Confused Newbie Seeking Help

thollawa · March 11, 2005

I would first like to start of by thanking everyone for their participation in this forum. I have been reading (lurking) the forum in my attempt to gain knowledge in to the world of digital photography.

I am purchasing a Canon 20D. This will be my first plunge into the Digital SLR. My problem is that the more I research what lens or lenses to purchase I get more confused. My original thought was to purchase the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I’ve read a few things that worry me about this lens, especially its low light performance.

I then decided on buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM. I don’t think I can go wrong with this lens. I was sold on this lens, but two different camera shops in the Dallas area have now told me I should get the EF 28-135 instead due to its versatility.

Sigh, so my dilemma is which lens to purchase. I would like my first lens to be versatile. I will be shooting outdoor sports, outdoor water, indoor basketball, nature, and the always relevant family shots. My second lens purchase will be something along the lines of 28-200 or 300mm range.

Any and all of your suggestions will be greatly appreciated. I look forward to actively participating in this forum.

Thank you in advance for all your help.

-Todd

:dunno :scratch :dunno :scratch :dunno :scratch

PeterGar · March 11, 2005

I'm kinda in the same boat as you. Good luck!

DoctorIt · March 11, 2005

Well hello and welcome to dgrin

I wish I had the same problem as you!!

If you can afford the 24-70 f/2.8 right along with the 20D, then, heck, DO IT! It's an awesome lens, and one that you will keep as long as you shoot Canon. I love the 28-135mm as well though, but I have it because I can't afford L glass! 70mm will definitely leave you short on the outdoor stuff you want to shoot, but I still think that if you can afford, get it. Then, for longer reach, you'll already be setup for another one of Canon's greatest lenses, the 70-200 (both the 2.8 and 4 are awesome).

I'm really surprised camera shops are pushing you away from spending big bucks on a highly quality (and $$$) lens. Weird.

Michiel de Brieder · March 11, 2005

Hi Tod,

and welcome to the forum

thollawa wrote:

I am purchasing a Canon 20D. This will be my first plunge into the Digital SLR. My problem is that the more I research what lens or lenses to purchase I get more confused. My original thought was to purchase the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I’ve read a few things that worry me about this lens, especially its low light performance

.
Well, let's analyze the situation. Low light performance.... What do you need for a lens in low light? A large aperture! Why?
1. You'll get a lot of light in (thus getting a faster shutter speed)
2. With a lot of lenses focussing becomes faster (plus the center focus point is a more sensitive crosstype for lenses with an aperture of F/2.8 or larger where larger equals a smaller number after the '/'

just to make it more difficult)
3. The view becomes more clear through the viewfinder
Now, you've got a 20D and that camera rocks in the department of high ISO performance.... So you can gain a few stops by that (that is: gain a faster shutter speed by increasing the ISO)

thollawa wrote:

I then decided on buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM. I don’t think I can go wrong with this lens. I was sold on this lens, but two different camera shops in the Dallas area have now told me I should get the EF 28-135 instead due to its versatility.

A severely strange advice. While the 28-135 is more versatile in focal length, it truly lacks in everything else compared to the 24-70, the 24-70 even gives you 4mm more on the wide side, while 135mm will most assuredly be too short for sports... I think the 24-70 is excellent for the occasional family picture and as all-time walkaround lens.

thollawa wrote:

Sigh, so my dilemma is which lens to purchase. I would like my first lens to be versatile. I will be shooting outdoor sports, outdoor water, indoor basketball, nature, and the always relevant family shots. My second lens purchase will be something along the lines of 28-200 or 300mm range.

Onwards to the second lens. There are several threads in this forum concerning:
Canon 100-400 L IS
Sigma 50-500
Sigma 80-400
Canon 70-200 with 1.4 teleconverter or 2.0 teleconverter
I suggest reading those to make up your mind on a nice telelens. I've got my mind set on a 50-500

but I'm not sure as of yet, perhaps I will still spring for the Canon 100-400!
Well I hope that helped a bit, if you have more questions just holler

Seamus · March 11, 2005

I just checked B&H,

Canon 24-70........................... $1139

Canon 28-135...........................$409

Canon 70-200 f4........................$580

I would get the 28-135 and the 70-200.

BridgeCity · March 11, 2005

I would just rob a local bank and buy one of every Canon lens. Then you wouldnt ever need to decide on what to buy! :grim

Waver: This was meant to be a joke. If you ACTUALLY decide to follow this advice, I am in no way liable for anything!

pathfinder · March 11, 2005

shay wrote:

I just checked B&H,

Canon 24-70........................... $1139

Canon 28-135...........................$409

Canon 70-200 f4........................$580

I would get the 28-135 and the 70-200.

Yes - the 24-70 L costs quite a bit more than the 28-135f3.5 IS. But there is no comparison in the lenses among lens afficianados. The 24 vs 28 does not sound like very much, but a 24mm lens HAS a Significantly wider field of view than a 28. It must be seen to appreciate how much wider.
The 24-70 is F2.8 versus f3.5. But this is a critcal 1/2 stop that as mentioned earlier is the difference in the faster focusing speed of the central autofocus point. It is also brighter to look through the viewfinder with the f2.8 lens.

The 28-135 is longer and is a nice walk around lens, but will not allow the shallow Depth of Field that the 24-70 makes possible to isolate your subjects in a busy background. And 135 will NOT be long enough for sports as you desire. In short, the 28-135 f3.5 IS is a lens full a compromises. It is a good lens. But the 24-70 f2.8 L is a GREAT lens. Hands down!

The 24-70 lens is responsible for the vast majority of my images, and I just spent a week shooting nothing shorter than 400mm and that statement is still true. The 24-70 is just a great zoom range for most normal activities and people shots indoors and outdoors.

The 24-70 f2.8 L Rocks and is a great beginning for a first rate kit of glass. I suspect the camera stores don't have a 24-70 L in stock - I cannot understand their suggestion that the 28-135 is better - they are suggesting substituting a consumer grade (28-135 IS ) lens, for a world class PRO grade lens9 24-70). Which would you prefer over the long haul?

:D

wxwax · March 11, 2005

It's been covered, but I'll reiterate: when you buy an SLR, abandon any notion that one lens will fill all your needs (it sounds like that's what the store was trying to guide you towards.) You have exited the land of consumer cameras, and have crossed the border into the glasslands, where you need tall piles of cash to survive.

Be prepared to pay for several lenses to cover the basic range you need.

I bought used, saved some money, and think my 'starter' strategy worked:

16-35 f2.8L
24-70 f2.8L
70-200 f2.8L IS

If you like to shoot birds, surfers, or insects you'll eventually want bigger glass and also a macro lens.

But the three above listed lenses will get you going, if you can afford them. And I agree that the 24-70 is the best to start with. It will easily outlast your 20D, if you truly get hooked on photography.

Seamus · March 11, 2005

Another option is to get the 20d with the kit lens, the 18-55. That lens will cover you for most short range stuff for a while and it adds $50 to the price of the camera. Get a canon 70-200 f4 or a sigma 70-200 f2.8 for around $800.

The kit lens tested here:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout

You will be able to take landscapes and general photos with the kit lens and sports with the 70-200.

You can then start saving and get the 24-70, 16-35, .........

You could also pm Humungus. He has spent the last 4 months researching lens and cameras.

Also check out the flea market here. Lens don't depreciate that much. there are two 28-135's for sale atm.

Shay.

Khaos · March 11, 2005

shay wrote:

I just checked B&H,

Canon 24-70........................... $1139

Canon 28-135...........................$409

Canon 70-200 f4........................$580

I would get the 28-135 and the 70-200.

If you do decide on the 28 -135, check my post in the FS forum please.:D

thollawa · March 12, 2005

Thank you all for your advice. It is greatly appreciated.

Looks like I will be ordering the Canon 20D with an EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM in about two weeks.

I already have a 2G CF card. Other than that...what accessories would you consider to be first in line to purchase?

-Todd

Khaos · March 12, 2005

thollawa wrote:

Thank you all for your advice. It is greatly appreciated.

Looks like I will be ordering the Canon 20D with an EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM in about two weeks.

I already have a 2G CF card. Other than that...what accessories would you consider to be first in line to purchase?

-Todd

Extra batteries and a charger. A flash, because the pop up one truly sucks, I just bought the SpeedLite 580 today, though the cheaper Sigma 500 Super has gotten some good reviews.

FramesMedia · March 12, 2005

what accessories would you consider to be first in line to purchase?

If you don't have a 50mm yet, I would defenitely suggest you to get one; if you like single a focal length lens. 50mm f1.4 or atleast 50mm f1.8.

luckyrwe · March 12, 2005

It has to be said again: extra batteries.

thumb

wxwax · March 12, 2005

What they said: 1 extra battery, and if the 20D doesn't come with a charger, an external charger is a good buy. A good tripod is important, if you don't already have one. As is a good camera bag. And I agree about the external flash - if you're going to use flash, best to get an external one.

Confused Newbie Seeking Help

Comments