Lenses to go with 20d

[boomer1959]

I know this has been beat to death but I am going crazy tring to decide what lenses to buy with the 20d. I would like to do portraits plus a walk around lens all in one if there is such a thing. I have decided on the
100-400 allready for outdoor wildlife/ motorsports shots. The 20d and the 100-400 will use up alot of the budget. I was wanting to get one more lens for about $1000 Canadian or less. I have about $6000 to $7000 Canadian to spend. Any suggestions.

[defordphoto]

Yes, you are right. This has been beaten to death time and time and time and time again. :)

Take baby-steps. One lens at a time.

Get the 20D and the 100-400 (which is the most used lens for motorsports shooters) and then go from there.

As for the "other lens" I'd go for the 17-40L.

Hmmm...you getting the kit lens?

[Headcase650]

Tamron 28-75 2.8 DI

[Adam Hicks]

Take a look at my equipment list. It'll do just fine for you :)

I do motorsports stuffs for a high gloss high end auto enthusiast magazine.

Adam

[defordphoto]

So, anyway. Back to reality... ;) Don't you dare ask me for my list...

[Adam Hicks]

Yeah well, some of us have a BUDGET! :) Or a wife and young kids who are spoiled rotten in my case!

[wolf]

Tamron 28-75 F2.8 has gotten rave reviews. Going to order mine soon as I sell one of my other lenses.

Wish I had your budget. :D

[boomer1959]

Yes, you are right. This has been beaten to death time and time and time and time again. :)

Take baby-steps. One lens at a time.

Get the 20D and the 100-400 (which is the most used lens for motorsports shooters) and then go from there.

As for the "other lens" I'd go for the 17-40L.

Hmmm...you getting the kit lens?



Sorry about this guys :(

I like the 17-40L. I was thinking about the EFS 17-85 but I haven't heard anything good about it yet. Or I was thinking about the EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6IS. Or the Tamron 28-75 but i haven't been able to find one yet localy.
What do you think of these choices? Is the 17-40L a good choice for portraits without getting into the subjects face to close?

[Adam Hicks]

17-40 is a poor choice for portraits. It's not the focal range you want for the subject's features to appear natural. The Tamron is by far your best bet for portrait shots out of the lenses you list (and out of most lenses in general!) You don't want to take shots of people while you're standing 2 feet in front of them, it'll be hard to get them to act natural! (I love using my 100-400L outdoors to catch natural shots of people doing their thing)

Just order one from B&H or somewhere you can find a good deal. There's only been a few 'duds' and B&H or Tamron will quickly resolve the problem if you should be so unlucky.

Adam

[MDJAK]

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS which I love. I just purchased the 1.4 II converter but have only used it once on a very foggy soccer field. Haven't seen the results but am not expecting much.

I recently held and played with the 100-400 in B&H, but was not enamored with the push-pull design. Does the focal length require that design?

[Adam Hicks]

I assume it's not due to focal length, since some other lenses, like the Sigma 50-500 aren't that way (I don't think anyways!)

But the 100-400 grows on your after about the 5th day of use. It is weird at first, but soon spinning the tension ring and pushing and pulling is second nature. I don't know if I'd like having a twist zoom on it now.

But it is certainly akward to go from the 70-200 (which I had previously) to the 100-400 zoom.

Adam

[CoolToolGuy]

I know the 17-85 doesn't get the glowing reviews, and it is not an 'L' lens by any means, but it remains the lens with the best range on a 1.6 factor camera. I have made it my default walkaround lens, in spite of having more-highly-rated glass in my 'list'. I'm working through figuring out when it can be used and when I need to swap. I did a high school reunion (mine) with the 17-85 and the built-in flash, and it did an outstanding job - I got the shots despite making the rounds, keeping track of my reunion address book, an ever-present beer, and the attendant food - all with two hands.

Have Fun,

[johneo]

Sorry about this guys :(

I like the 17-40L. I was thinking about the EFS 17-85 but I haven't heard anything good about it yet. Or I was thinking about the EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6IS. Or the Tamron 28-75 but i haven't been able to find one yet localy.
What do you think of these choices? Is the 17-40L a good choice for portraits without getting into the subjects face to close?

I've got the 17-40 L ... great lens but not really a wide lens on my 10D or a 20D. Still, I use it ALL the time and especially on my Elan 7NE :D

I also have the 28-135 IS ... it was the 1st lens I had and I will be keeping this one for a long time ... it's not an "L" lens but it is very good!

I also have the 100-400 L IS ... WOW! :shock: I hate taking it off my 10D because I'm afraid I'll miss "the" best shot of my life. Heavy, expensive and the push-pull did take a little getting used to but well worth the effort, cost and weight, IMO

I also have the 50 f/1.8 ... inexpensive and excellent photo quality for the small price. It's nice to have just because it's nice to have :? OK, that doesn't make sense but if you have about $70 to throw away, it's money well spent. Though I've never used it for such, I suppose it would be a pretty decent portrait lens (80mm on the 20D)

The top of my wish list has the 70-200 f/4 L and if I should run into a little extra cash that will likely be replaced with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (Im getting used to starving ... :lol: ). Next on the list will most likely be the 85 f/1.8

I think, at least for myself, it comes down to what WILL i need/use to enjoy my photography without going broke in the process ... awww, never mind ... It's already making me broke :wink:

[boomer1959]

Thanks everyone for your input.
Thats is the first good reveiw of the 17-85 I've read so that is encouraging.
I hope I can also find a 28-75 to try out.
As I said before I will be buying the 100-400, just have to have that one. It will suit a lot of the stuff i like to shoot.
The 17-40L is a awsome lens but I don't think it will be good for what I want. But I could be wrong.
Thanks again :D

[ScottE]

Given that you need the 100-400 and only want one other lens, the lens that will give you the most coverage would be the new 17-85. Then you would have almost continuous coverage from 17 mm to 400 mm. The small gap between 85 and 100 is not very significant.

If you would consider two more lenses instead of one, the 28-135 would compliment the 100-400 very well. You could cover the wide angle lens with a 10-22 or Sigma 12-24.

[boomer1959]

Given that you need the 100-400 and only want one other lens, the lens that will give you the most coverage would be the new 17-85. Then you would have almost continuous coverage from 17 mm to 400 mm. The small gap between 85 and 100 is not very significant.

If you would consider two more lenses instead of one, the 28-135 would compliment the 100-400 very well. You could cover the wide angle lens with a 10-22 or Sigma 12-24.





Good points Scott :D I was thinking about the 28-135 but I never thought of geting a wide angle lens too.

[Roy NN7DX]

If you would consider two more lenses instead of one, the 28-135 would compliment the 100-400 very well. You could cover the wide angle lens with a 10-22 or Sigma 12-24.

I like ScottE's thinking...

My 20D line up:
12-24mm EX
28-135/IS
100-400L/IS

I'm pretty happy with the results... One or the other IS lenses is on the camera 95% of the time but the ability to use 12-24mm when it's needed is a pleasure...

Honestly, I also have a 50mm/f1.8 in my bag... It's an $80 insurance policy when faced with low light or when a shallow DOF portrait shot would be perfect...

[ScottE]

I didn't mention my favourite 2 lens combination for nature photography. A Canon 17-40/4 and a Sigma 50-500. I usually use a tripod with the 50-500. That gives almost continuous coverage from 17 to 500 mm.