The perfect starting trifecta for a Canon is the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS. Fast and good. Of course, they're also crazy expensive. But throw-in a 1.4 extender and in three lenses you've covered a lot of ground.
If I had to pick one with which to start, it would be the 24-70. Wide enough to shoot landscapes and long enough for walking around and portraits. Plus, at 2.8, fast. If that's too expensive, then I'd look at the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. A nice, all-purpose lens, and the 1.8 is a freaking bargain.
I ended up getting the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/2.8L.
At one point I thought about the 17-40 f/4L and the 50 f/1.4, but I combined those lengths and price for the 24-70.
I LOVE my 20D.
Thanks, Owen. Lots of people (THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!...RedBull, Ginger, Jeffro, and yourself) seem to be working with a wide variable and the 70-200 f/2.8L or the 400L 5.6. Eliminating the middle lenses. It confirms what I was thinking. I have a feeling those 2 lengths are where I will be heading, perhaps (Gluwater) picking up a 50 later on? Maybe even used. At least now I have some direction!!!
The perfect starting trifecta for a Canon is the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS. Fast and good. Of course, they're also crazy expensive. But throw-in a 1.4 extender and in three lenses you've covered a lot of ground.
Not sure I agree. Especially as lenses hold their value so much, and, as you said, those lenses are crazy expensive.
If I were to start out, I would get (and I did): 17-40f4L, 70-200f4L, and the 50 1.4. Or maybe the 35 1.4. After that I would get the 10-22, which I LOVE. It is so much fun.
Then after you've got a good lens line-up, you can slowly trade up, sell your 70-200f4L for almost what you paid for it and get the 2.8 IS. The f4L is 1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS. No need to blow so much so fast and to maybe price yourself out of other lenses. Get in slowly and work your way up. The way glass holds its value, no sense not working your way up...
Thanks, Bob...I wondered about this lens for portaits. Will check it out some more.
:nono not the best FL range, IMO. Portraits generally call for longer FLs, and so if you want a zoom, 70-200 is popular for portraits, and don't ignore the 85 f/1.8 prime, a super lens. I'm speaking for Nikon or Canon glass here.
A good strategy. But fails to meet my need for speed. The 10-22 sounds awesome, never had a body that would take it.
Well, it does in the fixed 50 or 35. Short story is, not all of us can afford the line-up that you suggested (as awesome as it is) and need to compromise something. Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage.
Well, it does in the fixed 50 or 35. Short story is, not all of us can afford the line-up that you suggested (as awesome as it is) and need to compromise something. Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage.
Not sure I agree. Especially as lenses hold their value so much, and, as you said, those lenses are crazy expensive.
If I were to start out, I would get (and I did): 17-40f4L, 70-200f4L, and the 50 1.4. Or maybe the 35 1.4. After that I would get the 10-22, which I LOVE. It is so much fun.
Then after you've got a good lens line-up, you can slowly trade up, sell your 70-200f4L for almost what you paid for it and get the 2.8 IS. The f4L is 1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS. No need to blow so much so fast and to maybe price yourself out of other lenses. Get in slowly and work your way up. The way glass holds its value, no sense not working your way up...
First hit for the 10-22. As much as I love this lens, it would not be the first of second lens on my list. However since I now have it, I could never buy a 5d cos I would never be without it.
:nono not the best FL range, IMO. Portraits generally call for longer FLs, and so if you want a zoom, 70-200 is popular for portraits, and don't ignore the 85 f/1.8 prime, a super lens. I'm speaking for Nikon or Canon glass here.
I will give you a pfft 1 time for the 85mm. Both versions annoy me, build quality 1.8, optics (flare, CA) and the 1.8 is a hoover. The 1.2 is not a portrait lens, it is so unflattering to women its not funny. I used mine for sports/ indoor events until I got ride of it over a year ago.
I agree with you about the 28-70 being too short at times regarding portraiture, and I use it in addition to a 20/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. Most of my portraits are from using models for motorcycle and car shoots which causes me to use wider focal lengths.
Bob
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
I will give you a pfft 1 time for the 85mm. Both versions annoy me, build quality 1.8, optics (flare, CA) and the 1.8 is a hoover. The 1.2 is not a portrait lens, it is so unflattering to women its not funny. I used mine for sports/ indoor events until I got ride of it over a year ago.
You're one of the few who feel this way. I'd love to see some unflattering shots with the 1.2 - if you've got 'em. I use the 1.8, IMO it's sharp, light, fast focus, excellent build quality and I've yet to experience any issue wrt CA or Flare. And this is on a FF body, 1Ds Mark II and 5D.
Look at the first shot here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620 and in the caption there's a linky to a 100% crop - a situation where you'd expect lots of CA - and yet there's none..
All this said, I'm seeing a lot more portrait shooters using the 70-200L on a FF body. But I won't give up either lens
You're one of the few who feel this way. I'd love to see some unflattering shots with the 1.2 - if you've got 'em. I use the 1.8, IMO it's sharp, light, fast focus, excellent build quality and I've yet to experience any issue wrt CA or Flare. And this is on a FF body, 1Ds Mark II and 5D.
Look at the first shot here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620 and in the caption there's a linky to a 100% crop - a situation where you'd expect lots of CA - and yet there's none..
All this said, I'm seeing a lot more portrait shooters using the 70-200L on a FF body. But I won't give up either lens
They are on DVD's somewhere. I completely agree the lens is sharp, sharper than anything ive used I think, but when every pore is showing up on a headshot, you have to spend a lot of time blurring them out. I havent had one since I used only D60's so maybe the new bodies deal with it better. Look at all of the CA threads on FM about that lens.
I don't know if you remember when the CZ craze hit FM, but I was looking for a CZ 85/1.4 because of the coatings. The CA and flare problem wasnt there but it was a pain to MF it.
The 1.8 is light and fast, but the focus ring was stiff from the day I got it until I sold it last month. It would get stuck almost where I would have to pull it towards the body to make it turn. I've seen others like that. Thats not good build quality if you use FTM.
Your probably very cautious about backlite situations being a pro for a while but I do see CA around the black of the jacket next to the USM artifacts
I'm not saying either is a bad lens, they are probably some of the more popular lenses canon has. Either my style of photography or my skill level just doesnt work with them. Yes, Im an 85mm hater
Bob
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
First hit for the 10-22. As much as I love this lens, it would not be the first of second lens on my list. However since I now have it, I could never buy a 5d cos I would never be without it.
Stan
A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D.
Huh? I gotta say, if you see something objectionable there, then there isn't a lens on this earth that would satisfy you.
Im not saying its objectionable, im just saying there is CA
I think I am sensitive to it because if I see it at 100% on an image I toss it, whether its commercial or just family/fun.
I get bad CA with a 400/5.6 when a northern shovelers beak is wet and the sun is behind me. I toss the images. Fortunately, im not using that lens shooting a 23 T bucket with a polished aluminum engine
Bob
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
Can't say its a fav yet, but I'm really interested in the 17-55 f2.8, I guess it depends on how close to "L"ovley it performs. The 24-70 is not wide enough for me, and I wouldn't miss 55-70mm anyway. I recently sold my 50 1.4 which is a great lens, but either its too long or too short with the 20D, for situations when I need a really fast lens. I'm Still holding on to the 85mm 1.8 though, its such a great lens for the price and ends up at 136mm on the 20D which is very useful.
The 300mm f4L is also a fantastic lens for the price with IS, and room for a 1.4x TC even, not to mention very nice close focus, however that focus is a tad on the slow side.
Thank you for your thoughts on your favorite lenses. I pulled all the lenses and comments from the posts and put them together for my continued research. Thought you might like to review them as well...:):
Canon 10-22 sounds awesome love this lens, would not be the first or second lens on my list so much fun Tokina 12-24 to round out collection with an ultra-wide Nikon 12-24 DX Nothing beats my Nikon 12-24 DX! I love it Canon 16-35L 2.8 The perfect starting trifecta Fast and good crazy expensive A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D a few more stops is very nice ...incorrect here. It's ONE stop faster than the 17-40L makes some things possible that may have been impossible Canon 17-40 f4L build quality and the picture quality great walk about lens wide enough for most landscapes super nice don't use it as much getting L very soon looks like a very nice lens superb quality, clarity, color.....well everything Canon 17-55 f2.8 interested in can hit the range of both and then some Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 great bokeh wide open fanatically sharp by f5.6 Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 combined those lengths ( 17-40 f/4L and 50 f/1.4), and price for the 24-70 If I had to pick one with which to start Wide enough to shoot landscapes long enough for walking around portraits Plus, at 2.8, fast. crazy expensive The perfect starting trifecta at 2.8, fast not wide enough, wouldn't miss 55-70mm anyway (over Tamron) ..very fast autofocus, weather sealing and build quality IF you only anticipate being able to afford one lens.. - suggest a normal range zoom, like the Canon24-70 f2.8L or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di substantially larger and heavier ..focuses significantly faster Canon 28-70/L use it for portraits and advertising (models for motorcycle and car shoots) second hand example will save $$$. built like a tank not the best (portrait) FL range, IMO can't say whether it is worth paying roughly three times more than I paid for the Tamron Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron As I said, built like a tank Tamron 28-75 f2.8 rarely leaves my 20d absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8 very happy with as a walkaround lens well made a real bargain for the price Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron and to me this is a concern if I didn't spend time at dirt bike tracks..fast moving objects in dusty conditions I might have bought the Tamron instead smaller, lighter, and for me, balances better in my hand on a 20D Canon 35L would be just the ticket (inside) no money for that yet. Canon 50 f1.4 for some portrait stuff razor sharp great low-light performer silky smooth bokeh little long indoors on a 20D low light ability more than makes up for it. A nice, all-purpose lens too long or too short with the 20D Pentax 50 f1.4 for really low light stuff speed and flexibility creamy smooth wide open (similar to the Canon equivalent) fraction of the price isn't nearly as convenient, with manual focus and preset aperture requires an adapter just to fit great bargain Canon 50 f1.8 for really low light stuff speed and flexibility bit long for what I want inside (1.6 crop body). a freaking bargain Canon 24-105L f/4 my walk around lens light-weight (for an L) contrasty and sharp
Canon 85 f/1.8 don't ignore ...a super (portrait) lens great lens for the price ends up at 136mm on the 20D which is very useful. annoys me pfft optics (flare, CA) 1.8 is a hoover focus ring was stiff Yes, Im an 85mm hater The 1.8 is light and fast when every pore is showing up on a headshot, you have to spend a lot of time blurring them out Canon 85 f/1.2 annoys me not a portrait lens, it is so unflattering to women its not funny used mine for sports/ indoor events until I got ride of it the lens is sharp, sharper than anything ive used I think Canon 135L f/2 possibly the sharpest lens in Canon's Lineup Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS a work horse! shoot a lot of motocross racing performs great under all conditions family shots somewhat heavy weight crazy expensive No need to blow $ so much so fast popular for portraits the perfect starting trifecta everybody knows how much i love my canon 70-200 f2.8L Very fast auto-focus, great images, wonderful image stabilizer. for portraits and for sports Canon 70-200 f/4L another great lens being a city rat, I use it less often (than the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8). don't have as much use for the mid range lenses (uses a Canon 400mm F/5.6 for long) walk around for hours with it and the 20D holding both with just the handstrapfor some of the farther out stuff great bokeh wide open ranks as one of the best zoom lenses Canon has ever produced fanatically sharp by f5.6. Canon 1.4 teleconverter gets me to 448mm sharp even wide open Not really heavy at all 1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS fails to meet my need for speed Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR Wonderful bokeh VR is a real help with lower light conditions It's a big honker but well worth the effort to lug around. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 pretty nice (and crazy inexpensive) Canon 300/2.8L Very large and expensive but oh-my-gosh need to use it more often in order to justify the cost Canon 300mm f4L fantastic lens for the price with IS very nice close focus, however that focus is a tad on the slow side Canon 400 f/4 you will not hold up by hand for more than 2 shots..... Canon 400mm F/5.6 very sharp light & reletively cheap (for a 400)handle a teleconverter well for more distance being a prime. don't have it, will soon (also owns 70-200 f4) Oh i have it alright great for portraits at 100 yards not too shabby for land scapes at 239 000 miles
about the same weight & length give a bit as a 70-200 f/2.8
I was going to add that the 50 1.4 is also a great bargain, but since the 35 comes up, what holds much of my interest in the 17-55 is that it can hit the range of both and then some, of course, so could the 24-70 so it depends which end you want your m&ms on, and the latter is L.
Sigma also makes a pretty nice (and crazy inexpensive) 70-200 f2.8.
I forgot to mention that the majority of my shots would be handheld so the weight and speed of the lens would be a major consideration for me as well as cost. Thanks again!
This is not such a worry for when you buy those now superceded but fantastic 20D canons. It has amazing abitity shooting at high ISO's thus giving fast a shutter.
Speed is the all important thing with a long lens as you really need (in my opinion for most shots) at least 1/1000 to shoot hand held....canons ISO's let you do this & save gazillions of $ on going to a 400 f/4 which you will not hold up by hand for more than 2 shots.....the f5.6 is ..i think...about the same weight & length give a bit as a 70-200 f/2.8.
Canon 400mm F/5.6 very sharp lightning fast at Autofocus. light & reletively cheap (for a 400)handle a teleconverter well for more distance being a prime.don't have it, will soon (also owns 70-200 f4)
<------i think everybody knows how much i love my canon 70-200 f2.8L
however, i absolutely love my tamron 28-75 f2.8, and it rarely leaves my 20d. it's an absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain. even if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8.
<
i think everybody knows how much i love my canon 70-200 f2.8L
however, i absolutely love my tamron 28-75 f2.8, and it rarely leaves my 20d. it's an absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain. even if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8.
I have never used the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L so I really can't say whether it is worth paying roughly three times more than I paid for the Tamron. If money were no object I would certainly check it out since this is the focal range I use most. However, the Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron and to me this is a concern as I almost always shoot hand-held.
Thank you for your thoughts on your favorite lenses. I pulled all the lenses and comments from the posts and put them together for my continued research. Thought you might like to review them as well...:):
A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D a few more stops is very nice
Ginger was incorrect here. It's ONE stop faster than the 17-40L.
I have never used the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L so I really can't say whether it is worth paying roughly three times more than I paid for the Tamron. If money were no object I would certainly check it out since this is the focal range I use most. However, the Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron and to me this is a concern as I almost always shoot hand-held.
I bought the Canon 24-70/2.8L over the Tamron due to its very fast autofocus, weather sealing and build quality. However, if I didn't spend time at dirt bike tracks photographing fast moving objects in dusty conditions I might have bought the Tamron instead.
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Good hunting. Make your choice and wait for a bargain. The anticipation in finding the right lens at the right price is so much fun
Cheers
Stan
The perfect starting trifecta for a Canon is the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS. Fast and good. Of course, they're also crazy expensive. But throw-in a 1.4 extender and in three lenses you've covered a lot of ground.
If I had to pick one with which to start, it would be the 24-70. Wide enough to shoot landscapes and long enough for walking around and portraits. Plus, at 2.8, fast. If that's too expensive, then I'd look at the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. A nice, all-purpose lens, and the 1.8 is a freaking bargain.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Thanks, Owen. Lots of people (THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!...RedBull, Ginger, Jeffro, and yourself) seem to be working with a wide variable and the 70-200 f/2.8L or the 400L 5.6. Eliminating the middle lenses. It confirms what I was thinking. I have a feeling those 2 lengths are where I will be heading, perhaps (Gluwater) picking up a 50 later on? Maybe even used. At least now I have some direction!!!
Not sure I agree. Especially as lenses hold their value so much, and, as you said, those lenses are crazy expensive.
If I were to start out, I would get (and I did): 17-40f4L, 70-200f4L, and the 50 1.4. Or maybe the 35 1.4. After that I would get the 10-22, which I LOVE. It is so much fun.
Then after you've got a good lens line-up, you can slowly trade up, sell your 70-200f4L for almost what you paid for it and get the 2.8 IS. The f4L is 1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS. No need to blow so much so fast and to maybe price yourself out of other lenses. Get in slowly and work your way up. The way glass holds its value, no sense not working your way up...
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
:nono not the best FL range, IMO. Portraits generally call for longer FLs, and so if you want a zoom, 70-200 is popular for portraits, and don't ignore the 85 f/1.8 prime, a super lens. I'm speaking for Nikon or Canon glass here.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Well, it does in the fixed 50 or 35. Short story is, not all of us can afford the line-up that you suggested (as awesome as it is) and need to compromise something. Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Uh, you know.. you do have TWO kidneys.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
.......and you CAN get by with only one.......right???
First hit for the 10-22. As much as I love this lens, it would not be the first of second lens on my list. However since I now have it, I could never buy a 5d cos I would never be without it.
Stan
I agree with you about the 28-70 being too short at times regarding portraiture, and I use it in addition to a 20/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. Most of my portraits are from using models for motorcycle and car shoots which causes me to use wider focal lengths.
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
David...sound advice, to be sure! I will probably start out with one lens at a time!!! (well...maybe 2???)
You're one of the few who feel this way. I'd love to see some unflattering shots with the 1.2 - if you've got 'em. I use the 1.8, IMO it's sharp, light, fast focus, excellent build quality and I've yet to experience any issue wrt CA or Flare. And this is on a FF body, 1Ds Mark II and 5D.
Look at the first shot here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620 and in the caption there's a linky to a 100% crop - a situation where you'd expect lots of CA - and yet there's none..
All this said, I'm seeing a lot more portrait shooters using the 70-200L on a FF body. But I won't give up either lens
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I don't know if you remember when the CZ craze hit FM, but I was looking for a CZ 85/1.4 because of the coatings. The CA and flare problem wasnt there but it was a pain to MF it.
The 1.8 is light and fast, but the focus ring was stiff from the day I got it until I sold it last month. It would get stuck almost where I would have to pull it towards the body to make it turn. I've seen others like that. Thats not good build quality if you use FTM.
Your probably very cautious about backlite situations being a pro for a while but I do see CA around the black of the jacket next to the USM artifacts
I'm not saying either is a bad lens, they are probably some of the more popular lenses canon has. Either my style of photography or my skill level just doesnt work with them. Yes, Im an 85mm hater
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I think I am sensitive to it because if I see it at 100% on an image I toss it, whether its commercial or just family/fun.
I get bad CA with a 400/5.6 when a northern shovelers beak is wet and the sun is behind me. I toss the images. Fortunately, im not using that lens shooting a 23 T bucket with a polished aluminum engine
Phoenix, AZ
Canon Bodies
Canon and Zeiss Lenses
The 300mm f4L is also a fantastic lens for the price with IS, and room for a 1.4x TC even, not to mention very nice close focus, however that focus is a tad on the slow side.
Canon 10-22
sounds awesome
love this lens, would not be the first or second lens on my list
so much fun
Tokina 12-24
to round out collection with an ultra-wide
Nikon 12-24 DX
Nothing beats my Nikon 12-24 DX! I love it
Canon 16-35L 2.8
The perfect starting trifecta
Fast and good
crazy expensive
A 16-35 on the 5D gives you the same effective focal length as the 10-22 on the 1.6 crop 20D
a few more stops is very nice
...incorrect here. It's ONE stop faster than the 17-40L
makes some things possible that may have been impossible
Canon 17-40 f4L
build quality and the picture quality
great walk about lens
wide enough for most landscapes
super nice don't use it as much
getting L very soon
looks like a very nice lens
superb quality, clarity, color.....well everything
Canon 17-55 f2.8
interested in
can hit the range of both and then some
Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8
great bokeh wide open
fanatically sharp by f5.6
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8
combined those lengths ( 17-40 f/4L and 50 f/1.4), and price for the 24-70
If I had to pick one with which to start
Wide enough to shoot landscapes
long enough for walking around
portraits
Plus, at 2.8, fast.
crazy expensive
The perfect starting trifecta
at 2.8, fast
not wide enough, wouldn't miss 55-70mm anyway
(over Tamron) ..very fast autofocus, weather sealing and build quality
IF you only anticipate being able to afford one lens.. - suggest a normal range zoom, like the Canon24-70 f2.8L or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di
substantially larger and heavier ..focuses significantly faster
Canon 28-70/L
use it for portraits and advertising (models for motorcycle and car shoots)
second hand example will save $$$.
built like a tank
not the best (portrait) FL range, IMO
can't say whether it is worth paying roughly three times more than I paid for the Tamron
Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron
As I said, built like a tank
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
rarely leaves my 20d
absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain
if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8
very happy with as a walkaround lens
well made
a real bargain for the price
Canon also weighs two pounds more than the Tamron and to me this is a concern
if I didn't spend time at dirt bike tracks..fast moving objects in dusty conditions I might have bought the Tamron instead
smaller, lighter, and for me, balances better in my hand on a 20D
Canon 35L
would be just the ticket (inside)
no money for that yet.
Canon 50 f1.4
for some portrait stuff
razor sharp
great low-light performer
silky smooth bokeh
little long indoors on a 20D
low light ability more than makes up for it.
A nice, all-purpose lens
too long or too short with the 20D
Pentax 50 f1.4
for really low light stuff
speed and flexibility
creamy smooth wide open (similar to the Canon equivalent)
fraction of the price
isn't nearly as convenient, with manual focus and preset aperture
requires an adapter just to fit
great bargain
Canon 50 f1.8
for really low light stuff
speed and flexibility
bit long for what I want inside (1.6 crop body).
a freaking bargain
Canon 24-105L f/4
my walk around lens
light-weight (for an L)
contrasty and sharp
Canon 85 f/1.8
don't ignore ...a super (portrait) lens
great lens for the price
ends up at 136mm on the 20D which is very useful.
annoys me
pfft
optics (flare, CA)
1.8 is a hoover
focus ring was stiff
Yes, Im an 85mm hater
The 1.8 is light and fast
when every pore is showing up on a headshot, you have to spend a lot of time blurring them out
Canon 85 f/1.2
annoys me
not a portrait lens, it is so unflattering to women its not funny
used mine for sports/ indoor events until I got ride of it
the lens is sharp, sharper than anything ive used I think
Canon 135L f/2
possibly the sharpest lens in Canon's Lineup
Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS
a work horse!
shoot a lot of motocross racing
performs great under all conditions
family shots
somewhat heavy weight
crazy expensive
No need to blow $ so much so fast
popular for portraits
the perfect starting trifecta
everybody knows how much i love my canon 70-200 f2.8L
Very fast auto-focus, great images, wonderful image stabilizer.
for portraits and for sports
Canon 70-200 f/4L
another great lens
being a city rat, I use it less often (than the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8).
don't have as much use for the mid range lenses (uses a Canon 400mm F/5.6 for long)
walk around for hours with it and the 20D holding both with just the handstrapfor some of the farther out stuff
great bokeh wide open
ranks as one of the best zoom lenses Canon has ever produced
fanatically sharp by f5.6.
Canon 1.4 teleconverter gets me to 448mm
sharp even wide open
Not really heavy at all
1/3 the price of the 2.8 IS
fails to meet my need for speed
Better a little bit of speed than the mortgage
Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR
Wonderful bokeh
VR is a real help with lower light conditions
It's a big honker but well worth the effort to lug around.
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
pretty nice (and crazy inexpensive)
Canon 300/2.8L
Very large and expensive but oh-my-gosh
need to use it more often in order to justify the cost
Canon 300mm f4L
fantastic lens for the price with IS
very nice close focus, however that focus is a tad on the slow side
Canon 400 f/4
you will not hold up by hand for more than 2 shots.....
Canon 400mm F/5.6
very sharp light & reletively cheap (for a 400)handle a teleconverter well for more distance being a prime.
don't have it, will soon (also owns 70-200 f4)
Oh i have it alright
great for portraits at 100 yards
not too shabby for land scapes at 239 000 miles
about the same weight & length give a bit as a 70-200 f/2.8
I was going to add that the 50 1.4 is also a great bargain, but since the 35 comes up, what holds much of my interest in the 17-55 is that it can hit the range of both and then some, of course, so could the 24-70 so it depends which end you want your m&ms on, and the latter is L.
Sigma also makes a pretty nice (and crazy inexpensive) 70-200 f2.8.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
This is not such a worry for when you buy those now superceded but fantastic 20D canons. It has amazing abitity shooting at high ISO's thus giving fast a shutter.
Speed is the all important thing with a long lens as you really need (in my opinion for most shots) at least 1/1000 to shoot hand held....canons ISO's let you do this & save gazillions of $ on going to a 400 f/4 which you will not hold up by hand for more than 2 shots.....the f5.6 is ..i think...about the same weight & length give a bit as a 70-200 f/2.8.
Oh i have it alright.
Remember its great for portraits at 100 yards
& not too shabby for land scapes at 239 000 miles.
.
Nothing beats my Nikon 12-24 DX! I love it
however, i absolutely love my tamron 28-75 f2.8, and it rarely leaves my 20d. it's an absolutely amazing all-around lens and is a bargain. even if money were no object, i'd take the tamron over the canon 24-70 f2.8.
Ooh. Maybe you should go back to film
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Ginger was incorrect here. It's ONE stop faster than the 17-40L.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu