Lenses to buy?

FourEyes45 · May 2, 2005

Hello Gang,
Newbie here. Im ordering the Canon EOS-20D from B&H. Now for which lens should I order?:dunno
The EF-S 17-85mm/f4.5 Or the EF-L 17-40mm/f4.0 USM lens.
and for a 2nd lens the EF-L 70-200mm/f2.0 for wildlife shots.
Thanks for any help you might give.
Walter

Steve Cavigliano · May 2, 2005

FourEyes45 wrote:

Hello Gang,
Newbie here. Im ordering the Canon EOS-20D from B&H. Now for which lens should I order?
The EF-S 17-85mm/f4.5 Or the EF-L 17-40mm/f4.0 USM lens.
and for a 2nd lens the EF-L 70-200mm/f2.0 for wildlife shots.
Thanks for any help you might give.
Walter

Welcome Walter

Congrats on your new gear

As far as which lenses you should consider, what types of shooting do you plan on doing? All 3 lenses you mention are very nice, but you may be able to look at alternatives that can save you some $. The 70-200mm F2.8 is a great all-around lens. It's a bit short for wildlife/birds, but nice for sports and portraits (especially if you get the IS version).

Again, welcome to Dgrin

Steve

ChrisJ · May 2, 2005

FourEyes45 wrote:

Hello Gang,
Newbie here. Im ordering the Canon EOS-20D from B&H. Now for which lens should I order?
The EF-S 17-85mm/f4.5 Or the EF-L 17-40mm/f4.0 USM lens.
and for a 2nd lens the EF-L 70-200mm/f2.0 for wildlife shots.
Thanks for any help you might give.
Walter

I went with the EF-S 17-85, simply for the flexibility. I'm happy with it. Definitely a bit of distortion on the wide end, but it's easily correctable. Wish I could afford one the longer L lenses....

Chris

USAIR · May 2, 2005

Walter
Welcome to Dgrin

It really does matter what kind of shooting you will do.

My first lens I want with 24-70 f/2.8 L
Very nice lens I do most of my shooting with this lens

I also have the 70-200 f/2.8 L
The one Steve mentioned also very nice has a little more reach
But might be short for wildlife

Fred

whamilton101 · May 2, 2005

I find it useful to have a f2.8 wide lens (28-70 or something similar to the 18-85)

The f2.8 makes a big difference in low light settings, and i find myself shooting in low light very often.

binghott · May 2, 2005

i got the tamron 28-75 f2.8, it's absolutely awesome and almost never leaves my camera. my pride and joy is my 70-200 f2.8L, it's really my baby, i use it for sports.

mercphoto · May 2, 2005

FourEyes45 wrote:

and for a 2nd lens the EF-L 70-200mm/f2.0 for wildlife shots.

Too short. Consider the 400/5.6L prime instead. Less costly too.

lynnesite · May 3, 2005

binghott wrote:

i got the tamron 28-75 f2.8, it's absolutely awesome and almost never leaves my camera. my pride and joy is my 70-200 f2.8L, it's really my baby, i use it for sports.

I'm with you, 2.8 is the way to go if you can afford it. My baby is also the 70-200 2.8L IS, but the sort of sports I shoot it's ideal for. Use it with the 1.4 TC II for wildlife, still a little short. Had their f4 version, which is a gorgeous light lens, but needed the extra stop.

I have struggled the past 2 1/2 yrs with a 24-85 Canon USM, while it's better on the 20D than on the 10D, I've really missed the low light abilities and the gorgeous glass of the Ls. Have a Canon 1.8 for lowest indoor light. As a pro, I just bit the bullet and ordered a 24-70L

Going to a shoot this week in Texas where I'll try leaving the 24-70 on the 10D and the 70-200 on the 20D. Shooting horses you don't want less than a 100mm (real, not mag factor) focal length or they'll be distorted. But that's just what I mostly shoot, will do landscapes and people with the 24-70. So....what do you shoot?

Canon 24-85 f4/5.6 USM now officially for sale...has had very light use.

ubergeek · May 3, 2005

Canon 24-85mm
Isn't the 24-85mm an f/3.5-4.5?

lynnesite wrote:

Canon 24-85 f4/5.6 USM now officially for sale...has had very light use.

Chase · May 4, 2005

Im looking into the sigma 24-70 f2.8

Its about 400 dollars as opposed to the L's 1100 or so. I would get the tamron 28-75, but i already have a lense that goes to 28, and want something a little wider and a lot faster

Also on my wish list...... sigma 10-20 (for ultrawide and when it comes out), tamron 90mm f2.8 macro (or the 100mm canon macro), sigma 100-300 f4 and a 1.4 TC for doing daytime sports stuff.

My true wishlist includes a 10-22 canon, a 24-70L a 70-200 f2.8 IS (i rented it once and now have an almost craving to own one. needless to say, renting it was a mistake), and a 100-400 IS....... one can dream cant they? :cry

binghott · May 4, 2005

tamron 28-75 is a fantastic lens, i'm super happy with it.

FourEyes45 · May 4, 2005

Hi Gang,
I want to thank each of you for all the information. Think I will order the EF-L24-70mm/f 2.8 and the canon 580 flash to start off with and then next mo. order the EF-L 70-200 mm/f2.8 and the 3oomm or 4oo L lens then.
Its nice to find so many people willing to help.
Thanks Again
Walter

binghott · May 4, 2005

FourEyes45 wrote:

Think I will order the EF-L24-70mm/f 2.8

normally i'm a huge canon supporter, but my tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is awesome. if you have money to burn, then by all means, go for the 24-70mm 2.8L (it's not ef-L), but please check out the reviews on fredmiranda.com for the tamron, it's a superb lens and less than $400. of course, if you need those extra 4mm on the wide end go for the canon. you'll be very happy with either lens, but with the tamron you'll be happy and have about $800 extra in your pocket.

-barry

Khaos · May 4, 2005

binghott wrote:

normally i'm a huge canon supporter, but my tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is awesome. if you have money to burn, then by all means, go for the 24-70mm 2.8L (it's not ef-L), but please check out the reviews on fredmiranda.com for the tamron, it's a superb lens and less than $400. of course, if you need those extra 4mm on the wide end go for the canon. you'll be very happy with either lens, but with the tamron you'll be happy and have about $800 extra in your pocket.

-barry

I agree with you. I liked mine, but landed up getting rid of it because I caught prime fever.

If I decided I needed a walk around zoom again, I'd probably rebuy the Tamron, but if I wanted to use it for work, I'd probably go with the Canon. L glass, as you know by your 70-200, is built like a tank and it can withstand a lot more use\abuse. Also, there are a few gripes that come along with the Tamron. Yes, image quailty is good, but the movement of the outer ring during AF is irritating and the AF\MF switch is easily switched. I found too often being in MF when I was trying to get a shot.

Stan · May 4, 2005

Before you get carried away by the whole L thang the 18-55 is a good lens. To tell the difference you will have to be shooting extreme DOF, light or motion shots, much of which can be taken care of by the ISO ability of the 20D.Then as a second lens the 55-200 will cover you to 200mm, ample distance until you get the feel of the camera. Until you decide to spend $1,000's on lenses.

These two lenses give you a cover of 18-200mm for under $200. When you decide what turns you on then buy L. Until then there is loads of glass out there to buy for the one shot of the year

binghott · May 5, 2005

Khaos wrote:

L glass, as you know by your 70-200, is built like a tank and it can withstand a lot more use\abuse.

very true, but in the worst case that my tamron gets damaged, i could buy a new one without too much trouble,

Khaos wrote:

the movement of the outer ring during AF is irritating and the AF\MF switch is easily switched. I found too often being in MF when I was trying to get a shot.

haven't had either problem. . . yet. . .

Stan wrote:

Before you get carried away by the whole L thang the 18-55 is a good lens. To tell the difference you will have to be shooting extreme DOF, light or motion shots, much of which can be taken care of by the ISO ability of the 20D.Then as a second lens the 55-200 will cover you to 200mm, ample distance until you get the feel of the camera.

i'm not a big fan of the 18-55mm because the aperture isn't big enough and i personally have few uses for a wide lens. for me, local concerts and some indoor sports don't have good lighting and flash might not be appropriate, so it's necessary to get something with a better aperture.

bkriete · May 5, 2005

Yeah, the aperture on the 18-55 is the real killer for me. Too slow for anything inside.

Stan · May 5, 2005

bkriete wrote:

Yeah, the aperture on the 18-55 is the real killer for me. Too slow for anything inside.

Have you tried outside

FourEyes45 · May 10, 2005

Lens to buy
Hello Gang,
MY Canon 20D and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens just landed at the front door.
Compared to my Little Nikon 990 its big.

Just hope I get use to the lens before long. My wife is going to order the 70-200 for my early Christmas gift. We will be touring the US starting in June hope to be gone for at least 60 days.
This Newbe thanks all of you. Have a great day.
Walter

ChrisJ · May 10, 2005

FourEyes45 wrote:

We will be touring the US starting in June hope to be gone for at least 60 days.
Walter

Have a great trip! I've gone cross country 3 times (at varying speeds) and have never regretted it. Post some pics along the way!

:

leebase · May 13, 2005

FourEyes45 wrote:

Hello Gang,
MY Canon 20D and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens just landed at the front door.
Compared to my Little Nikon 990 its big. Just hope I get use to the lens before long. My wife is going to order the 70-200 for my early Christmas gift. We will be touring the US starting in June hope to be gone for at least 60 days.
This Newbe thanks all of you. Have a great day.
Walter

Congrats....looking forward to seeing your early shots. You certainly are starting with fantastic equipment.

BTW, I too started off with the Coolpix 990

Lee

Lenses to buy?

Comments