Lens for 20D

After all I've read here and on another dp forum I am considering
getting two lenses: the 50mm f1.8 - cheap and fast - and as I
understand very good for indoor use; and (down the road) the
17-85IS. What do you think ?
I think you are buying the wrong lens. If you had a full frame 35mm SLR, the 50mm F1.8 would be fine as a "normal" lens. With a 1.6 crop factor DSLR, however, 50mm is a short telephoto lens--a portrait lens, if you will. You may find youself forever walking backward in an attempt to get more in the picture--except indoors, of course, where you will simply never be able to get everyone in the picture. The F:1.8 makes it a better low light lens, not necessarily a better indoor lens.

Some have suggested only primes for reasons of personal development. I started with a Nikon F in 1967 with a 50mm F1.4. Took lots of pictures. Later I bought a 135mm and a 28mm. Still later I bought a 28-135, and after that, the other lenses almost never left the bag. I don't necessarily agree with the single focal length helping the learning process. If you don't have to constantly move and change lenses to get the right framing, you can better concentrate on other things, like composition, light, depth of field, etc. Zoom is the way to go.

The DSLR equivalent of the versatile 28-135mm range exists only in Canon's 17-85mm (which translates into 27-136mm in full-frame terms). I bought one, and it is the lens I use for 80% of the shooting I do. It is overpriced. It makes me mad that Canon doesn't include a shade for that price. This has become my favorite lens. The IS is quite useful. Zooms that start at 24 or 28mm are simply not wide enough on a 1.6 DSLR. They were designed to be true wide angle lenses for full frame 35mm cameras. At a 1.6 crop, they don't make sense.

Another choice could be the less expensive Sigma 18-125mm. No Image Stabilization, but that's OK. You should be using a tripod anyway. Tamron has a new 18-200 coming out this spring, and that could be an attractive alternative, too. Or, as someone suggested, find a deal on the 18-55mm "kit" lens. Point is, you need for the wide angle end of the zoom to be 17-18mm, and you need the long end of the zoom to be at least a short telephoto. That is why the Canon 17-40L lens fails the all-purpose test. Wide enough but not long enough.

Doubt the wide angle need? 24mm and 28mm on your camera take in an angle of view comparable to 38 and 46mm, respectively, on a full frame 25. Flip through some photography books--those that caption the pictures with camera, lens, and film settings. See how many published photos are taken at 38-46mm.
--
Bill

20D/300D Bigma 50-500, Canon 100-400LIS, Sigma 70-300APOII, Canon 28-135IS, Canon 17-85IS, Canon 18-55, Popeye 12-24, Tamron 1.4x, Canon 2xII
 
Well, as I said in my earlier post, it leaves you with no wide angle. Bill (wburychka) has given a pretty full answer with some good advice.

The 50mm f/1.8 is great but I wouldn't want it to be my only lens.

Steve B
Thank you very much for the response.

After all I've read here and on another dp forum I am considering
getting two lenses: the 50mm f1.8 - cheap and fast - and as I
understand very good for indoor use; and (down the road) the
17-85IS.

What do you think ?

Thanks!

-eugene
An interesting combination would be the 100mm f/2.8 macro (slightly
expensive but wonderful) and the 50mm f/1.8 (cheap). Of course that
leaves you with no wide angle - how much can you afford to spend? I
don't know the Sigma range but I expect they have an affordable
wide angle.

Steve B.
Hello,

I just bought the 20D and am looking for a lens. I am new to
photography, but am eager to learn and to get into the field.

I am looking for advice on what Lens to start with. I realize that
the choice of a lens depends on what is beeing photographed - a
landscape, a tall building, a flower, a portrait etc.

Despite that realization, can some one recomend a starting lens
that would be (1) Good for most situations, (2) Economical (I am
open to 3rd party lenses) 3. Not too large.

I would like to be able to use the starting lens by itself for at
least a year before buying additional lenses.

Thanks
 
Thank you for for a very helpful and elaborate explanation!
After all I've read here and on another dp forum I am considering
getting two lenses: the 50mm f1.8 - cheap and fast - and as I
understand very good for indoor use; and (down the road) the
17-85IS. What do you think ?
I think you are buying the wrong lens. If you had a full frame
35mm SLR, the 50mm F1.8 would be fine as a "normal" lens. With a
1.6 crop factor DSLR, however, 50mm is a short telephoto lens--a
portrait lens, if you will. You may find youself forever walking
backward in an attempt to get more in the picture--except indoors,
of course, where you will simply never be able to get everyone in
the picture. The F:1.8 makes it a better low light lens, not
necessarily a better indoor lens.

Some have suggested only primes for reasons of personal
development. I started with a Nikon F in 1967 with a 50mm F1.4.
Took lots of pictures. Later I bought a 135mm and a 28mm. Still
later I bought a 28-135, and after that, the other lenses almost
never left the bag. I don't necessarily agree with the single
focal length helping the learning process. If you don't have to
constantly move and change lenses to get the right framing, you can
better concentrate on other things, like composition, light, depth
of field, etc. Zoom is the way to go.

The DSLR equivalent of the versatile 28-135mm range exists only in
Canon's 17-85mm (which translates into 27-136mm in full-frame
terms). I bought one, and it is the lens I use for 80% of the
shooting I do. It is overpriced. It makes me mad that Canon
doesn't include a shade for that price. This has become my
favorite lens. The IS is quite useful. Zooms that start at 24 or
28mm are simply not wide enough on a 1.6 DSLR. They were designed
to be true wide angle lenses for full frame 35mm cameras. At a 1.6
crop, they don't make sense.

Another choice could be the less expensive Sigma 18-125mm. No
Image Stabilization, but that's OK. You should be using a tripod
anyway. Tamron has a new 18-200 coming out this spring, and that
could be an attractive alternative, too. Or, as someone suggested,
find a deal on the 18-55mm "kit" lens. Point is, you need for the
wide angle end of the zoom to be 17-18mm, and you need the long end
of the zoom to be at least a short telephoto. That is why the
Canon 17-40L lens fails the all-purpose test. Wide enough but not
long enough.

Doubt the wide angle need? 24mm and 28mm on your camera take in an
angle of view comparable to 38 and 46mm, respectively, on a full
frame 25. Flip through some photography books--those that caption
the pictures with camera, lens, and film settings. See how many
published photos are taken at 38-46mm.
--
Bill
20D/300D Bigma 50-500, Canon 100-400LIS, Sigma 70-300APOII, Canon
28-135IS, Canon 17-85IS, Canon 18-55, Popeye 12-24, Tamron 1.4x,
Canon 2xII
 
Thanks Jojo - very useful stuff. I've been reading the reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com too - generally good but very contradictory sometimes!

Steve
in terms of handling and build, the L is a bit better (USM, weather
sealing). i like the feel of both in my 20D and with the grip.
but both have a pro-feel and solid construction. the AF is FAST on
both, with the EX a tad faster but noisier. the ONLY time i use my
L is at the beach or if the weather is horrible, which is rare here
in so-cal. otherwise, the sigma i take everywhere...hope this
helps, and merry christmas. jojo
How does the handling compare?

Steve B.
there's no beating the new sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro. it gives
you the best walk around focal range and fantastic build and optics
and speed. visit the canon SLR lens forum or see my site..

pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470
 
the tamron is a fine lens which delivers good images and is light (relatively speaking). however, i like the sigma because the AF is lightning fast, the build is pro (EX), and i find the optics stellar. but of course, the major thing is the extra 7mm FOV (28mm v. 24mm). if these are important, then yes; if they are not and you want a solid lens with good optics and lighter weight, the tamron is probably THE one to have...
I have the tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Just wondering if the sigma is
that much better and if I should sell it and buy the sigma instead.
I keep hearing good reviews from people here on the Sigma 24-70mm.
But a few weeks back I heard glowing reviews on the tamron which is
why I got it...

Thanks for your advice since you have both.

Jodi
 
Mike,

My argument is that its easier for someone on the US to upgrade lenses because:

1. His purchasing power is more. I may struggle and buy the 300D and later to add a 500$ lens is not easy. Sure I'm planning a 70-200 f4 but its not easy. To put things in perspective you guys spend probably 50-70$ for a dinner at a decent restaurant? Over here it would cost 10-15$.

2. Prices in India are almost 160% that of the US.

3. Availabilty is an issue and very few of the wide variety of lenses that are available to you guys are available here.

4. Finally its ridiculous for someone to get shocked if I find a 500$ lens far from inexpensive. Wouldn't some of the US guys here also find it expensive?
What exactly was pointless in my response?
The comparison, you need to re-read his comment. It is all
relative, if you have a 10D or a 20D and can afford it then the
same equation would be true for lenses.
In the US you could be a college student and still earn on the side
and buy this stuff while here its difficult even for people doing
well to afford a hobby like this. I'm not saying that its
impossible but a lot more has to be sacrificed to buy something
like an L lens.
You have missed the point, the equation is still the same, do you
buy an expensive camera like the 20D and only plan on using the
50mm f/1.8 lens? Or in India do you buy a 20D and plan on using it
with decent lenses.

Mike
--
Deepak
 
I have re-read Bill's resposne below. If I understand correctly I should buy the 17-85 IS (or the cheaper sigma 18-125) sooner rather than later.

two questions:

1. Do you think I should spend the extra money on the Canon 17-85 IS or go with the Sigma 18-125? Other than IS in what ways is the Canon lens better?

2. Do you think I should "back-up" either of the above lenses with a relatively cheap 50mm f1.8 for low light situations?

Thanks!
After all I've read here and on another dp forum I am considering
getting two lenses: the 50mm f1.8 - cheap and fast - and as I
understand very good for indoor use; and (down the road) the
17-85IS. What do you think ?
I think you are buying the wrong lens. If you had a full frame
35mm SLR, the 50mm F1.8 would be fine as a "normal" lens. With a
1.6 crop factor DSLR, however, 50mm is a short telephoto lens--a
portrait lens, if you will. You may find youself forever walking
backward in an attempt to get more in the picture--except indoors,
of course, where you will simply never be able to get everyone in
the picture. The F:1.8 makes it a better low light lens, not
necessarily a better indoor lens.

Some have suggested only primes for reasons of personal
development. I started with a Nikon F in 1967 with a 50mm F1.4.
Took lots of pictures. Later I bought a 135mm and a 28mm. Still
later I bought a 28-135, and after that, the other lenses almost
never left the bag. I don't necessarily agree with the single
focal length helping the learning process. If you don't have to
constantly move and change lenses to get the right framing, you can
better concentrate on other things, like composition, light, depth
of field, etc. Zoom is the way to go.

The DSLR equivalent of the versatile 28-135mm range exists only in
Canon's 17-85mm (which translates into 27-136mm in full-frame
terms). I bought one, and it is the lens I use for 80% of the
shooting I do. It is overpriced. It makes me mad that Canon
doesn't include a shade for that price. This has become my
favorite lens. The IS is quite useful. Zooms that start at 24 or
28mm are simply not wide enough on a 1.6 DSLR. They were designed
to be true wide angle lenses for full frame 35mm cameras. At a 1.6
crop, they don't make sense.

Another choice could be the less expensive Sigma 18-125mm. No
Image Stabilization, but that's OK. You should be using a tripod
anyway. Tamron has a new 18-200 coming out this spring, and that
could be an attractive alternative, too. Or, as someone suggested,
find a deal on the 18-55mm "kit" lens. Point is, you need for the
wide angle end of the zoom to be 17-18mm, and you need the long end
of the zoom to be at least a short telephoto. That is why the
Canon 17-40L lens fails the all-purpose test. Wide enough but not
long enough.

Doubt the wide angle need? 24mm and 28mm on your camera take in an
angle of view comparable to 38 and 46mm, respectively, on a full
frame 25. Flip through some photography books--those that caption
the pictures with camera, lens, and film settings. See how many
published photos are taken at 38-46mm.
--
Bill
20D/300D Bigma 50-500, Canon 100-400LIS, Sigma 70-300APOII, Canon
28-135IS, Canon 17-85IS, Canon 18-55, Popeye 12-24, Tamron 1.4x,
Canon 2xII
 
What do you know about the Tamron 18 -200: Quite a range--perhaps too much to be a good lens?? (just asking). And Tamron doesn't yet have IS, does it? (These are questions, not snide comments.)

kdoc
 
"The strength of this lens is USM, FTM and IS."

I know what IS is, but what's USM and FTM? And how useful, important are they.

kdoc
 
Also, it is clear from that shot that the Canon resolves more detail. It seems to me that the Canon shot merely isn't focused as well as the Sigma shot, so the comparison is flawed IMO. The tree shots in you gallery also show a huge advantage for the Canon in the corners.
[if not clear enough, go directly to my pbase site and click on the
original file size... http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470]

 
with you. i've done countless MF and AF testing with all my lenses, especially the 24-70L and the 24-70EX and i'll say it again, the L is slightly sharper at 24mm, the EX has the edge practically everywhere else, all the time. but again, dont get me wrong, the L is stellar in many other ways but it isnt optically superior to this sigma EX.
there's no beating the new sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro. it gives
you the best walk around focal range and fantastic build and optics
and speed. visit the canon SLR lens forum or see my site..

pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470
Actually the Canon 24-70L beats its.
 
are there in both originals...so i'm a poor cropper. my apologies for cropping poorly, off by 1mm maybe. makes no difference to my point.
 
I think Mike picked up my thread quite well in response to your question.

Personally, I think $500 is a lot of money (I guess 30-40,000 rupees for the equivalent item over there). But when compared to $1,500 on the camera, and we bear in mind that the lens is probably equally important in the art of taking good photos, $500 is not expensive.

To an Indian, to spend $10 on a meal is expensive, because their meals are generally cheaper. But if you always ate in western hotels (which I did), $10 wouldn't seem expensive. Likewise if you spend $1500 on a camera, $500 for a lens is not expensive.

I went to Bombay on business.
In the US you could be a college student and still earn on the side
and buy this stuff while here its difficult even for people doing
well to afford a hobby like this. I'm not saying that its
impossible but a lot more has to be sacrificed to buy something
like an L lens.

Out of curiosity where were you in Bombay and were you there on
business/holiday.
Saw it for 500$. Am I talking of the same lens?
You think $500 is expensive? $500 is nothing theese days. I payd
$800 for little crown at dentist.
Dietmar
Hello,

I just bought the 20D and am looking for a lens. I am new to
photography, but am eager to learn and to get into the field.

I am looking for advice on what Lens to start with. I realize that
the choice of a lens depends on what is beeing photographed - a
landscape, a tall building, a flower, a portrait etc.

Despite that realization, can some one recomend a starting lens
that would be (1) Good for most situations, (2) Economical (I am
open to 3rd party lenses) 3. Not too large.

I would like to be able to use the starting lens by itself for at
least a year before buying additional lenses.

Thanks
--
Deepak
--
Deepak
--
Deepak
 
from the corners. The Canon will show more resolution and sharpness at every length and aperature I bet. Look at your sample of the three together.



Now look closely at the red thread towards the right of the "O". The Canon clearly resolves more detail IMO and seems to produce more dynamic range as well as not displaying the yellow tint the Sigma and the Tamron do. The Tamron is terrible. Also look at the bottom right corner. You can see a faint white wisp on both shots, but definitely with more detail with the Canon. Not the triangle that you cropped out of the Sigma shot, but the vertical line that is clearly in both. This also leads me to believe that the Canon shot isn't focused as well as the Sigma shot. You may attribute this to environmental variation, but if that's the case, your entire testing is too flawed to yeild anything of any value. And, how many shots did you take with each camera for this? Did you take one with each or fifty plus with each and post the best ones? That is also important. You need large samples.

Your cherries shots are worthless for comaprisons because they are outdoors and of different subjects. Comparison shots must be inside under condrolled circumstances, ie - no wind, exact same lighting, tripod with remote release, same subject.....

You are also not taking into account lens to lens variation. You could be comparing the best Sigma to the worst Canon. I say this because my friend has the new Sigma as well and I am not so impressed with the sharpness of many of the images he has taken with it. It's also loud and jerky IMO. It seems to take excellent shots in great lighting with high F-numbers, but what lens doesn't? Maybe he got a bad one, maybe you got he best one; I don't know. I'm not trying to belittle you, it's great that you took the time to show this to everyone. It clearly shows that the Sigma lens is an almost unbeatable value, but it doesn't show it's a better lens than the Canon IMO.r

Ok now that I've said that. This Sigma is the best third party lens I have seen in my limited experience. I would recommend it to anybody unwilling to shell out $1100 for the Canon version. It is the best deal of the bunch by far as well. As a matter of fact, I whole-heartedly recommended this lens earlier in this thread, so I obviously am not biased against it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=11538085

I just feel that from the images I've seen from both that the Canon resolves more detail and provides more sharpness in the right hands. Let's not forget that Canon won't calibrate the Sigma with your Canon body if the need ever arrises as well, although Sigma will try from what I've heard.
 
Well I have the 17-85mm IS too - and I find myself using that a lot because it goes down to 17mm and gives me flexiblility when taking quick pictures of my twins indoors. I am at the low end around 17-24mm only may 20-25% of the time when they are close to me.

So - I often end up not putting the tamron on as much - but once I can get outdoors and have more space, I would think I will use it (once the weather gets better).

How much bigger and heavier is the Sigma?

I really wish (and who doesn't) that I could find a walk around lens that had more range - like 17 or 18mm-200mm or so - that has good to very good optics, focuses fast and is not too heavy. Does that exist? It would be great for when I need to leave the house and do not want to take a lot of lenses with me...

Any ideas?

Jodi
I have the tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Just wondering if the sigma is
that much better and if I should sell it and buy the sigma instead.
I keep hearing good reviews from people here on the Sigma 24-70mm.
But a few weeks back I heard glowing reviews on the tamron which is
why I got it...

Thanks for your advice since you have both.

Jodi
 
In a way you are right, the 20D costs over 100,000 in india [close to 2500$] and lenses are impossible to come by.
Personally, I think $500 is a lot of money (I guess 30-40,000
rupees for the equivalent item over there). But when compared to
$1,500 on the camera, and we bear in mind that the lens is probably
equally important in the art of taking good photos, $500 is not
expensive.

To an Indian, to spend $10 on a meal is expensive, because their
meals are generally cheaper. But if you always ate in western
hotels (which I did), $10 wouldn't seem expensive. Likewise if you
spend $1500 on a camera, $500 for a lens is not expensive.

I went to Bombay on business.
In the US you could be a college student and still earn on the side
and buy this stuff while here its difficult even for people doing
well to afford a hobby like this. I'm not saying that its
impossible but a lot more has to be sacrificed to buy something
like an L lens.

Out of curiosity where were you in Bombay and were you there on
business/holiday.
Saw it for 500$. Am I talking of the same lens?
You think $500 is expensive? $500 is nothing theese days. I payd
$800 for little crown at dentist.
Dietmar
Hello,

I just bought the 20D and am looking for a lens. I am new to
photography, but am eager to learn and to get into the field.

I am looking for advice on what Lens to start with. I realize that
the choice of a lens depends on what is beeing photographed - a
landscape, a tall building, a flower, a portrait etc.

Despite that realization, can some one recomend a starting lens
that would be (1) Good for most situations, (2) Economical (I am
open to 3rd party lenses) 3. Not too large.

I would like to be able to use the starting lens by itself for at
least a year before buying additional lenses.

Thanks
--
Deepak
--
Deepak
--
Deepak
--
Deepak
 
Hello,

I just bought the 20D and am looking for a lens. I am new to
photography, but am eager to learn and to get into the field.

I am looking for advice on what Lens to start with. I realize that
the choice of a lens depends on what is beeing photographed - a
landscape, a tall building, a flower, a portrait etc.

Despite that realization, can some one recomend a starting lens
that would be (1) Good for most situations, (2) Economical (I am
open to 3rd party lenses) 3. Not too large.

I would like to be able to use the starting lens by itself for at
least a year before buying additional lenses.

Thanks
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top