-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Best lens to start with Canon 20D
- Thread starter alegator
- Start date
Youd've been fine if you didn't include the macro in there.
Thus, I would recommend 2 lenses. One for your normal/modest zoom, and one for macro work.
With no budget mentioned, I would recommend:
Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro - for your macro interests... life-size reproduction
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS - for your normal and modest zoom.
Oh, and for an additional $70 I'd also throw in the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 II. Really, it's not a budget blaster....
Regards
Dave
Thus, I would recommend 2 lenses. One for your normal/modest zoom, and one for macro work.
With no budget mentioned, I would recommend:
Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro - for your macro interests... life-size reproduction
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS - for your normal and modest zoom.
Oh, and for an additional $70 I'd also throw in the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 II. Really, it's not a budget blaster....
Regards
Dave
Todd Walker
Veteran Member
If this advice is followed, they won't have anything wider than 70mm (112mm equivalent) and that's just dumb.
Of course a budget would help. If you want to spend about $500 initially, get the 28-135IS and the 50/1.8. If you want to spend about $1500, get the 24-70/2.8L and the 50/1.4.
--
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294
Todd,
Why is the 28-135IS cheaper than the 24-70/2.8L ? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I mean, the 28-135 offers a wider telephoto range than the 24-70? Or is there something else I'm missing?
Why is the 28-135IS cheaper than the 24-70/2.8L ? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I mean, the 28-135 offers a wider telephoto range than the 24-70? Or is there something else I'm missing?
The 28-135 is low-quality while the 24-70 is high-quality, thus the price difference. Just because a van is longer doesn't mean it's better than a sports car 
Personally, I would recommend starting out with just the 50mm f1.8 lense. You'll be forced to learn how to use your 20d at a single focal length before moving on to more glass... which will in turn make you a better photographer.
That's what I did anways, and now I'm going to pick up a couple of Sigma lenses: the 15mm 2.8 Fisheye and the 24-70 2.8 zoom.
Good luck!
Jon
Personally, I would recommend starting out with just the 50mm f1.8 lense. You'll be forced to learn how to use your 20d at a single focal length before moving on to more glass... which will in turn make you a better photographer.
That's what I did anways, and now I'm going to pick up a couple of Sigma lenses: the 15mm 2.8 Fisheye and the 24-70 2.8 zoom.
Good luck!
Jon
Ray Comas
Well-known member
The 24-70L is a constant f/2.8 accross its entire zoom range. The 28-135 varies from f/3.5 to f/5.6, so it is 1-1/2 to 2 f-stops slower than the 24-70. The 24-70 has better build quality, and produces better images (sharper, better color, contrast, etc.) than the 28-135.
In other words, the glass elements in 24-70 are more expensive to manufacture than the ones in the 28-135, and the lens itself is more complicated to manufacture, hence has the higher price tag.
G
Glenn Barber
Guest
The 17-85 IS is the best lens to start with for the following reasons
Great Zoom Range Wide to Telephoto
Very Fast and accurate Focusing on the 20D
The Onboard flash works with it on (doesn't with 17-40)
Image Stabilization built in
The Semi Hard case was designed with this lens in mind.
Reasonable price $500 if bought with kit.
In short, the camera was built with this lens in mind.
I have lots of very good lenses, but use this one 85% of the time.
Great Zoom Range Wide to Telephoto
Very Fast and accurate Focusing on the 20D
The Onboard flash works with it on (doesn't with 17-40)
Image Stabilization built in
The Semi Hard case was designed with this lens in mind.
Reasonable price $500 if bought with kit.
In short, the camera was built with this lens in mind.
I have lots of very good lenses, but use this one 85% of the time.
P
Peter iNova
Guest
You just named two lenses. Well, there's the Canon 28-200. Its rather macro with 1/2 meter focus and a field of view inside a business card. I have the Sigma version of this prescription and it works pretty well. (The basic complex prescription for this design is made by nearly everybody.)
The Kit Lens 18-55 is good quality and inexpensive. The 50mm f/2.5 is fast-ish and focuses to a 4:1 FOV but costs a modest chunk.
If you could have but one lens? I'd pick the one I picked. But that's because I'm picky. The 17-85 IS is sweet once you get hip to its special needs. Or turn off the IS when you don't need its special sweetness. But it costs six times as much as the Kit 18-55!
How about a Nice 18-125 Sigma?
-iNova
--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net
DigitalWolf
Veteran Member
DigitalWolf
Veteran Member
This question has been covered in the last few days to death..lol
The best one lens to have is the 24-70L. Go read the other posts on this same question. The post should be seen on the last 2 to 5 pages in this forum.
--
Keep Taking Photos,
Jeff
The Digital Wolf
Someone else suggested the 17-85 IS. Frankly, I think it's a waste of $600. For one thing, the lens is only going to work with 1.6 sensors. If your next camera is a full frame sensor, your lens isn't compatible.
IS on a short focal length has so little use that it's a waste of money. If you'd like to learn photography, the 17-85 IS probably won't be your lens. I hear people spew something about, "Gee, I really want more DOF handheld." Hmmm. That argument only works for 1/60th of a second and f4 or f5.6... and it's a short focal length lens... you already get a LOT of DOF. It's such a limited-use that it's not worth $600. Especially with all of the CA in that lens. If the lens was $300, I'd say yes, but it's not. Skip it. Save your money, buy a lens that gets you more flexibility.
If you need extra depth of field and you're already at 1/60th of a second, then you could conceivably drop to 1/15th, and gain 2 stops. How much DOF does that get you at 17mm? If the subject is more than 10 feet away, it doesn't get you anything. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Do the math.
So what is the IS good for? Lazy people. If you don't want to hold still at 1/60th of a second, ok. It won't help you stop action. 99% of all portrait subjects can't hold still at 1/30th of a second.
I suggest the 50mm f1.8. Minimize your lens investment until you've got a solid month or 2 of shooting. Learn DOF. Learn exposures and metering. What do you sacrifice? Zoom. What do you gain? Tremendous flexibility on the exposure/DOF side. You can do natural light portraits. You can't do that with a 17-85 IS. Well, you can if you want to shoot at ISO 1600 or ISO 3200.
A 50mm f1.8 is $75. Learn post-processing and color management. If you want wide angle with a 50mm, use the Canon stitching software. Or use the free stuff. People say that it's quite good.
If you take a photography class, most teachers are going to ask you to get a 50mm f1.8 rather than an f4-5.6 "consumer" zoom. A big aperture prime is the best way to learn. Zoom lenses are compromises. Many aren't sharp through all focal ranges... and rarely are they sharp wide open. Many have CA. Unless you've got a boatload of cash and can go straight for the 70-200 f2.8 IS, the 24-70 f2.8 L, and pick a macro to suit your needs, I'd start with a 50mm f1.8 for 2 months. Then, you'll know what you want next.
' We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. '
IS on a short focal length has so little use that it's a waste of money. If you'd like to learn photography, the 17-85 IS probably won't be your lens. I hear people spew something about, "Gee, I really want more DOF handheld." Hmmm. That argument only works for 1/60th of a second and f4 or f5.6... and it's a short focal length lens... you already get a LOT of DOF. It's such a limited-use that it's not worth $600. Especially with all of the CA in that lens. If the lens was $300, I'd say yes, but it's not. Skip it. Save your money, buy a lens that gets you more flexibility.
If you need extra depth of field and you're already at 1/60th of a second, then you could conceivably drop to 1/15th, and gain 2 stops. How much DOF does that get you at 17mm? If the subject is more than 10 feet away, it doesn't get you anything. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Do the math.
So what is the IS good for? Lazy people. If you don't want to hold still at 1/60th of a second, ok. It won't help you stop action. 99% of all portrait subjects can't hold still at 1/30th of a second.
I suggest the 50mm f1.8. Minimize your lens investment until you've got a solid month or 2 of shooting. Learn DOF. Learn exposures and metering. What do you sacrifice? Zoom. What do you gain? Tremendous flexibility on the exposure/DOF side. You can do natural light portraits. You can't do that with a 17-85 IS. Well, you can if you want to shoot at ISO 1600 or ISO 3200.
A 50mm f1.8 is $75. Learn post-processing and color management. If you want wide angle with a 50mm, use the Canon stitching software. Or use the free stuff. People say that it's quite good.
If you take a photography class, most teachers are going to ask you to get a 50mm f1.8 rather than an f4-5.6 "consumer" zoom. A big aperture prime is the best way to learn. Zoom lenses are compromises. Many aren't sharp through all focal ranges... and rarely are they sharp wide open. Many have CA. Unless you've got a boatload of cash and can go straight for the 70-200 f2.8 IS, the 24-70 f2.8 L, and pick a macro to suit your needs, I'd start with a 50mm f1.8 for 2 months. Then, you'll know what you want next.
--
' We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. '
- George Orwell
Glenn, I found this reasonable price site that offers the D20 with the 17-85 IS:
http://www.us1camera.com/shop/Product.asp?sku=20dkit1785&ref=pricegrabber
Is it a good price? Do you know of any other reliable vendor with cheaper price?
Thanks.
http://www.us1camera.com/shop/Product.asp?sku=20dkit1785&ref=pricegrabber
Is it a good price? Do you know of any other reliable vendor with cheaper price?
Thanks.
G
Glenn Barber
Guest
I don't know anything about these guys but the price seems pretty good. When you buy gear like this, it is especially wise to get it from a dealer you know and trust, who will quickly get you an exchange if the lens or camera has a problem. I usually buy from Canoga Camera myself . I get prices comparable to the best you can find on the web, but I get really professional service and backup if there is any problem.
You might want to ask others in the forum about there experiences with this dealer.
You might want to ask others in the forum about there experiences with this dealer.
get the Tamron 28-75 2.8. My first copy was bad but the second is unbelievable. You just can't beat the price. I think I paid $379. You can probably find it even cheaper.
Gary
Gary
--
Daniella68313
Forum Pro
for macro the Tamron 90mm macro..excellent and affordable.
for the rest the 70-200 F4 L and the kit lens if you are on a budget.
------------------------------------------
this is elfe language from Lord of the ring:
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
for the rest the 70-200 F4 L and the kit lens if you are on a budget.
--
------------------------------------------
this is elfe language from Lord of the ring:
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
Sampson420
Leading Member
instead of the tamron macro, get the vivitar/phoenix 100mm f/3.5 if you are on a budget. You can find it for 130-140 online a 3rd the cost of other 100mm macro lenses.. Here is a sample pic from my vivitar, its suprisingly sharp for being a junker lens.
I think the kit lens, this macro lens, and the 70-200 F/4 usm will work very nicely and you can figure out what you like shooting most. That way you do not sink money into glass where its not going to be utilized
David
David
http://www.sampson.smugmug.com
I think the kit lens, this macro lens, and the 70-200 F/4 usm will work very nicely and you can figure out what you like shooting most. That way you do not sink money into glass where its not going to be utilized
David
--
David
http://www.sampson.smugmug.com
Knightlion
Member
I have a Canon 28-135 IS lens. It works great on my 20D
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum