Ok, say I did buy a cough, cough D20

[benhasajeep]

Say I did buy a EOS 20D. Is the lens that comes with it in kit form any good? As I said before I am a Nikon guy but for the price its hard to beat the D20.

So if I do buy the body is the "kit" lens of any "quality" or should I just buy the body and another lens? Are Canon zooms "very good glass" or should I stick with a couple Canon primes. Mostly into outdoor photo's. I have never shot with a canon. So have no idea on what is good and what is just ok in their lens line up.

[OviV]

Kit lens (18-55) is cheaply built but optical quality is not bad for the price. It will also get you a wide angle that won't break the bank. As far as Canon glass goes, just about anything with an L after its name is going to be excellent but will cost you. There are a number of non L lenses that are very respectable. The 28-135 IS is a good zoom at an affordable price. The 50 1.8 is a great lens (optically) and a bargain at around $65. 85 1.8 also gets very good reviews. 70-200 F4 L although and L is affordable and excellent. There are also some 3rd party lenses for EOS bodies with a great reputation. These include: Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Sigma 70-200 2.8. I own both of these and like them alot.

Ovi

[watermarkphotography]

I would not get the kit lens. That lens sucks. Unless its the 17-85 F/4 with I S. get the Tamron 28-75 DI F/2.8 its fast and clear. I got the big kit lens also but I don't use it much.

[gramps]

I bought the body only then added the 24 - 70.

[Scott J]

Two high quality lenses that are very highly thought of:

70-200 F4 L http://************/63erj

17-40 F4 L http://************/4fk2b

With those two and a 5Omm F1.4 and maybe 100mm F2.8 macro and you have some serious glass.

[Ogrt48]

I would not get the kit lens. That lens sucks. Unless its the 17-85 F/4 with I S. get the Tamron 28-75 DI F/2.8 its fast and clear. I got the big kit lens also but I don't use it much.

Its no L lens but if you say it sucks you sure are blind.

[tim]

The kit lens is great as a starter lens and a cheap wide angle lens. I use it very rarely but for the price i'd recommend getting it.

[Jim Larson]

You are spending $1500 on the body. What is your budget for glass?

On $700, I would get the 18-55 kit lens ($100), 28-135/IS ($425), and the 420EX flash ($175).

On $1500, I would get the 17-40/4L ($670), 50/1.8 ($70), 70-200/4L ($575) and 420EX flash ($175).

On $4600, I would get the 16-35/2.8L ($1300ish), 24-70/2.8L($1300ish), and 70-200/2.8L-IS($1500ish), 550EX ($325ish) PLUS 420EX ($175) flashes.

Note the presence of a flash unit in all three lists.

You don't have to get everything at once.

Don't get the 17-85/IS. Not enough bang for the buck. (unless you really, really, don't want multiple lenses. . .in which case I say buy a P&S instead)

[FlyingPete]

The kit lens is great as a starter lens and a cheap wide angle lens. I use it very rarely but for the price i'd recommend getting it.

Yep I second that, I carry it around for those odd time that 28mm is not wide enough. not used often, but needed when I do. It is better optically than alot of the other 'kit' lenses from the film SLR's.

[stv737]

Don't waste your money on the 18-55, I just bought a 17-40L and the difference in picture quality on my 20D is amazing. I took a shot of Mt. Rainier with the 18-55 kit lens at 4x6 the picture is amazing, had a 12x18 made of the same shot and the edges are soft. There is one spot on the right side that the trees are blurry, but the trees on either side are sharp. If you never get enlargments the kit lens is okay, if you go with a big print you'll be disappointed.

[Mike Panic]

id like to bring up the point that there are TWO differant kit lenses available w/ the body, 18-55 and the 17-85is... which is not the fastest of lenses but is a great deal and is is

[DocFrankenstein]

What nikon glass did you have?
What quality are you used to?
What do you consider acceptable?

[watermarkphotography]

Quote:
Originally Posted by watermarkphotography
I would not get the kit lens. That lens sucks. Unless its the 17-85 F/4 with I S. get the Tamron 28-75 DI F/2.8 its fast and clear. I got the big kit lens also but I don't use it much.



Its no L lens but if you say it sucks you sure are blind.

Let me Re- state that " it sucks "

My old Minolta Dimage 7I puts it to shame, and it has a fixed lens.
Why spend $1500 cash and get better pics with an old camera.


Blindley Yours

[CaseyScofield]

I have not bought the 20D yet, but when I do (in the next week or so) I probably will buy the kit lens with it. While I'm sure it's no L lens, I have not been supremely disappointed with other kit lens's I have bought from Canon.

[ScottE]

I would never start buying Nikon lenses, but if I had a good collection I would not buy an 20D.

You can be almost certain that Nikon will bring out a good competitor for the 20D within the next year. Why not just wait and save yourself a lot of money on replacing lenses you already have?

[watermarkphotography]

I have not bought the 20D yet, but when I do (in the next week or so) I probably will buy the kit lens with it. While I'm sure it's no L lens, I have not been supremely disappointed with other kit lens's I have bought from Canon.


You will be ! Spend the extra money and get the 17-85 IS kit lens or get the body only and buy the Tamron 28-75 DI F/2.8 it is less money, faster and much clearer than the ( small ) kit lens.Do a search for the reviews on the tamron at least.

I am sorry if i offend those who got the kit lens, but it realy sucked, I took it back after one day.

[Akreager]

I am a Nikon guy too. I have a D70 with a 17-55F2.8DX, an SC-29 cord, and 3 SB800s. In my opinion Nikon has the supior wireless multiple i-ttl flash system. However, noise on the D70 above iso400 is unacceptable. The D20 is one stop better (d20 iso 800 noise = D70 iso400). That and mirror lock-up are the only significant diferences. In my opinion it is not worth the 1500 you will spend to get that upgrade. Here is what I am going to do - Keep my D70/17-55/Flash combo for multiple flash and get a 1D Mark II with a 35F1.4L, 70-200F2.8L IS for available light and studio flash work. Mark II noise at iso1200 = D70 noise at 400. The two will form a great combo. That said I will be spending 7000 for the body and glass. If you are a nikon guy looking for an upgrade on a 2000 budget at least wait til this summer to see what the D100 replacement looks like. It should be as good as the 20D and you can use your current lenses. If you are buying all new lenses I guess it does not matter.

[Akreager]

I have a Tam 28-75 f2,8DI used on a D70. It is a great lense at low price

[Ogrt48]

Too many people using the N word in this thread :(

[Monito]

It is great to use the Nikon word in Canon forums. The more times the Nikon word is used, the more likely search engines will register a hit that Nikon users or people considering Nikon will follow and thus more publicity for Canon and ultimately more sales which leads to more product.

I say, "Welcome Nikon users" and "More power to Canon!"

[Roy NN7DX]

Yes Kids... Canon always sells their newest camera models with crappy lenses so they get a bad rap and poor reviews... NOT...
Lets face it, for $100 Canon isn't giving away it's top of the line lenses... It ain't L glass but it's better than lots of people think... For many casual shooters it might be the only lens they need below 28mm...

Edit: I still can't find where I checked "Place all my posts on the second page where they get lost"

[Andy_T]

... and the 17-85is... which is not the fastest of lenses but is a great deal and is is

I'd say that at 500$ is is far from being a good deal.

Best regards,
Andy

[RockOne]

Tamron 28-75 DI F/2.8
What if you need to go just that little bit wider ? I have a 28-80mm Canon (ex EOS500 kit lens)and find that a lot of times it just isn't wide enough. Since the 17-40L is much more expensive than the kit lens, and the kit lens gives a fairly good quality picture (admittedly it probably isn't an L, but then it isn't priced accordingly either) I'd recommend picking one up. It's probably the cheapest way to get into the wide angle side of things, at least for starters.

[Jon]

You will be ! Spend the extra money and get the 17-85 IS kit lens or get the body only and buy the Tamron 28-75 DI F/2.8 it is less money, faster and much clearer than the ( small ) kit lens.Do a search for the reviews on the tamron at least.

I am sorry if i offend those who got the kit lens, but it realy sucked, I took it back after one day.

So you're basing your conclusions on extensive testing of a large number of examples under a variety of conditions? Noone's disputing that a 17-40 L is better, but people who have used the 18-55 more than you have are saying it's not a bad lens. The comparison with your Dimage 7I's lens, which uses much shorter focal lengths and covers a much smaller physical area, is, for just those reasons, invalid.

[Ogrt48]

What if you need to go just that little bit wider ? I have a 28-80mm Canon (ex EOS500 kit lens)and find that a lot of times it just isn't wide enough. Since the 17-40L is much more expensive than the kit lens, and the kit lens gives a fairly good quality picture (admittedly it probably isn't an L, but then it isn't priced accordingly either) I'd recommend picking one up. It's probably the cheapest way to get into the wide angle side of things, at least for starters.

Feet + step backwards = problem solved :P