Advice needed - help me spend my money

Justiceiro · June 13, 2006

OK,

so I have trolled through fred miranda and every other site like it, read the reviews of a number of lenses, ad nauseam. The problem is, without actually playing with any of them, its hard to get a feel for how they actually are, and I suspect the reviewers on other sites of base and rabid partisanship.

So, I have $650-800 to spend on a lens for my 20D. I am currently sporting the following:

Zooms;
18-55 regular kit lens
35-135 USM Canon EF

Primes;
50mm f1.8 mark II
300mm f4 MG Orestegor (all manual)

I principally shoot Street and Doc, with a little architecture (cityscape) kind of stuff. What I have on my site here is typical of what I shoot.

So what shoudl I do? Go for a quality wide zoom? Pick up something in the 70-200 range? Blow it all on a 17-40L? Or go the cheaper sigma/tamron/tokina kind of route.

I really love the faster lenses, but all of the fixed aperture zooms from canon are way out of my price range. I really really cannot go above $800- even that is pushing it- my wife/CFO can only take so much provocation.

Any advice would be appreciated. Also, if you live in the NYC area and would like to test out a 300mm lens in exchangwe for me testing out one of your wide lenses, that would be great. I don't actually know any other photographers, except for a pro guy down the street who uses a Hassy with a digital back. My problems garner only his scorn. :cry

THE TOUCH · June 13, 2006

Justiceiro -

I'm no professional on lenses but here's my thoughts...

I have a 20D as well and shoot primarily candids. I've been more than happy with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm F/4.0-5.6 USM IS (INFO). Priced at ~$510.00. I would love to have the 16-35L or the 17-40L but the top end (40mm) is just too small for me. The 17-85 always seems to be the perfect range.

I also use the 10-22mm and just purchases the 100-400mm. Tomorrow is the day!!! I used the 18-55 and the 55-200 forever and once I upgraded I could not believe the difference!!!

Hope this helps!

Jeffro · June 13, 2006

Justiceiro wrote:

OK,

so I have trolled through fred miranda and every other site like it, read the reviews of a number of lenses, ad nauseam. The problem is, without actually playing with any of them, its hard to get a feel for how they actually are, and I suspect the reviewers on other sites of base and rabid partisanship.

So, I have $650-800 to spend on a lens for my 20D. I am currently sporting the following:

Zooms;
18-55 regular kit lens
35-135 USM Canon EF

Primes;
50mm f1.8 mark II
300mm f4 MG Orestegor (all manual)

I principally shoot Street and Doc, with a little architecture (cityscape) kind of stuff. What I have on my site here is typical of what I shoot.

So what shoudl I do? Go for a quality wide zoom? Pick up something in the 70-200 range? Blow it all on a 17-40L? Or go the cheaper sigma/tamron/tokina kind of route.

I really love the faster lenses, but all of the fixed aperture zooms from canon are way out of my price range. I really really cannot go above $800- even that is pushing it- my wife/CFO can only take so much provocation.

Any advice would be appreciated. Also, if you live in the NYC area and would like to test out a 300mm lens in exchangwe for me testing out one of your wide lenses, that would be great. I don't actually know any other photographers, except for a pro guy down the street who uses a Hassy with a digital back. My problems garner only his scorn. :cry

With the lens ranges you've got covered and the cash you have available, I'd suggest the 70-200L F4, to extend your reach. It's $544.95 after rebate on B&H. The tripod collar is $119.50...which brings you to $664.45, giving you $135.55 to cover taxes and shipping cost....what a deal:D You could later add the 1.4x TC for $284.95, giving you even more reach. But if you are looking to get excellent results in the 18-55 range that you are covering with the kit lens, you would be amazed with the quality of the 17-40L F4.

Of course I'm a believer in buying Canon glass. I hate it when someone spends alot on a camera, and then skimps on the glass. I'd rather have a Rebel with L-glass than a Mark II or 5D with "after market" glass.....but that's just me...or is it?

I love my 20D with L-glass attached. The stares are nice too.

SpeshulEd · June 13, 2006

I agree with what everyone said so far, I'd go with a nice wide or a zoom.

Jeffro wrote:

Of course I'm a believer in buying Canon glass. I hate it when someone spends alot on a camera, and then skimps on the glass. I'd rather have a Rebel with L-glass than a Mark II or 5D with "after market" glass.....but that's just me...or is it? I love my 20D with L-glass attached. The stares are nice too.

I understand why you say this, but my philosophy was to go with cheaper lenses and figure out what works as I learn more about my camera. Once I get everything figured out, its time to move up the big leagues. I'm thinking come the end of summer, I'll be looking at some nice L-glass.

Jeffro · June 13, 2006

SpeshulEd wrote:

I agree with what everyone said so far, I'd go with a nice wide or a zoom.

I understand why you say this, but my philosophy was to go with cheaper lenses and figure out what works as I learn more about my camera. Once I get everything figured out, its time to move up the big leagues. I'm thinking come the end of summer, I'll be looking at some nice L-glass.

All my glass isn't L-series either, but it is Canon. I hope to have much more L-glass as $ permits. Sell photo's sell!:D

SpeshulEd · June 13, 2006

Jeffro wrote:

Sell photo's sell!:D

Uh huh!

Bob Bell · June 13, 2006

Since you shoot architecture how about a Tilt Shift Lens. They are manual, even the Canon EOS mount. Hartblei makes one that is well reviews. I believe they make 65mm and 85mm mounts and possible a 35mm but that might be another brand.

Justiceiro · June 13, 2006

Bob Bell wrote:

Since you shoot architecture how about a Tilt Shift Lens. They are manual, even the Canon EOS mount. Hartblei makes one that is well reviews. I believe they make 65mm and 85mm mounts and possible a 35mm but that might be another brand.

I am not sure that the tilt/shift is, at this point, worth the money. I gues I used the term "shoot architecture" incorrectly. I actually do a lot of urban landscape kind of thing, like this;

But I also like to do a lot of "close up" in the middle of it sort of stuff, like this:

It would be nice to have a long reach, like with the 70-200 L glass. But I a m not sure if I should spend money on quality lenses at that focal length. True, it's not covered, but I would prefer to go for some quality wider angle, as that's where I am likely to shoot most. T/S is probably toos pecialzied to make it worth the money right now. Although it is tempting.

The question I have concerns the trade off between lens speed and "Canon-ness." I can't afford the fast L's like the 24-200 f 2,8 L.

L glass is, I am sure, super sweet. But how sweet is it, relative to other lens manufacturerst speciall glass? How does Tamron's 17-35 f2.8-4 "LD" lens, at $450 compare to Canon's 17-40 f4 L? I know the Tamron is faster, (and I really would like to have at least an f2,8). Is the Canon L at f4 vs. 54 twice as good, 25% better- 16 times better? What's the comparison.

Also, how does Sigma's 20-40mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF compare to the 17-40 L? I really like the consant 2.8.

gtc · June 13, 2006

consider a focussing screen for your manual lenses.

have a look at the katz eye thread in here.

this will mprove your ratio of keepers

Also there are some very fine manual lenses out there if you want to get some L quality Primes for Kit Lens prices by using a an eos adapter-

m42 screw mount zeiss jenas or pentax takumars or contax-zeiss are very nice ,also leica,voigtlander etc

old zooms however are not very good,especially the push-pull type that suck in dust -better to stick with later model ,upper end zooms here

maybe a fast 28mm would be useful,with a 1.6 crop camera this would equate to 44.8 mm,becoming a standard lens like a 50mm

a fast 50 manual lense like the pentax smc takumar 50/1.4 would give you
a handy length

a 16mm fish eye like the peleng or zenitar are also good for wide angle but with some barrel distortion which needs to be corrected in pshop.

Jeffro · June 13, 2006

Justiceiro wrote:

Also, how does Sigma's 20-40mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF compare to the 17-40 L? I really like the consant 2.8.

I can't answer that question, but I can tell you the F4 in the 17-40L has always been fast enough for me. I usually don't need the speed or light gathering a F2.8 provides when doing landscape or cityscape shots, since they are usually shot on a tripod. The glass and build of the 17-40L is great. It is head and shoulders above the kit lens...did I mention it's head and shoulders above the kit?

TristanP · June 13, 2006

Sounds to me like the 10-22 or 17-40 are what you should be looking at. Or, maybe the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 and save the rest towards your next purchase. If you haven't already, take a look at the lens reviews here, here, and here.

Justiceiro · June 15, 2006

TristanP wrote:

Sounds to me like the 10-22 or 17-40 are what you should be looking at. Or, maybe the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 and save the rest towards your next purchase. If you haven't already, take a look at the lens reviews here, here, and here.

Thanks for the links, that photozone site actually has excellent reviews. Just what I was looking for; I find the FM reviews to be a bit less than informative.

Right now I think it is either the 10-22, or the 17-40 L. I would love to have L glass. But I would also love to have 10mm. I think I will rent them for a day from B&H and see which one I like better (renting costs about $60 for the both of them).

Advice needed - help me spend my money

Comments