Can someone tell me if these lenses are good?

[JeffreyP]

Hi all,

I used a film SLR (Canon EOS Elan) for years and am just making the jump to digital with a near-future (this week) purchase of a EOS 20D.

I have 2 autofocus Canon EF lenses already from the Elan.

A 35-70mm 1:3.5-4.5 and a 70-210mm 1:4

I know these lenses are compatible with the 20D, but are they any good?

Should I buy the kit lens 18-55 that comes with the 20D or just use my 35-70?

I guess if I get the 18-55 (although a cheaper plastic lens) maybe I'll be covered for just about any shooting condition? Or, are all these lenses basically not great lenses & I should consider others?

I was getting decent shots with these lenses on film, just wasn't sure how they stacked up when it came to the 20D.

I know, a tough question. Just need to know if I can get away with these lenses I already have & not spend too much more $$.

Any recommendations appreciated,

Thanks!
Jeff

[tim]

Reviews are here (http://www.photographyreview.com/Lenses/PSC_3787crx.aspx).

The kit lens is cheap and is quite a wide angle, so i'd recommend getting it.

[Longwatcher]

They are not the best lenses, but if you were happy with them then the 18-55 should also be a good lens. I will recommend the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 right now as that will give you a good/great lens to compare against. If you don't sit there and count the pixels the 20D should not be any different then your film camera. Note: should not be. But it is to easy to look at the shot at the pixel level with digital.

If you get the 50/1.8 and your other lenses are no longer acceptable then you will need to get new lenses.

As to getting the 18-55, tis better to get it with the camera, then want it latter, but you could probably live without it if you think you might be able to afford the 17-40/4 later.

Just my opinion,

[Monito]

I am using the 70-210 F4 on a 20D and it is working well. Note, that is the old zoom that goes to 210, not 200. The old push pull zoom, that rotates as it focuses. I assume that is what you are referring to.

I bought the body only and used my old lenses. Works great!

I would recommend skipping the 18-55 and going for the 17-85 EFS.

[JeffreyP]

Monito,

Yes, it's the push-pull 70-210 EF f4 lens. I got pretty good images with it with my old film EOS Elan body.

Has your lens lost it's ability to hold the zoom point? If I'm shooting something at a pretty big angle upwards or downwards, the lens zoom slides on its own. I guess it's loose or something.

Can this be repaired? Maybe its just a loose bushing?

[cactusclay]

If you can, take your lenses to a camera store and put them on a 20d, or a Rebel and take some pictures in the store, wide open and at the extemes of the zoom range, then magnify the images on the LCD on the camera and look at the center and edges to see how sharp they are, then put a 50 mm prime or an L lens on there and do the same thing. You should be able to see a big difference, if not then why waste the money? Good luck.

[Monito]

My zoom seems a bit loose and wobbly too and I was worried about its optical performance, but I have satisfied myself that it performs well when used on a tripod. I'm not going to get it adjusted or repaired.

A zoom is not going to be able to compete against a prime lens.

A store test is far from definitive, but can give an indication if it is done carefully. Wide open is important, but not the only test point, since lenses usually perform best a couple of stops down from wide open. Best to use a tripod or a very high shutter speed. I did an in-store test that way and was able to satisfy myself that my zoom is performing well.

Using the camera LCD is not very good. You need to be able to put it on a laptop or something to compare. I took my camera home and compared the images carefully on the computer at 200 % magnification from the Raw files.

Later I got worried again about the sharpness of the zoom. It doesn't match my 50 or my 28mm, no surprise since those are fixed focal lengths. However, by using a tripod and by sharpening the image in GIMP, it became clear that the zoom was performing very well.

[phili1]

I would stay away from the 18 to 55 and if you can afford it go with the 17 to 85, it is IS and a better lens.

As far as your 70 to 210 goes, it is not a quality lens but I would try it and if it gives you waht you want Great.

If you want a good walk around portrait lens the Tamron 28 to 75 F2.8 is a great lens, several of us own and love it and it is cheap.

[JeffreyP]

Thanks everyone. I'm going to hold onto the 70-210, I've got good film pics with that one.

I'm going to avoid the 18-55 kit lens, sounds like junk. I cant quite afford the 17-85 kit lens though ($550).

I am looking to for an "all purpose" "carry around"replacement for my EF 35-70 lens, I dont think that lens ever took great images (at least that's what I rmember from my film experience)

I did find a Canon EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for $200 which will just put me at budget.

I also found an EF 24-85MM F3.5-4.5 for $289.

Anybody have any experience with these?

[DocFrankenstein]

Anybody have any experience with these?
They probably won't be wide enough. 18-55 would be a better deal IMO...

Also... you can't compare sharpness on the camera LCD. It just doesn't show you the 100% crop.

Bring a CF card in store. then take it home and compare on the computer.

Cheers

[piratefishka]

I see you have a Tamron 17-35. I have heard that this is nearly as good as the Canon L lens. I can find it for about $150 less than the L. I do interiors alot and am trying to make an educated decision without having experience w/ digital. I have a Canon 24mm that I have been using on my film camera and it works great.
Steve

[ron chappel]

The 28-105 (3.5-4.5 version) and the 24-85 are both good mid priced zooms.Along with the 28-135 IS ,they are THE most recommended normal canon zooms.

There is nothing like using a lens to know how good or bad it is, so choosing to keep the 70-210 because it has got good pics to it's credit is a perfect decision

[Andy_T]

I would stay away from the 18 to 55 and if you can afford it go with the 17 to 85, it is IS and a better lens.


What you get in the 17-85 for your extra 400$ (5 times the price) will be most likely

+ an additional mm (17 instead of 18 ) on the wide end
+ IS
+ 30 mm on the tele end (85 instead of 55)
+ better build quality

= about the same image quality from 18-55

- actually more distortion on the 18 mm end

--> that is not very convincing to me ... I know a lot of better ways to spend $ 400...

Some examples ... you could get
- a 28-135 IS (IS and long reach) or
- a Tamron 28-75/2.8 AND a 50/1.8 (2.8 and 'L' sharpness)

So my suggestion would be ... to get the 18-55 lens with the 20D and try it out.
It'll cover your wide angle needs until you think you don't need it any longer ... then you put it on eBay for 80% of the price you bought it for.

Of course, if you plan to get the 17-40 L or the Tokina AT-X 17/3.5 immediately, do that instead.

Best regards,
Andy

[mdr]

Bteer still, take your own CF card, and look at the pics on your computer when getting home.

[mdr]

If you can strecth your budget, consider the 17-40mm L. You won't regret it, it's tack sharp.