Switching to Canon

[MinisterStanley]

After being bamboozled by Sony for the past 2 years, I'm finally wising up and switching to a Canon. After Christmas, I'll be ordering a new 20D. I'm going to purchase the body and look online (probably eBay) for the lens. I have seen some Tamron lenses for good prices. Since this is my first DSLR, I would like to know if someone can fill me in on the difference in the lenses from Canon, Sigma, and Tamron. I'm kinda on a budget and I want to purchase the body, lense, 2 gid microdrive, grip, and the 580ex flash. I don't really want to spend the money for Canon lenses if there is a way for me get good quality photos for less. I'm by no means a professional, and take most of my photos of my grandchildren, and while on vacation. In fact, the only reason that I'm purchasing the D20 is because I like to purchase the most camera I can get for my money. I also like the fact that with the 20D, I won't really have to change cameras every year (like with the Sony).

[tim]

In your position i'd probably consider the Canon 28-135 IS lens. It has a good range, and image stabilisation will counter shaking hands (which everyone does). Also you might consider a 2GB CF card, microdrives use more power and are less reliable.

Have a look at lens reviews on http://www.photographyreview.com too. That'll give you a good idea of the quality of the different lenses. If you're going for a cheap lens you could just get a 2nd hand 10D or Digital Rebel/300D, as the extra quality of the 20D could be wasted.

[CyberDyneSystems]

A 28-135mm, and a 50mm f/1.8 (for $75.00 :) ) is a great way to start.

[robertwgross]

Ditto.

Canon 28-135 I.S. at a minimum.

---Bob Gross---

[Cordell]

After being bamboozled by Sony for the past 2 years, I'm finally wising up and switching to a Canon. After Christmas, I'll be ordering a new 20D. I'm going to purchase the body and look online (probably eBay) for the lens. I have seen some Tamron lenses for good prices. Since this is my first DSLR, I would like to know if someone can fill me in on the difference in the lenses from Canon, Sigma, and Tamron. I'm kinda on a budget and I want to purchase the body, lense, 2 gid microdrive, grip, and the 580ex flash. I don't really want to spend the money for Canon lenses if there is a way for me get good quality photos for less. I'm by no means a professional, and take most of my photos of my grandchildren, and while on vacation. In fact, the only reason that I'm purchasing the D20 is because I like to purchase the most camera I can get for my money. I also like the fact that with the 20D, I won't really have to change cameras every year (like with the Sony).

My honest opinion is a question first. What has Sony done so wrong especially considering what you are using the camera for? Why do you think you HAVE to upgrade your camera every year? It is what you make the image as. Getting into a SLR for your use, as I see it, is money unwisely spent. You are looking at spending roughly $1,500 for the body, and another large amount for lenses. Your upgrade decisions sounds more like techie issues or trying to keep up with the Jone's ways.

Now to answer your question: Tamron 28-75 XR DI and Sigma EX 70-200. For the price of these two you can't go wrong. Try to stay clear of the "L" if you can because many people who use Canon will swear by it but at the same time it's like buying a 12 cyclinder Benz when you can have an 8 cylinder Caddy. You make the decision about the status you want .

[DocFrankenstein]

Consideting what you're gonna be shooting and your budget, I'd go with the Digital Rebel instead. In my opinion you're not gonna have a need for anything more serious.

In fact, the only reason that I'm purchasing the D20 is because I like to purchase the most camera I can get for my money. I also like the fact that with the 20D, I won't really have to change cameras every year (like with the Sony).
Digital bodies depreciate really fast. Rebel will do all you need.

Both the rebel and 20D will bodies will cost from 200 to 500 bucks in 3 years. But a 500$ canon lens will be around 400 in 3 years. :)

Plus... your images are only as good as the lens you put on your body. I'd try to get the best glass possible, even if it means a slightly inferior body.

For your purposes you have:
18-55 EFS f/3.5-5.6 - 120 bucks?
50mm f/1.8 - 70 bucks
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - 350 bucks

I'd start there and see if you need anything else.

It is what you make the image as. Getting into a SLR for your use, as I see it, is money unwisely spent.
You can't achieve the super shallow DOF with small sensors. He could really use it for portraits...

On the other hand you may be totally right. He'd be better off with G6 or G7... whichever one is the latest and/or actually exists.

[megaweb]

Try Sigma 18-125mm :)

[MinisterStanley]

To be honest, I am somewhat of a techie. I like having the latest. I'm also really want to get into photography. I like the idea of having something with a little more expandability than Sony. I have also had some custoemr service issues with Sony (both my camera and my laptop). So in replacing my camera, I'm not going to go with Sony. I like new things, and the 20D looks interesting. I know that it's overkill :) but I can't help it.

[DocFrankenstein]

To be honest, I am somewhat of a techie. I like having the latest. I'm also really want to get into photography. I like the idea of having something with a little more expandability than Sony. I have also had some custoemr service issues with Sony (both my camera and my laptop). So in replacing my camera, I'm not going to go with Sony. I like new things, and the 20D looks interesting. I know that it's overkill :) but I can't help it.
oh...

Let's all welcome MinisterStanley. My name is Andrew and I have equipment fetish. All of us here do.

Let's all thank Stanley for sharing with us...

Equipment fetish is something uncurable. People subject themselves to all kinds of suffering to satisfy this fetish... monetary posessions go... your second half's nagging is effectively filtered out... if you cut down on craft dinners you'd be able to afford a new filter a week... so you switch to oat meal and elephant grade peanuts.

But, unlike the unenlighened ones you have a purpose! You want to build a perfect system. During the day you work for the next lens, during the night you dream about the next lens and the time in between is spent reading about and discussing your next lens.

So, Stanley, Kiss your savings good bye! Once you get that first shot of the L stuff, you're hooked!

But you're not alone. You are really not alone!

So, in this case, I'd recommend you save yourself some frustration and get this:
50/1.4
70-200 f/2.8 IS L
Tamron 28-70
17-40 f/4 L

That should about do it (for the first 3 weeks) :D

[Quinn Porter]

Getting into a SLR for your use, as I see it, is money unwisely spent. You are looking at spending roughly $1,500 for the body, and another large amount for lenses. Your upgrade decisions sounds more like techie issues or trying to keep up with the Jone's ways.
...In my opinion you're not gonna have a need for anything more serious.
I think there's some pent up frustration around here because the board was down. I don't see how you guys can assume to know what the original poster needs, or doesn't need, from his limited post. As long as MinisterStanley is comfortable with the size, weight, and cost of the 20D, then I whole heartedly recommend it! It will be far better than any point and shoot for capturing fast moving grandkids. This is the digital EOS forum, everyone here that owns a digital SLR has an expensive camera body. So what?

As for the original question about lenses, you should know that Canon, Tamron, and Sigma all make some good lenses and some not so good lenses. Blanket statements about any brand aren't worth much. So review these message boards to find out which lenses should be considered. Here are three lenses (one from each company) that many people are happy with:

Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8

When you see a lens that interests you on ebay, get the exact full name of the lens, including all the numbers and letter abbreviations, and then post here to find out if it's any good.

[DocFrankenstein]

I think there's some pent up frustration around here because the board was down. I don't see how you guys can assume to know what the original poster needs, or doesn't need, from his limited post. As long as MinisterStanley is comfortable with the size, weight, and cost of the 20D, then I whole heartedly recommend it! It will be far better than any point and shoot for capturing fast moving grandkids.
I'm by no means a professional, and take most of my photos of my grandchildren, and while on vacation.

Kinda gives you an general idea, doesn't it?

[Olegis]

Tamron 28-70

I would skip this rather rare lens and go with the 28-75 version instead :rolleyes: :)

[karusel]

MinisterStanley: sooner or later you WILL find yourself seriously looking at some heavy L glass and you'll purchase as much of it as your budget will allow you, so please, be honest with yourself and stop saying you don't want to spend much. ;)

I'll tell you exactly what you want to hear: yes, it is allright if you want very good quality and yes, it's worth the price. So, in case you're somewhat shy of spending alot, do take the advice of someone above and get the Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 70-200. Otherwise switch the Tamron with Canon 24-70L and the Sigma with Canon 70-200L IS. Oh, and should you feel you need a good low light lens, get the 50mm f/1.4.

[phili1]

If you want agood overall set up you can go with the Tamron 28-75 a super lens for the price. I have had cheap teles and they just do not cut it, so a good choice is Canon 70-200. the IS version is $1500 where as you can get the non IS F4 L version for aroun d $600.
If you can afford it the Canln L glass is the weay to go although Tamrons 28-75 comes close to some and beats others.

The big problem is once you get the bug its hard not to buy.

[MinisterStanley]

You are right Karuse1, I'm not really being honest with myself. I know I'm going to end up spending lots of money (but I just love my "toys"). As far as possibly keeping up with the Joness, I don't have to. Most folks I know (and I know this sounds sad) don't even own digital cameras. I got bit by the technology bug some years ago, and it has been with me every since. This goes way beyond just my camera. I upgrade all of my computers once a year, I upgrade my cell phone about twice a year. I get an itch is I see a new type of gadget and don't have it. As far as lenses, thank you all for the recommendations. Remember ladies and gentlemen, technical overkill is a good thing (I sure hope my therapist is not reading this) :grin:

[Cadwell]

You are right Karuse1, I'm not really being honest with myself. I know I'm going to end up spending lots of money (but I just love my "toys"). As far as possibly keeping up with the Joness, I don't have to. Most folks I know (and I know this sounds sad) don't even own digital cameras. I got bit by the technology bug some years ago, and it has been with me every since. This goes way beyond just my camera. I upgrade all of my computers once a year, I upgrade my cell phone about twice a year. I get an itch is I see a new type of gadget and don't have it. As far as lenses, thank you all for the recommendations. Remember ladies and gentlemen, technical overkill is a good thing (I sure hope my therapist is not reading this) :grin:


:( Another "L"coholic for sure :(

[MinisterStanley]

The question about the lenses was asked because in my quest for technology, I have learned (and an expensive lesson it was) that sometimes the 3rd party accessories are just as good as the OEM accessories. I could buy Canon lenses if they are truly superior to the other available brands, but if I can (for example) buy another brand lens that is just as good as the Canon brand for less money, then I can spend the difference on something else. When I submit questions about lenses in the future, if you all say that one lens is better than another, I'll save more money and buy the better lens. I'm not being cheap, I'm just trying to be careful.

[karusel]

Absolutely. Then I suggest the following; I have found out that not only are faster lens simply better, because, hey, they're expensive and all the pro's use them, but since there isn't always sunshine a fast lens is a necessity, plus, those lens don't make compromises. The 28-135 IS, as good as it may be, gets sharp at smaller apertures, OTOH, the 70-200 2.8 is sharp at 2.8 and doesn't get any sharper when stopping down. Primes within that range are perhaps only slightly sharper, but I'm not for sure. So, the list of my 'could be' lenses:

16-35mm 2.8L (alternatively Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0)
24-70mm 2.8L (alt Tamron 28-75 2.8)
50mm 1.4L (alt 50mm 1.8 II)
85mm 1.2L (alt 85mm 1.8)
70-200mm 2.8L IS
disadvising the 100-400mm

Sigma 120-300 2.8 EX HSM (tripod is a must)
400mm 2.8L IS

If you're a macro guy, MP-E 65mm along with macro twin-lite flash

I had to compromise a little, so I got both Tamrons on the top of the list, 50mm 1.8II and I'll be selling the 100-400L to get the 70-200 2.8L IS. A friend lend me his 50mm 1.0, but I found it way too soft at 1.0 and 1.2 and since there really is no point in using it at 1.4, it's no good. It is, however, good for intimate portraits in low light, such as candle light, but it is simply too expensive to be used just for that. So, yeah, I'm all nuts about sharpness, but then again, who isn't, honestly?

[MinisterStanley]

:rolleyes: Boy is my wifes not gonna like this new adventure!!!!!!!

[Longwatcher]

I note that your original question about tehe different brands of lenses has not been answered yet.
Canon has three levels of lenses which vary in terms of quality.
- There low-end consumer lenses, these are okay for the price, but not recommended unless cost is your only consideration.
- Second are the mid-level consumer lenses, Some of these (such as the 28-135 IS and the two 50mm primes) are very good value for your money, others are okay. There also appears to be some variation in some of the lenses (such as the 75-300 IS) that result in various reviews
- Third is the high-end "L" for Luxury or professional lenses. These are for when cost is of no concern or when you need that little bit extra something. You pay for what you get, but very rarely will you be disappointed in an a Canon lens with the "L" designation.

Sigma lenses overall rate just behind Canon, generally their high-end lenses are better then Canon mid-level, but don't seem to make it to Canon L quality (with exceptions)
There have been some issues with Sigma lenses in the past, but I hear fewer and fewer of the negative comments, so would consider Sigma lenses a good value

Tamron lenses tend to be more hit and miss. They have some lenses which are good values and others which are a complete waste of money. Read multiple reviews of any desired lens carefully before buying, but some of them appear to be a very good value.
Although I personally would not consider Tamron, they do have some good lenses; just none I would consider (note: I have a strong bias against Tamron lenses base don my experience)

As to which lenses
I always recommend one of the 50's (1.4 or 1.8) as being mandatory lenses for a 1.6x format camera (such as the 20D).
Other then that decide what you want to do with your photography and how much you want to spend and go from there.

The best set for 20D (if never going full frame in next 3-5 years would be:
10-22
17-40/4L
24-70/2.8L
70-200/2.8L IS
100-400L IS
50/1.4
1.4 and 2x extenders

and if you need longer range there are always the 500mm or longer primes.


Just my opinion, feel free to ignore

[MinisterStanley]

Thank you. You guys (and girls) are great.

[Olegis]

Don't forget the excellent Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 - it's very wide even on the 1.6 crop body (24mm effective length). The Tokina 17mm f/3.5 ATX PRO is also very good wide lens for the money - sharp, flare-resistant and build like the best of Canon L lenses.

As of 85 mm f/1.2L - I would never spend that much money on such a lens, it's advantages are easily reduced when you consider the price. The f/1.8 version is available at 1/3 cost and offers very similar optical performance. In fact, the f/1.8 version has MUCH faster AF mechanism, which makes it much more versatile lens.

[karusel]

Yup, I absolutely realize that and it's true. The 85 1.2 is kind of a wish lens, well, definetely one of the legendary primes. It's really not meant for sports or action, but there's nothing like it in low light, and one light stop can make a whole lot difference, not to mention the possibility of insanely shallow DOF. Also, as I'm really not into long-range, instead of buying silly lens like 500mm prime for 6k bucks, I'd take the 85 1.2 for a 1/4 (1/5?) of that price...

But let's stay ontopic. 8)