Starting lens for 20d?

[dougsturgess]

If one were to purchase 1 lens to start with (I've not had an SLR before), which one would be the best all around lens?

Remember, for the purposes of this discussion, choose a Canon lens and pretend cost is not a factor.

[phili1]

Well if you want a Canon lens then their new one for the 20D 17 to 85mm which with the factor gives you a 35mm eqiv of 27 to 136mm.

If you have the buck then there 17 to 40L but i falls short on the tele side but is a super lens.

Now if you go Tamron which I have then there 28 to 75 F 2.8 is a super lens but you fall short on the wide side. I use this as a carry lens and a portrait lens. and plan on getting the new Canon super wide zoom or Sigma 12 to 24mm both are great.

I heard about Canons kit lens 18 to 55 mm being bad but I saw some pictures that are pretty good.

Here is a portrait taken with the Tamron with no pre or post processing
it might help in the decission ifcost is a factor. Of coarse if money was no object then I would buy all L glass, but would keep the Tamron because of it close focus ability.

http://www.pbase.com/image/34856769/medium

[Persian-Rice]

That is such an easy answer 600mm prime!

Ok now really, 24-70 or the 17-40.

[gramps]

I just got my 20 D about 2 weeks ago and just figured out which way I'm going to go with the same problem. First, I pretty much agree with phili1 in the post above except I would not go with a Tamrom. A week ago I got the Tamrom 28 - 300...........took it back the next day, it was very bad. I've been reading as much as I could about Canon lenses in the past few days and I think tomorrow I'm buying the following two; 24 - 70 2.8L and the 70 - 200 4L. The 24 - 70 is a bit short on the wide end but except for that the reviews are nothing but good. Each person will had different uses so the best I can offer is to tell you to READ as much as you can.

[gramps]

if you want to read up on the Canon zoom lenses try here..........
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showgallery.php?cat=27

[phili1]

Gramps, not all lenses made by Canon are good as well. All Canon L lenses are pretty good but some are outstanding and some a re medioka. Fred Miranda site has allot of good advice.

Tamron lenses is certain cases are average but every once in a while there is a keeper. Teh 28 to 75 F 2.8 gets high priase. When ever you get a lens in a rangere from 28 to 300 mm something has got to give. I think the only lens with that range thats good is Sigma 50 to 500, this is an outstanding lens.

Before I but a lens I test it and read up on it , the best advise is the end users and there is not one report that I do not find a complaint. So if you have 30 people saying its great and one saying no, the greats have it for me.

[Boosting1Bar]

If one were to purchase 1 lens to start with (I've not had an SLR before), which one would be the best all around lens?

Remember, for the purposes of this discussion, choose a Canon lens and pretend cost is not a factor.

Cost isn't a factor? The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L.
Cost is a factor? The Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom.

Both of those are excellent walkaround lenses. Granted the tamron would be nice if it were a little wider, but for the money it is an excellent little lens.

[sojerzee]

In same position as you are/were. . . I wanted quality and complete coverage with my new 20D but for the right prices.

Here's where I went: Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX; Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX and, finally, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L.

Looking (but not seriously) at Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM EOS Lens. Not in my price range but, based on what I've read, worth considering.

Good luck.

[DocFrankenstein]

Looking (but not seriously) at Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM EOS Lens. Not in my price range but, based on what I've read, worth considering.
That lens is extremely specific in application and isn't really fast.

Buy a few lenses that cover the range and you'll get the quality you want.

50/1.8 is a must
17-40 is good
70-200 L... the one you can afford...