels plastic and does not do as well as a
>> >lens costing 10 times the price, but it is a very good lens.
>>
>> It's a piece of junk and you'll hobble the sensor in the 20D (as it
>> does in the Rebel XT/350). Canon's 18-55mm kit is one of the worst
>> on the market.
>> -Rich
>>
>Rich either got a bad one or has no clue. My 18-55 performs better than
>my 28-105 (the old f3.5-4.5 good one, not the new cheapy f4-5.6).
Bad one? These things are made on CNC controlled optics machines.
There are no single bad ones, they are all bad.
There is no way tolerances are so sloppy as to allow such a variation
in quality from one to the next. That went out with hand-figuring of
optics.
-Rich
Rich
Say the Canon owner's oath:
"This is my Canon, there are many like it, but this one is mine."
"Without me, my Canon is useless."
"Without my Canon, I am useless."
"I must master my Canon as I master my life."
"Before GOD I swear this creed!"
With all due gratitude to Stanley Kubrick.
-Rich
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:30:27 +1000, Bruce Graham
><jbgr...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <8qu5k1l4phflekhdu...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com
>>says...
>>> > Get the kit lens. It is cheap but it does a good job. Some may shame
>>> >it because it is small, light feels plastic and does not do as well as a
>>> >lens costing 10 times the price, but it is a very good lens.
>>>
>>> It's a piece of junk and you'll hobble the sensor in the 20D (as it
>>> does in the Rebel XT/350). Canon's 18-55mm kit is one of the worst
>>> on the market.
>>> -Rich
>>>
>>Rich either got a bad one or has no clue. My 18-55 performs better than
>>my 28-105 (the old f3.5-4.5 good one, not the new cheapy f4-5.6).
>
>Bad one? These things are made on CNC controlled optics machines.
With infinitely fine tolerances so that each lens is exactly like the
other.
Right?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Skip M
news:6o69k15fcgllktaoj...@4ax.com...
earlier contention on this very subject? Rich, get off the dead horse, it's
not taking you anywhere.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Rich
Yes, if they choose that level of quality. Meade Instruments makes a
small telescope called a Maksutove ETX-90. It's mirrors/lens are
accurate to about 1/8th wavelength of light. Every single one.
Canon's lowly kit lens doesn't need to be anywhere near that accurate
so making them the same is no big deal for automatic equipment.
-Rich
Rich
wrote:
Then trade in all your L-lenses for entry-level lenses. Go ahead.
-Rich
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:23:23 GMT, rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
>Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Rich <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:30:27 +1000, Bruce Graham
>>><jbgr...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <8qu5k1l4phflekhdu...@4ax.com>, no...@none.com
>>>>says...
>>>>> > Get the kit lens. It is cheap but it does a good job. Some may shame
>>>>> >it because it is small, light feels plastic and does not do as well as a
>>>>> >lens costing 10 times the price, but it is a very good lens.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a piece of junk and you'll hobble the sensor in the 20D (as it
>>>>> does in the Rebel XT/350). Canon's 18-55mm kit is one of the worst
>>>>> on the market.
>>>>> -Rich
>>>>>
>>>>Rich either got a bad one or has no clue. My 18-55 performs better than
>>>>my 28-105 (the old f3.5-4.5 good one, not the new cheapy f4-5.6).
>>>
>>>Bad one? These things are made on CNC controlled optics machines.
>>
>>With infinitely fine tolerances so that each lens is exactly like the
>>other.
>>
>>Right?
>
>Yes, if they choose that level of quality.
And do they choose that level of quality?
> Meade Instruments makes a
>small telescope called a Maksutove ETX-90. It's mirrors/lens are
>accurate to about 1/8th wavelength of light. Every single one.
>Canon's lowly kit lens doesn't need to be anywhere near that accurate
>so making them the same is no big deal for automatic equipment.
The ETX-90 has two (2) optical elements. No autofocus. No zoom.
The 18-55mm zoom has about a dozen optical elemants plus an iris plus
zoom plus autofocus and it costs a fraction of the price of an ETX-90.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Rich
Fischer) wrote:
So do you think that chimpanzees in China are making the lens
elements?
-Rich
Annika1980
>you know you're not going to be satisfied with it in 6 months time."
Very good advice.
Reminds me of when you buy a new pair of speakers for your stereo
system. It's like buying a whole new collection of CDs and albums ...
they all sound better. But you can't do that with a poor lens. Once
the photo is taken, it's taken. It will only be as sharp as the lens
used to take it. So buy the best glass you can afford. It's cheaper
to buy the best first rather than buy cheap and then upgrade to the
best later.
[BnH]
If you want quality, there is no lens in the market that can do all :
"people [portrait style], wildlife, nature, and maybe some architecture "
Architecture is your MAIN problem as most ppl shoot below 20mm [135] for
architecture.
Grab yourself the Tamron 18-200 XR Di , it does the job .. but not to the
highest quality.
For best quality i'll use :
- Canon 70-200 L IS USM + 1.4 TC for people [portrait style], nature
- Canon 400 L for wildlife
- Canon EF-S 10-22 for architecture.
"Roger" <fastnfu...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:whk0f.1993$AY4....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...