Advice on the best portrait/walkaround lens for 20D

benignor

Hi,

I have a 20D with a few various-purpose pieces of glass (see my signatue), and not being a pro by any stretch of the imagition, my peers, who are also not photographers, tend to look at my gear with profound awe. But shamefully as it is to recognize it, I suspect I look pretty silly to them when I have to fumble with a big ol' gadget bag, and switch lenses and do all kinds of other esoteric stuff to get the type of "plain vanilla" portrait or general landscape shot that their puny little point and shoots are designed for.

Which is a long way to say, which do people think is the best walkaround lens to pair with the 20D? I do have a moderately severe case of "L" lense fever, but can live with the occasional non-L glass if quality merits it (e.g., my beloved 100 f/2.8. Thanks!

Eric&Susan

I use the tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di for my walk around lens. I love this thing. Pics compared to other L lens in the same focal range, from what I've seen and read, seem to be almost as good as the L but then again the tamron only costs around $300 for a good used copy.

Eric

benignor

Thanks much. Do you have some examples of pics shot with this lens on the 20D?

Thanks,

Eric&Susan wrote:

I use the tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di for my walk around lens. I love this thing. Pics compared to other L lens in the same focal range, from what I've seen and read, seem to be almost as good as the L but then again the tamron only costs around $300 for a good used copy.

Eric

Mongrel

Hello Benignor and...
welcome to Dgrin!

Well, I read your post and the lens that *immediately* came to mind is the EF-S 17-85mm IS. I don't own one myself, but I have a 20D and I am constantly considering picking up this lens for just what you described. The lens has it's opponents, but MANY photographers I respect-including our house pro Andy Williams-have spoken highly of it. On a 1.6x crop factor body like the 20D, this lens offers great coverage and has the advantage of IS (image stabilization). I can't guarantee 'L' like results, but I've seen some darn fine shootin' done with it. Put this lens on your 20D throw a fast prime in your pocket with a spare battery and cf card and your ready for almost anything.

Now, the one caveat to this lens is that it is an EF-S mount and is currently limited to the Canon 20D\XT\Digital Rebel. I don't believe as some have opined that Canon will desert the EF-S lens mount anytime soon, BUT IF you are considering moving up to a 1 Series or 5D body remember you won't be able to use it on them.

One of my *dream* kits for traveling would include this lens and looks like this-

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-85 IS
EF 70-300 IS
EF 50mm f/1.4

I say that having available several L primes-albeit on the long side, and some very nice (but heavy) fast zooms. The 17-85 isn't necessarily 'cheap' but it has come down somewhat, as has the 10-22. Makes them even more attractive in my opinion.

NOW-having typed all of that. IF you are a high roller , the lens that comes to mind (and actually one I'd prefer if I had the money), is the notorious : Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS! Now that is a real sweat lens that frees you from the EF-S constraint, but limits (slightly) you on the wide end. Again, house-pro Andy Williams I recall, puts his seal of approval on this lens as well.

So, want a killer 20D 'walk-around' combo? How about this:

EF-S 10-22
EF 24-105 f/4L IS

(ahhh....spending someone else's money is so easy.... )

Good luck and good light,

Mongrel

benignor

Hi, Mongrel:

This is incredibly helpful. Thank you so much for the detailed response. I was looking at the 17-85 IS a moment ago. It is highly spoken of in the FredMiranda forum, and it is certainly an option that appears very worth considering. Now, in the first travel combo that you propose, what would be the niche for the 50 mm f/1.4? Is it there just to have a very fast lens available? Or do you envision a specific, common situation in which the other three would not suffice?

Thankls again!

Mongrel wrote:

welcome to Dgrin!

Well, I read your post and the lens that *immediately* came to mind is the EF-S 17-85mm IS. I don't own one myself, but I have a 20D and I am constantly considering picking up this lens for just what you described. The lens has it's opponents, but MANY photographers I respect-including our house pro Andy Williams-have spoken highly of it. On a 1.6x crop factor body like the 20D, this lens offers great coverage and has the advantage of IS (image stabilization). I can't guarantee 'L' like results, but I've seen some darn fine shootin' done with it. Put this lens on your 20D throw a fast prime in your pocket with a spare battery and cf card and your ready for almost anything.

Now, the one caveat to this lens is that it is an EF-S mount and is currently limited to the Canon 20D\XT\Digital Rebel. I don't believe as some have opined that Canon will desert the EF-S lens mount anytime soon, BUT IF you are considering moving up to a 1 Series or 5D body remember you won't be able to use it on them.

One of my *dream* kits for traveling would include this lens and looks like this-

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-85 IS
EF 70-300 IS
EF 50mm f/1.4

I say that having available several L primes-albeit on the long side, and some very nice (but heavy) fast zooms. The 17-85 isn't necessarily 'cheap' but it has come down somewhat, as has the 10-22. Makes them even more attractive in my opinion.

NOW-having typed all of that. IF you are a high roller , the lens that comes to mind (and actually one I'd prefer if I had the money), is the notorious : Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS! Now that is a real sweat lens that frees you from the EF-S constraint, but limits (slightly) you on the wide end. Again, house-pro Andy Williams I recall, puts his seal of approval on this lens as well.

So, want a killer 20D 'walk-around' combo? How about this:

EF-S 10-22
EF 24-105 f/4L IS

(ahhh....spending someone else's money is so easy.... )

Good luck and good light,

Mongrel

Mongrel

Hi again Benignor...
well...erm...niche? for the 50?....:D

Let's see...

#1 I'm 'old school' and just have to have one in my bag

#2 Low-light, natural light, ambient light, when you need a higher shutter speed than the IS can provide. Think-indoor party, dinner, whatever, where you don't want to use a flash.

#3 if we are talking about the 50mm f/1.8, it's so cheap you can't afford not to have one!

Obviously, you could eliminate it or go with a different prime, like say the 24L or 35L or 35 f/2.0 or 28 f/1.8 etc. I just like having a prime between say 28 and 85 on me at all times.

Take care,

Mongrel

pathfinder

I looked at your lenses, Benignor.

The advise seems evenly split between the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di and a Canon 50mm prime f1.4 preferred. No real difference in price between them.

Both are excellent choices - I own and use both of them. The Tamron is a little longer reach for portraits which was a stated purpose. The 50mm f1.4 will give better low light performance.

One other choice is the 85mm f1.8 - excellent lens, fast focusing and sharp with good color and contrast.

You will not be unhappy with any of these I suspect.

flipsidecreations

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
I have been using the tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di to shoot both portraits and weddings. The excellent clarity and reasonably fast focus speed is great. My images certainly hold their own against other photographers at the studio who are shooting with Canon L series lenses.

Eric&Susan

benignor wrote:

Thanks much. Do you have some examples of pics shot with this lens on the 20D?

Thanks,

I shoot with the 300d but this was taken last weekend with the tamron and the 300d:




Eric

Mongrel

With all due respect to my fellow contributors...
I still hold to my original suggestions given the information that Benignor provided below:

benignor wrote:

Hi,

switch lenses and do all kinds of other esoteric stuff to get the type of "plain vanilla" portrait or general landscape shot that their puny little point and shoots are designed for.

which do people think is the best walkaround lens to pair with the 20D? I do have a moderately severe case of "L" lense fever, but can live with the occasional non-L glass if quality merits it (e.g., my beloved 100 f/2.8. Thanks!

I say that as one who owns and has used the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 *extensively* over the last two years. While I have great respect for this bargain basement gem, it has it's limitations imho. In particular-it's too tight on the wide end and too short on the long end for a "walkaround lens". I *always* carry an additional lens or two when I am 'walking around' because of this.

For a general purpose lens that would cover *most* of the bases referred to by Benignor the 17-85 would work very well. Add the 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 (depending on budget of course) and you just covered the portrait aspect *better* than the Tamron does. Not that the 17-85 can't take portraits, but because you have better control over dof. Given a sufficient distance behind the subject even shooting the 17-85 at f/4 or f/5.6 won't be all that bad for the occasional candid or 'party' type shot.

And again, the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS would be even better in this capacity although its too tight on the wide end for my liking. Toss in a wider prime, or better yet a Canon 10-22 to cover the wide range if desired, and you have another great option for a 'walkaround' kit. It will require a lens change now and again, but for the advantages I think it's quite worth it.

Either the 17-85 or the 24-105 are much more practical in the role of an 'all-arounder' then the Tamron 28-75 is-again IMHO.

Take care,

Mongrel

pathfinder

Mongrel wrote:

I still hold to my original suggestions given the information that Benignor provided below:



I say that as one who owns and has used the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 *extensively* over the last two years. While I have great respect for this bargain basement gem, it has it's limitations imho. In particular-it's too tight on the wide end and too short on the long end for a "walkaround lens". I *always* carry an additional lens or two when I am 'walking around' because of this.

For a general purpose lens that would cover *most* of the bases referred to by Benignor the 17-85 would work very well. Add the 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 (depending on budget of course) and you just covered the portrait aspect *better* than the Tamron does. Not that the 17-85 can't take portraits, but because you have better control over dof. Given a sufficient distance behind the subject even shooting the 17-85 at f/4 or f/5.6 won't be all that bad for the occasional candid or 'party' type shot.

And again, the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS would be even better in this capacity although its too tight on the wide end for my liking. Toss in a wider prime, or better yet a Canon 10-22 to cover the wide range if desired, and you have another great option for a 'walkaround' kit. It will require a lens change now and again, but for the advantages I think it's quite worth it.

Either the 17-85 or the 24-105 are much more practical in the role of an 'all-arounder' then the Tamron 28-75 is-again IMHO.

Take care,

Mongrel

Mongrel, the 24-105 L IS is a great walk around lens on a full frame camera, but I thought there was a budget limitation of around $500.

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di is not very wide on an APS sensor camera I agree, But 1.6x 75=120mm - more than long enough for the stated portrait usage.

The Tamron does not focus as fast as a USM lens either, but it can provide very nice sharp images

This motor was shot at the BMW rally last summer with a 20D and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. The only lens I took on my bike.

[imgl]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/29612968-L.jpg[/imgl]

Mongrel

Hi Pathfinder,
I didn't see any reference to a budget in any of Benignor's posts

He did say-

benignor wrote:

Hi,

I do have a moderately severe case of "L" lense fever, but can live with the occasional non-L glass if quality merits it (e.g., my beloved 100 f/2.8. Thanks!

which is why I brought up the 'L'.

Now, if Benignor prefers the wide side of things the 17-85 gives him what he won't get with the Tamron, namely 17mm to 27mm coverage. If he prefers to go a bit longer *and* has L fever, then the 24-105 gives him quite a bit more reach (120 vs 168).

Personally, my 'walk-about' lens is actually the Canon 28-135 IS. I usually pair it up with my Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-f/4 because I like having an option on the wide end, but the 28-135 is a very versatile range. And again, I have the Tamron 28-75; it sits in my bag when I am just out and about.

Great shot! by the way

Take care,

Mongrel

bruce20D

I have a 20D with 2 lenses ... the 50mm f/1.8 and the 17-85mm IS

I agree that the 17-85 is a great lens, but I still have the 50 on my camera, about 75% of the time, cuz its soo small and light. I take my camera everywhere in a small backpack.

For example, I shot this pic thru the window of my car on the way home from work (with the 50 mm lens) The moment when the light was "right" was very short, so I had to act fast

Bob Bell

pathfinder wrote:

[imgl]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/29612968-L.jpg[/imgl]

Sorry for being OT. Pathfinder that is a great image of the motor. I really like how contrasty the image is. Do you have a special action for being able to do that? I have been trying to figure out a good B&W workflow but I either lose the 3d affect or I lose the contrast.

I had to look at your body because it looks like its from a B&W slide

Mike Lane

The 17-85 EF-S has served me quite well. My big problem with it is the CA. Lots and lots of CA. If CA is possible in a given shot, then you're likely to get it with the 17-85. What's more, the lens hood was retartedly hard to find for the longest time. I finally got one and it helped ... a little.

For my purposes a 28-75mm lens wouldn't work. I love love love being able to have 17mm on the wide end. The only better option would be the 10-22. But then I'd have to shoot shoot shoot, change lenses, shoot shoot shoot some more (then I'd change to the 50-500 Bigma of mine to shoot shoot shoot some more ).

FWIW, the 17-85 ends up being a 27-136 on the 20D. So I think I'd really like to have a 5D (or 1Ds mkII ) and the 24-105. But wouldn't we all?

gtc

canon efs-60mm macro
i use the canon efs-60mm macro for my portraits and for general walk around

its not wide but for portraits you want some telephoto compression and some distance from the model-on my 20d with the 1.6X crop its almost 100mm equivalent-the great advantage of the lens is that if you tire of models and buildings etc then you can get down and shoot macro at 1:1.You can't do that with so called macro zooms,well not at 1:1.

its a very sharp lens,but like all macros not very fast,being f2.8.its also not cheap,being a macro.

for low light i use my old manual focus pentax takumar 50/1.4 with a cameraquest adapter ring.i am also wanting a pentax 85/1.8 or 85/1.9 smc takumar for live performances.

with a wide in my pocket(coming soon) then I would have things well covered.

most of the time however i carry a lowepro minitrekker II with 50 tak,60 efs,135 ($10.00 Sun,yes $10.00),200 tak and 300mm tak and swap lenses to suit- i am not a big fan of zooms but may consider one down the track when i have my range of primes complete.

hope this helps

benignor

Hi, everybody:

I wanted to thank all for great advice and great sample pics also. I have been away from the computer for a little while, and just saw all the new posts. Obviously budget is critical in deciding what is the best lens (or combination thereof) for my needs. I am going on a trip in late February, and wanted to have such a lens in my gadget bag by then. I was originally hoping not to spend more than $1K, but since I am hearing all this great advice about more than one lens to really have a complete walk-around kit, perhaps I could go up to $1.5K.

I'll follow up tomorrow - gotta get to bed sometime!

Thanks,

gtc wrote:

i use the canon efs-60mm macro for my portraits and for general walk around

its not wide but for portraits you want some telephoto compression and some distance from the model-on my 20d with the 1.6X crop its almost 100mm equivalent-the great advantage of the lens is that if you tire of models and buildings etc then you can get down and shoot macro at 1:1.You can't do that with so called macro zooms,well not at 1:1.

its a very sharp lens,but like all macros not very fast,being f2.8.its also not cheap,being a macro.

for low light i use my old manual focus pentax takumar 50/1.4 with a cameraquest adapter ring.i am also wanting a pentax 85/1.8 or 85/1.9 smc takumar for live performances.

with a wide in my pocket(coming soon) then I would have things well covered.

most of the time however i carry a lowepro minitrekker II with 50 tak,60 efs,135 ($10.00 Sun,yes $10.00),200 tak and 300mm tak and swap lenses to suit- i am not a big fan of zooms but may consider one down the track when i have my range of primes complete.

hope this helps

pathfinder

Mongrel wrote:

I didn't see any reference to a budget in any of Benignor's posts


which is why I brought up the 'L'.


Take care,

Mongrel

I reviewed his posts and agree that he did not specify a budget. My mistake. In that case, he might like the 24-105 L IS. I certainly do. See Andy's post about the 24-105 L here in the Camera threads.

pathfinder

Bob Bell wrote:

Sorry for being OT. Pathfinder that is a great image of the motor. I really like how contrasty the image is. Do you have a special action for being able to do that? I have been trying to figure out a good B&W workflow but I either lose the 3d affect or I lose the contrast.

I had to look at your body because it looks like its from a B&W slide

Bob, at the top of the menu bar here on dgrin is a tab labled "How To"

If you click on that, and then on Tutorials, the first two tutorials that you will see relate to B&W conversion. The image was shot with a 20D as a color image( the color image is in my gallery but I don't care for it - the engine was yellow and hot pink - http://Pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/29613004-Ti.jpg It was shot with fill flash in AV mode - a trick I really like with the 20D.

If my memory serves me, that image was done by Greg Gorhams method which is in a pdf at his website - http://www.gormanphotography.com/gorman.html - Very neat site too.

But it could have been done via channel mixer and a toning layer also as dicsussed in the tutorials mentioned above.

Jamoke

Depends on the Photographer
It really depends on the person - I carry my 20D around almost everywhere I go (Yup it's about 5 feet away and I'm on a laptop). Some people like Primes, some people like Zoom lenses, some people require Macro, and others require Image stablizer. THe variety of recommended lenses is based on the fact that each person has a different preference. I prefer the 50mm and 85mm with a 2X teleconvertor. Both lenses are 1.8 and so with the 2X become 100, and 170 with a f/3.5. So effectively I carry a 80, 135, 160, and 270 prime lenses.

My wife prefers a bulkier lens, she loves the 28-135 IS USM. she's overly paranoid about switching lenses (sneser Dust paranoia), but loves the range, and Image Stabilizer provided by this lens.

kapalua

tamron sp 24-135
try the tamron sp 24-135. wider reach than the tamron 28-75, but just as sharp.

kapalua

tamron sp 24-135
try the tamron sp 24-135. wider reach than the tamron 28-75, but just as sharp.