To compliment my 20D help me fill in the blank

[Paul_Mc]

Here's the gear I'm deciding on I'd appreciate some help and advice on a walk about lense for regular photos like birthdays, landmark touristy stuff, etc..

Canon 400 5.6 or 100-400 (this will be a last minute decision as I fear I may only end up always using long end on zoom)

Canon 100 macro (i can't justify spending 2x more for 180 which would limit chance handheld encounters - besides more money for other goodies)

Gitzo 2220 tripod

Markins m-10 ballhead

Wimberley Sidekick (but is this justifiable? how many shots of birds flying will i actually take and keep?)

Walk-about lense: unknown! Please help!

Backpack: Lowe-Pro Trekker or ???

Additional accessories like CF cards, batteries, what not.

Your input sure is kindly 'peciated!

[CyberDyneSystems]

This all looks like quality gear,.. I have only a few suggestions.

* In the "EOS STicky" you'll find links to a few reviews, one of them is a side by side comparison of the 100-400mm and 400mm f/5.6. This may help shed some light on your decision.

* Wimberly Sidekick: I recently purchased a sidekick for use as a more portable alternative to the much larger Mnafrotto gimble I use. Despite being more portable "packed" .. it is in fact MORE combersome when assembled and a large lens is mounted.

I also feel that the lens and camera is not as "safe" with all the possible locks that loosen and result in something dropping.

On the Ballhead I am using anyways,. it simply does NOT hold the lens/camera as steady as the Manfrotto gimble does.


Lastly on the Sidekick,. I think you'll find no need for a gimble of this type with the lenses you mention above.

I'd certainly never mount the 100-400mm IS on either of my gimble mount heads.. it is just a great lightweight zoom for hand holding and moving fast with.

I feel the same way about the 400mm f/5.6 prime.

The Wimberly and other gimbles are really menat for lenses that are simply too heavy to hand hold ... they are great.. bt it is still easier to track a moving bird hand held with the likes of a 400mm f/5.6

At the very least.. get the lens (which ever you decide) and the Markins... and work with those ofr a while before shelling out an additional $250.00 on the very over priced sidekick.

* Think about a pair of CF cards and a "Photowallet" like the X-drive with at least 20GB Hard drive. This will keep you shooting. :)

[roanjohn]

Walk around lens??

You have two options:

Canon 17-40 f4L w/ Tamron 28-75 f2.8........both for around 1200 USD>

OR

Canon 24-70 f2.8.

:-)

Ro1

[Paul_Mc]

Thanks CDS.. I wasn't sold on the sidekick much anyway...

Do you have any advice for a walk about lense for typical everyday photography?

[Paul_Mc]

thanks ro1 for your input!

i really only want the 1 walk about lense and since it won't get used as much.

looks like it might be a toss up between the 17-40 and 24-70...

[roanjohn]

........if you have the cash..........then go for the 24-70 f2.8 :-) I think its a more versatile lens..........as it gives you a sorta wide angle and a nice focal length for portraits.

Ro1

[tofuboy]

I was going to say 17-40 (or 16-35 if you have the money and need the extra stop) or 24-70...

I guess it depends if you need something on the wider end or something more middle range.

[CyberDyneSystems]

"Walkaround Lens" .. is so subjective. Most use a 28-70 type of lens... or the 28-135mm

My personal walkaround lenses are;
70-300mm DO IS

and

100-400mmL IS

The DO when I'm downtown with the 10D/20D,.. and the 100-400mm on the mkII when I'm not lugging a big 500mm prime around.

I like a lens that gets me close to the birds eye.. even in a "walk around" lens :)

[gramps]

for a "walk around" lens I'd go for the 24 - 70 if you have the $$$$. If not the 28 - 135's are getting real cheap on ebay.

[Paul_Mc]

Well i really can't afford the $$ of the 24-70.

This walk about lense won't be for sports, panorams or portraits, sorry i didn't make that clear earlier.

It's mainly for occasional use of shots like waterfalls (smoothing the water effect), maybe horizon shots, boats, but nothing super wide angle.

I saw the Tamron 17-35 i think for like $500 and for this lense, that's my kinda budget.

Again it's all non-people related stuff, mostly nature, wildlife, etc.

thanks again!

[CyberDyneSystems]

The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is highly respected.. and the EF28-135mm IS gets a lot of recomendations too.

[tofuboy]

The EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good 'all purpose' lens for about $400 (from b&h). It's what I use almost 100% (over my ef-s 18-55 kit lens).

[ScottE]

I would look at the new 17-85 IS for a general walk around lens with the 20D.

I currently use a 28-135 IS for this purpose on my D60 and find that it is just not wide enough for some purposes. I also don't like walking around with a camera hanging from my neck so I carry my camera in a small camera bag. To get a wide enough field of view I also carry a 17-40L. I have not seen the quality of the new 10-22, but if it decent I would carry that instead of the 17-40.

In summary, assuming the new lenses have decent quality I would choose the 17-85 IS for a one lens outfit or the 10-22 and 28-135 for a two lens combination.

I would not bother with heavy, large aperture lenses like the 24-70/2.8 L for a walk around lens. At apertures f/8 and smaller there is not that much difference between it and the 28-135. You generally will not carry a tripod when walking around, so handheld the IS of the 28-135 or 17-85 would likely outperform the slightly superior optics of the L lenses at apertures like f/8 or f/11.