Best zoom lens for 20d under $500

Hello all!! I am trying to get some diverse opinions on what is the best zoom lens, maybe 70-200.... for the 20d under $500. Looking to buy the lens as a Christmans gift and the cost can go know higher. Your opinions are very valuabe to me. Thank you in advance.

what focal length really interests you? Are you primary an indoor or outdoor shooter, people or landscape? I am sure you give a little info you will get better feedback. Otherwise your just going to get a bunch of random ideas that may or may not be best for you

The Tamron 28-300 is a really nice lens that I've tested. $400
Their 18-200 is also nice.

The Canon 28-135 is a really nice lens, I own one. about $400 And it has IS, really handy.

Other than that, I know of no good quality lenses in that price range. There are a lot them for sure, but nothing I would wast my money on, but I'm, some what, a pixel peeper.

Second the request for some more specific info, but here's some ideas anyway since you just asked for zooms:

The Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 are both very well thought of. The 17-50 gives you a great deal of extra wide angle coverage over the 28-75 and compares favorably to equivilents in canon's line.

For something with further range, there are the Canon 17-85 IS and 28-135 IS. Both offer image stabilization. They all have their faults, but we're not talking about L glass here, and they are all well thought of.

It's a bit more mucky when it comes to longer focal lengths. In the Canon line one of the top bargains is the 70-200L f/4, which can be had for about $550 - a little over what you want, but almost there. The 70-300 IS also falls in that range. Besides those there's a jump in build and optical quality.

Don't buy a 28-300 lens. Whoever said that has got to be joking.

If you don't have 17/18 mm covered you don't have wideangle at all on a 1.6 crop factor camera.

I don't know how the Tamron 17-50 compares to the Sigma. I have more confidence in Sigma as a brand, but that particular Tamron could be good - I don't know. Compare them on FredMiranda.com.

If you can spend a bit more, you can't go wrong with the Canon 70-200 f4L. For the price you get an L series build with pictures that a very sharp out of the camera. I own a 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 f4L. I get sharp pictures out the the 24-70 but I consistently get my best with the 70-200. I have used this outdoors and have taken great portraits at 70 - 100 and I use it full time for my son's football games. I think this is the best lens you can buy from Canon for the price.

Mark 1 said:

Hello all!! I am trying to get some diverse opinions on what is
the best zoom lens, maybe 70-200.... for the 20d under $500.
Looking to buy the lens as a Christmans gift and the cost can go
know higher. Your opinions are very valuabe to me. Thank you in
advance.

Click to expand...

(By the way, "zoom" does not mean "telephoto". Even wide angle lenses can be "zoom". Just FYI.)

It sounds like your asking for the best telephoto zoom lens somewhere around the 70-200 focal length for under $500.

That last part is the kicker.

Technically, the answer to your question is the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO. It's only $220, but even with a $500 budget I don't think there are any better values.

However, it would be a stupendous blunder to buy that lens. For only 32% over your budget ($680), you could own the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8! (That's 80-240 240 35mm equivalent.) Since it collects four times as much light, it can use the 20D's highly accurate autofocus sensor, even in low light. Any cheaper lenses will only be useful outdoors, where there is enough light to go around (or if you have a powerful, long-range flash). On top of that, it will be very, very sharp throughout the focal range. Cheaper lenses are dull and soft unless they are stopped down heavily, and even then they are nothing to write home about.

A lot of people would tell you to get the Canon 70-200 f/4 ($520 - $545), and that would certainly be a better choice than the 70-300 f/4-5.6, but I would urge you to consider the significant value of f/2.8 glass, especially when it is almost within your grasp.

--
Daniel

then go with the Canon versonof the 70-300 IS that isn't a bad lens at all. might be a bit pricy for you, but its worth it

whoever recommended the Tamron i really hope was joking about the quality...comparable to a kit lens if that.

i would also reccomend a 28-135 IS...its nicely build and the IQ isn't bad at all

70-200 4l non-IS is alos a bit more money, but worth it, and the IQ is very comparable to the 70-300
--
-Machu

Yes, I realize speling is a chalunge for sum of us...I am inkluded in that grup, so pleze foregiv me.

The Beauty of IR

What is the expected use for this lens?

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

--
http://www.pbase.com/arshutterbug/

Daniel Browning said:

Technically, the answer to your question is the Sigma 70-300mm
F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO. It's only $220, but even with a $500 budget I
don't think there are any better values.

However, it would be a stupendous blunder to buy that lens. For
only 32% over your budget ($680), you could own the Sigma 50-150
f/2.8!

Click to expand...

+32% is quite a lot of money. When people are on a budget, it doesn't mean "I'm looking to spend about this", it means "I only have X amount to spend"!

That said, the Sigma 70-300 (or the Tamron 70-300) are both not bad lenses at all - they're darn good for the price, and you can find either of them well below $200, and get significantly longer than 150mm on the Sigma 50-150mm, along with macro capability. 2.8 is OK, but just 1 stop doesn't make it a no-brainer, especially for 4X the price!

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Xr Di.

Putting a price limit and choosing a zoom lens... you really limit your choices.

You don't really talk about what you shoot, how you shoot, what you appreciate more than anything else.

There are a lot of zooms out there that are cheaper than $500. Most of them have some serious flaws. Lenses are a compromise.

Cost, weight, sharpness, fast AF, good color, distortion, chromatic aberration, zoom range, sharpness at full zoom, sharpness wide open, sharpness at all f-stops, aperture range, bokeh. I'm sure there are other things I'm forgetting.

If you take away the zoom, there are PLENTY of great lenses for under $500. 50 f1.4. 85 f1.8. I think the 100 macro. I think maybe the 17-40 f4 L is right in that price range...

Most cheap lenses have a hard time with sharpness, especially wide open. Most zooms have a tough time at full zoom too. When people post sample shots, make sure they're not at f8, and at the wide angle end of the zoom. 70-300's, and 18-200's, and other consumer zooms will have terrible image quality at various settings.

Read the lens reviews at FredMiranda.com. lens recommendations here can run all over the spectrum. One person's junk is another person's diamond... and with the sheer quantity of newbies here responding with, "Dude, get the 17-85, it ROCKS!"... they only care about zoom range and little else.

The Tamron's weakness is AF speed. If you're going to chase 10 years old around a baseball diamond/soccer field... you better know where the action is, and focus ahead of time... cuz the Tamron is not a "sports" lens. Canon's 24-70 f2.8 L is your lens if you want a sports lens. better still, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is the king of all sports lenses... but then it's $1650 mail order.

Good luck.

--

'In 1983, the game of golf had a firm grip on the waist of my boxers and was administering the death wedgie. I had a dose of the atomic yips and after missing 10 of 11 cuts by a single shot, I was ready to quit and apply for a job as a wringer-outer for a one-armed window cleaner.'

• David Feherty

May i suggest the 50mm 1.8L $80, try it out first then decide where your shooting needs fall.
Do you want wider or farther or maybe very close-up.

A lens like this at a price it sells for is what you should consider, very light and very sharp, but built like a kids toy.

There isn't a lens much sharper than this at any price point and no zoom has a 1.8L.

I have to agree for the money the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Xr Di. is the lens to have.
--

28 is not wideangle on a 20D and therefore restrictive. Unless you hate wideangle, get a 17/18 - XX lens instead.