Looking to buy 20D but which lens?

[Boswell]

Hello,

I am going to get my first digital SLR in the 20D, but am not sure which Lens to get.

I have done alot of research in here and seem to have come to the coonclusion of the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX IF HSM, I can't afford an L lens and the only other lens seemed to be the canon 75-300 IS, but it seems when you go beyond 200 the images are a bit soft.

I have seen some images used with this lens and the 1.4 teleconverter and they do look good http://www.pbase.com/rollcast/test_canon_rebel but they used the rebel camera.

I will need a good lens 35 to 85mm is the lens that comes with the camera any good? and if I get the teleconverter how will that work with the 20D as that converts non digital lens by 1.4 anyway, will the 100-300 lens become a 200-600 with the additional teleconveter and a 140-420 on its own. what size lens would be best 35-85 if the camera is 1.4 X ??

[Jon]

First, the "crop factor" on the 20D is 1.6x, not 1.4x. But that's only a minor point.

The 75-300 IS can do good work. There's a thread on here with some sample work, which matches my experience with it. You'd need to consider whether the extra stop of the Sigma or the IS of the Canon would benefit you more when shooting around the edges. The Sigma's been well-regarded here, too IIRC.

You didn't mention whose teleconverter you're looking at. I have to assume it's Sigma's, since the Canon wouldn't fit on the 75-300, and certainly not on the EF-S lenses (other people's TCs may not either).

A teleconverter will optically change the focal length of the lens it's used on, while also changing the effective aperture (and costing you auto-focus if it gets too slow). So putting the 1.4x TC on a 100-300 f/4 will make it optically a 140-420mm f/5.6 or so. The 20D's crop factor doesn't change any of the lenses' characteristics. It's still a 100-300 f/4 lens on the camera. You're just looking at a smaller part of the frame than you'd be seeing on a full-frame 35 mm. shot, so the angle of coverage of this lens on the 20D is the same as you'd get with a 160-480 mm zoom on a full-frame camera.

Which kit lens are you talking about? The 18-55? The 17-85? I don't have any EF-S glass; the 18-55 hasn't been too popular around here, and I don't think that anyone's said anything about the 17-85. I certainly wouldn't put a teleconverter on either of them, even if it would fit. Or were you talking about a 35-85 equivalent after crop factor? Here, I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

[sjprg]

I would suggest buying the camera with the kit 18-55 and play with that first. This lens does a good job with the 1.6 factor of the 20D. Don't rush into buying lenses, you can easily wind up with lenses you never use.

http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/galleries

[blinking8s]

1. kit lens

2. 50mm

3. 70-200

[commando]

I'm a newbie here, so don't put to much weight to what I say.

After quite a lot of research, i've just ordered the Tamron 28-75, as a replacement for my kit lens. As far as I can tell, it's sharper, faster, and more flexible. It doesn't go as wide, but the zoom's around 50% stronger (75 vs 55).

Have a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46708), this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46899&start=0), and the reviews on here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showgallery.php?cat=27)

[pradeep1]

The EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.5 - F5.6 IS USM is a good all around lens for this camera. It covers an useful range -- approximately the same 28-135 range the old EF IS lens covers. It is about $600 street. Expensive, but cheaper than an L lens.

[ScottE]

What do you plan to use the lens for?

The 70-300 IS is a small light lens with image stabilization that is fairly compact and ligh weight. It would be good for carrying around and shooting hand held.

The Sigma 100-300/4 is big and heavy, but faster. It would give sharper images at 300 mm, if use on a tripod. It would not be so convenient for carrying around.

You mention using the 100-300 with a 1.4x teleconverter. You will get just as good results at longer telephoto lengths with a Sigma 50-500. If you want longer telephoto lengths I would look at that lens, or the Canon 100-400 IS.

As for the mid focal lengths, there is a wide variety of lenses, depending on how you want to use them. For carrying around, hand-held photos I would consider either the new 17-85 IS or the 28-135 IS depending on whether you need wider angle or not.

If you are going to make big enlargements, don't mind carring a bit of extra weight and fine detail is important to you, consider Canon L, Sigma EX and Tamron SP zooms with large apertures. They are all very good with the Canon L usually having a small advantage. If you are really concerned about fine detail, shoot from a tripod, use mirror-lock-up and a cable release and buy a selection of prime lenses. On 16x20 inch prints you will be able to see a small difference.

[wibbly]

Can anyone who's got a 20D and Canon 24-70L post a picture of these. Everyone says the lens is big and heavy - I just wanted a visual idea if possible not having seen one yet on a 20D...

W

[Biko]

Can anyone who's got a 20D and Canon 24-70L post a picture of these. Everyone says the lens is big and heavy - I just wanted a visual idea if possible not having seen one yet on a 20D...

W

http://www2.boomspeed.com/biko/24-70.jpg

[wibbly]

Thanks. Not as bad as I thought (weight, and hood apart) :-)

W

[Deckyon]

I love my 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens. It weighs as much as my 1D, and more than the 20D, but it is the lens I use second-most. I use the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS lens most - well over 2/3's the time as the other lenses I own. I have found the 24-70mm sharp as a tack and fast to focus not to mention the f/2.8.

[Boswell]

Thanks for the replies, and apologies for the confusing post.

My budget will be limited to about £1500-1600 (maybe more if I can sneek it past the wife). I now understand the "crop factor" which I think only effects EF lens and not the EF-S type lens.

At the moment the 20D is about £945 to £1245 in the UK, so Ill only have about 500 for a lens if I go for the sigma 100-300 then I'll blow the budget as that about £550 in the UK.

What will I use the 20d for, well I'm not a pro and I already have a canon 35mm EOS about 10 years old with a 35-85 sigma lens (same age) which I have'nt used since I got the G3 2 years ago. I dont have a set field as I enjoy taking scenic shots and Macro's of flowers/plants, insects but love to photograph wildlife and visit Zoo's and safari parks here in the UK as well as the local wildlife that visits my garden.

I was hoping I could get some sort of deal for the 20d and the sigma 100-300 and hope my old sigma 35-85 lens would be ok for now.

I did look at the L lens and apart from being too expensive, they all seem to be white and scream look at me, do they do them in black as well?

What do you think?

[Jon]

Thanks for the replies, and apologies for the confusing post.

My budget will be limited to about £1500-1600 (maybe more if I can sneek it past the wife). I now understand the "crop factor" which I think only effects EF lens and not the EF-S type lens.

No - "crop factor" applies to all lenses. It's because of the differences in the sensor sizes, not the lens designs. Lenses are all always measured in absolute focal lengths. The lens coverage/angle of view, from which we get the confusing term "crop factor" is strictly tied to the relative sensor sizes. An 18 mm lens mounted on a 20D will cover about the same angle as a 28-30 mm on a full-frame 35 mm SLR. If we were comparing 35 mm and 6x6 habitually, we might be talking about the "crop factor" between those two sizes.

At the moment the 20D is about £945 to £1245 in the UK, so Ill only have about 500 for a lens if I go for the sigma 100-300 then I'll blow the budget as that about £550 in the UK.

What will I use the 20d for, well I'm not a pro and I already have a canon 35mm EOS about 10 years old with a 35-85 sigma lens (same age) which I have'nt used since I got the G3 2 years ago. I dont have a set field as I enjoy taking scenic shots and Macro's of flowers/plants, insects but love to photograph wildlife and visit Zoo's and safari parks here in the UK as well as the local wildlife that visits my garden.

The 35-85 Sigma, if it's that old, may not work well with any newer Eos cameras. Search around here for "Err 99". Sigma may be able/willing to re-chip it to make it work with newer Eos cameras if that happens; it's worth doing some homework to find out. If you've got the tools for doing macro work now with your current Eos, Err 99 aside, you should be OK with the 20D in the same situations. For "captive" wildlife, the 75-300 will probably cover most situations pretty well. Zoos better than safari parks.


I was hoping I could get some sort of deal for the 20d and the sigma 100-300 and hope my old sigma 35-85 lens would be ok for now.

I did look at the L lens and apart from being too expensive, they all seem to be white and scream look at me, do they do them in black as well?

What do you think?

The longer L lenses come only in white. It's to keep them from overheating as much in sunlight. Shorter f. l. L lenses come in black.