Looking for Lens Recommendations

[Luvwine]

Hi, I am brand new here. Please forgive the ignorance this question will no doubt demonstrate.....

I would like to purchase a better digital camera and I am 99% sure that the 20D will be it. I own a film Canon Rebell 2000 (and only have a Tamron 28-200 lens) and then got a p&S Nikon Coolpix 5000 and now that my budget is better and the prices for DSLRs have come down, I would ilke to get some decent gear.

My needs are somewhat varied. I am a lawyer and handle a lot of personal injury cases. I will need to be able to take photos of scars from lacerations and surgery and the like. Also, I often photograph vehicle damage and occasionally intersections. Additionally, I sometimes travel and go to bar meetings and such so I will photograph landscapes, people, interesting buildings, etc. and sometimes interior shots of architectural details or of items in museums with no flash. I also like to visit cathedrals and try to photograph stained glass, etc. I would rather not have to use a tripod too much (I have traveled with one and my wife usually groans when I do that too much).

I basically have no equipment and my budget, while not unlimited, will allow (with some flexibility) say 2-3,000 on lenses. Thoughts? Should I bother with either of the "kit" lenses? The 17-85 mm IS lens sounds good, but have read mixed things.

Thx for any help!

Best,

Steve O.

[Adam Hicks]

Ooh another 'spend someone else's mone' thread!

We cover this a lot, but you have a good allowance there to build a decent setup.

If it were ME I'd do- (20D is assumed, and yes, it's an awesome choice!)

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 $375
Canon 70-200 f2.8 $1100
Canon 50mm 1.8 - $75
Canon 550 EX Flash - $325
Bouncer for flash -$20-$30
Filters for lenses - $30-$100
(Optionall) Canon 1.4x entender - $300


That would give you equipment to do everything you are talking about very, VERY nicely. All of these lenses offer superior image quality and would go a long ways towards covering all aspects of general photography for $2000. If you found yourself wanting more range on the 70-200, you could simply add the 1.4x extender and still take strikingly good images while keeping costs low.

That's how *I'd* do it anyways! Don't neglect the flash. You'll need it more than you think!

Adam

[mdude85]

I'd change the 70-200 f2.8 to a 70-200 f/4 to save a few hundred bucks.

[Adam Hicks]

I thought about that, but when he mentioned stained glass and other things, I thought the 2.8 might work out better, plus I would think that the 1.4x extender would function better at a lower f-stop on the 2.8 vs. 4.

BUT with that being said, if $500 needed to be shaved off of this kit, the 70-200 f4 is definitely the way to go!!!

[Luvwine]

Hi, thanks for the quick responses! The 70-200L seems like a great lens, but I wonder about how practical it is to use without a tripod (I assume that the IS version is better too albeit pricier)? I have read some folks who prefer the 70-300 DO IS for its weight (tho not its performance). Also, any thoughts on wide angle? (City scapes and interior shots might benefit no?). Shouldn't I get a lens with a smaller than 28 mm focal length given the 1.6X multiplier or have I just busted my budget?;)

Thx again for the help! I gather that most folks here don't like the 17-85 kit lens?

Best,

Steve O.

[Adam Hicks]

You can certainly hand hold the 70-200, although it is really nice to use with a simple light monopod, which I'd recommend. Most of the people I have heard of getting the 70-300 ended up selling it or taking it back. You'll be happier with the f2.8 for indoor zoom shots, etc as well.

As far as landscape goes, I'd start with that and add a wide angle after the fact. There are a lot of options, the 17-40, the 12-24 sigma, the 10-22 Canon, and others, and Tamron has a new wide angle coming out (11-18 or something?) that I really hope is a slam dunk. I've found that 28mm even with the crop factor handles anything I need, but if you truly want to do landscape pictures and you can't take a step back, then you will want to consider one of the lenses I mentioned. Canon also has a great 'L' prime wide angle, but it's probably not worth the money for what you need. It's $$$.

BTW, I'm not just trying to tell you to buy what I have, notice I use the 100-400L and absolutely love it. For what I do I wouldn't trade it for the 70-200, but I need it for motorsports and 100% outdoor use. Your needs are different. (Although you should get one some day, it's a lot of fun for outdoor tight shots! A great people-peeper!)

Good luck!
Adam

[Jon]

You might want to consider (and it should be 100% a business expense) the DVK-E2 image data verification kit, which will allow you to prove you're displaying the original, unaltered, images. It runs about $700, and the 20D supports it.

[Andy_T]

Steve,

welcome to the forum!

Wide angle:
Either get
- the Canon 18-55 kit lens (100$, quality might be mediocre) or
- the Tokina 17/3.5 ATX prime (350$, very sharp) or
- the Canon 17-40/4.0 L (700$, very sharp & convenience of the zoom)

I think that the 17-85 IS is too expensive for the image quality it offers.

Best regards,
Andy

[Luvwine]

Ok, I went to a local camera store and talked with a recommended salesperson. Boy, was that an expensive trip! I don't know if I am guilty of overkill, but here is what I bought. Also, of note is that the store has a ten day no questions asked return policy.

Canon 20D body
Tamron 17-35 2.8-4(recommended by salesperson as affordable quality wide angle)
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Canon 50 (1.4) sales person said better still in low light and better glass and build quality than 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS
Canon I9900 printer
1 gig Sandisk CF card and a card reader
some B&W UVA filters
A Lowepro Nova bag

Now I am going to need some serious TIME to learn to use this stuff! Course, it will hopefully be a lot of fun doing so:). I know I went somewhat high end on the lenses, but I figure I have changed camera bodies several times already, and I am guessing that I will not have to change lenses for a long time (if ever) assuming I stick with Canon bodies.

Thx for your helpful suggestions. Any additional comments welcome. Btw, this was a great weight loss plan--at least my wallet feels much lighter!;)

Best,

Steve O.

[wolf]

Nice list! Drool Drool....... Dam I got some on me.

[ScottE]

I would not recommend any lens that does not have full time manual override. That probably leaves out your Tamrons. Also, your widest lens is 17 mm which is often not wide enough for landscapes with a 20D.

For wide angle I would look at either a Canon 10-22 or a Sigma 12-24. Both are USM or HSM with manual override.

For mid-range, it would be hard to beat the Canon 24-70L and I don't know how often you would bother with a 50 mm prime if you had that. If you are not going to use a tripod and will hand hold, you may be better off with a lens with image stabilization such as the new 17-85 or the tried and true 28-135 Canons.

You also mentioned that you need to photograph injuries. It might me a good idea to have a good macro lens for close-ups. The Canon 100/2.8 USM macro lens would be ideal.

Everybody has there own shooting style, so what is the ideal lens selection for one person may have some serious faults for another.

[Andy_T]

SteveO,

actually, you did something very dangerous ... believe a salesperson :shock:





.



.




However, I think that you were lucky :lol:

That list looks very promising as far as the lenses are concerned. Only one I don't know is the Tamron wide angle, but it should be a good lens (and definitely better than the kit lens).

For beginning, it should be wide enough ... some time ago, 28 mm on full frame *was* considered wide angle. Of course, it's nice to use a 24mm, 20mm or 17mm lens on a full frame camera, but you have to decide if this is really necessary for you. the 10-22 and 12-24 lenses are more 'specialty' lenses, the majority of users normally is quite happy with lenses like the 17-40L.

As far as manual override is concerned ... with the AF performance of the 20D, this should really not be an issue at all. Especially not on a wide angle lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[Adam Hicks]

Excellent choice of lenses. Let us know how you like the Tamron wide angle, that's the only one on the lens which may or may not be what you are looking for. Everything else is perfect. You will love the bokeh on the 50mm 1.4

BTW, I also use the Canon i9900. Be prepared to be blown away. Take a few shots with the 20D, drop them in the 'Easy Print' utility for the i9900, select quantity of prints and paper size / type and you'll be floored by how simple it is to make perfect prints. No banding, no visible 'dots' the color just looks continuous tone like a Dye-Sub (but better color range IMO!) The addition of red and green inks seems to help there.

Get BUSY!
Adam

[Luvwine]

Thanks again for the thoughts. I have not yet tried the 17-35 Tamron and will post my impressions (for what they are worth!). I was somewhat reassured by the 100% positive reviews of the wide angle Tamron on Fredmiranda.com. Of course, I would like to have a wider wide angle but I get the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that the "ideal" wide agle lens for the new digital cameras with 1.6 factor has not been sorted out yet. I think that my immediate needs will be met (and then some) by the lenses I have and will investigate a good wide angle later.

As for the Canon 24-70L, I debated that one for a while. From what I have read, the Tamron 28-75 is not far behind in image quality and is less than 1/3 the price of the Canon. For my needs and abilities, I suspect I will be happy with the Tamron. Ditto for the 17-40L. I mentioned it, but the salesperson again suggested the Tamron as being as good or nearly as good for considerably less money. Given that I was already blowing my budget a bit, I was happy to accede.

I also thought about a dedicated macro lens. However, the 28-75 does have some macro capabilities and I am hoping it will suffice for my needs. If not, I may be headed back to the camera store.....


Thank you for pointing out the lack of manual override. I did not know that in these lenses. Not much of an issue for me at least for now, but still good to know.

I also did consider getting the 17-85 IS but have read too many indifferent reviews. I was also bothered by the notion that it cannot mount on any camera except 20D and Digital Rebel. While that may not be a problem, I envision myself trading bodies eventually, but like whenever possible to pay one time and get quality. I expect that I will not "need" to trade these lenses and would be more likely to want and/or need to trade the 17-85.

By the way, I have already discovered the intimidation factor of the 70-200 2.8 lens. We have a rather skittish cat and she was fine until I pointed that lens at her which induced her to take off! I fear more stalking in her future.....;)

Adam: I was going to wait a couple of days to hook up the printer and your post has dissuaded me from that silly idea....:)

Best,

Steve O.

[Andy_T]

Thank you for pointing out the lack of manual override. I did not know that in these lenses. Not much of an issue for me at least for now, but still good to know.

That's a good point. Don't try to focus the lens manually when AF mode is on, or you'll most likely damage it.

If you're interested in macro photography, there are 2 things you might also consider:

a) extension tubes
b) holding your 1.4/50 lens reversed in front of one of the other lenses.
I am not kidding you. This was called 'poor man's macro' in the old days of photography. The 1.4/50 effectively works as a magnification lens that way.
This can be achieved either by a macro coupler ring (filter adapter with 2 filter threads) or by plain old sellotape. You can only focus manually then.

Also, look here for a tutorial on macro photography: http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

Best regards,
Andy