Looking at Canon 20d??

[bcripe]

Hello, I am pretty new to the photography thing. A few years ago I was buying disposable cameras, then an APS Elph2 then the 3.2 digital Elph. In a few weeks I will be moving from my place in CA back to where I grew up in NW Montana. I would like to buy a 20d (looked at all others and am not interested) but Im not sure what goodies that I need? There are some package deals on ebay that look pretty good? The picture below was taken with the APS camera and is representative of what I would like to shoot. Maybe some wildlife as well. Im not looking for cheapest but also not 5k worth of stuff. Any advise would be greatly appreciated! Thanks a bunch!

BC


http://www.yaakmeadows.com/PR13201078116.jpg

[Bob_A]

Hi BC,

It's always difficult to say, but the following might work for you without blowing your budget:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4.0-5.6 IS ($600)
Canon 70-200 f4.0L ($580)
Canon EF 1.4x II Extender ($280)

If you want to shoot low light, or indoor action type shots the above two lenses may be too slow for you. However, for outdoor daylight shots they would be excellent IMO. There are also lots of reports that the 1.4 teleconverter works exceptionally well with the 70-200, so for $280 US the 70-200 would have the reach of a 98-280.

There are also some really good alternatives to the Canon lenses that you should also consider.


Bob

[LadyHawk]

Welcome to the forums, BC. My recommendation is to start out buying the best you can from the beginning (one good lens rather than three OK lenses). Otherwise you will inevitably go through "lens evolution," similar to your experience with cameras. You will love the 20D! ;)

[tim]

Have a read of this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752).

For small wildlife the 70-200 F4 with a convertor gives you around 100-280 @ F5.6, which is probably not long enough and is quite slow. You'd be better off with the 100-400L. For a general walkaround lens I use a Tamron 28-75, which for my uses (and most general uses) is better than an F4-F5.6 IS lens.

[bcripe]

Thanks everybody! Its hard to understand all of these lenses. I think Ill just stick with the canon lenses for now until I understand them better. Is it even worth getting the kit lense? Or is it better just getting a body and going from there?

Thanks alot!
BC

[wolf]

I second the Tamron 28-75. It is an awesome lens along with the Tamron 17-35. They are both comparable to the equivalent Canon lenses.

[Bob_A]

Have a read of this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752).

For small wildlife the 70-200 F4 with a convertor gives you around 100-280 @ F5.6, which is probably not long enough and is quite slow. You'd be better off with the 100-400L. For a general walkaround lens I use a Tamron 28-75, which for my uses (and most general uses) is better than an F4-F5.6 IS lens.

Hi Tim,

The 100-400 is a great lens, but it costs $1400 and weighs 3 lbs ... a pretty big jump from a P&S :D If BC is serious about going after "small wildlife" then this would be a good choice. If he's looking for something a bit more general purpose, then the 70-200 f4L and a teleconverter might be a better fit ... all depends. If he's shooting low light then the f4/f5.6 is too slow, but if the picture that BC displayed is representative of what he likes to shoot then f4/f5.6 is plenty fast enough.

Of course the Tamron 28-75 is a very nice lens, but the 17-85 shouldn't be overlooked, mainly because it is wider. Both of these lenses are pretty sharp, so IMO it's a trade-off between the Tamron being faster or the Canon being wider (and a bit longer). For scenic shots like the one BC displayed the 17-85 would be a great choice. The only thing I don't like about the EF-S lenses is that they are EF-S lenses. I still have a film body that I use, and I hope that in the future there will be a prosumer priced body with a full sized sensor ...

Good thing there is lots of different gear to choose from, 'cause we will all have different opinions :lol:


Bob

[vkalia]

Get the kit lens if you are just starting out. For the price, it is pretty damn good and provides a good place for you to start shooting. In the beginning, it isnt the equipment that is going to be the limiting factor anyway. Once you have gained some experiences, then, depending on your requirements, you can build as needed.

There are lots of different ways to spend money - even if you have $5k to spend. Each way has some benefits and some disadvantages - and only you know what is best for you. If you start out with the 18-55, then after a while, you'll learn what your needs are. Then you can ask a more specific question, tailored to your needs, and get the *right* lens for you.

What you *should* do is buy a GOOD tripod. This, along with the 18-55, will yield better landscape shots than any L lens handheld/on a wobbly tripod. The Bogen 3021PROs are a good legset for general use. If you have some more cash to splash, and need something lighter (for hiking, eg), then one of the CF jobbies by Gitzo (1227/1228) could be worth looking into as well. Dont hesitate to spend extra here, b/c this is something you will not outgrow.

Also get some good books on photography. John Shaw's books on landscape/nature photography are some of the best I have seen. One of the most lucid descriptions of exposure, and some really practical tips on how to take better photos. And inspirational images, to boot.

So to sum up - start shooting and learn the basics, then invest heavily in equipment.

Vandit

[Bob_A]

I liked your post Vandit. Great advice.

Bob

[bcripe]

Thanks for the advise! I guess Ill just go for the kit lense for now and get used to it first. I should be able to at least do better than what these cameras are able to do.

I want to use the camera for scenic shots like what I have taken with the APS Elph and digital elph that are located on my website in the photo gallery.

http://www.yaakmeadows.com

With these types of pictures in mind, any advise on other accessories that I should get? Other than a good tripod.

Thanks again for the advise!
BC

[wolf]

A circular polarizing filter (http://www.offrench.net/photos/articles/polarizing_filter.php).

[jgutierr57]

Yea..... "Circular Polarizer Filter" will be necesary specially in landscape Photography. A must for Sky Saturation and Water reflections. Enjoy.........

[vkalia]

Also, look into getting a graduated neutral density filter. These are square filters, with one half darker than the other. They come in varying flavors, depending on how much darker the half is, and whether the edge is hard (clearly delineated) or soft.

These are great for capturing landscapes where the sky is brighter than the foreground - it enables you to retain details in the foreground without losing too much color in the sky. Read up on google on how to use these filters.

You can do the same thing in RAW and post-processing but considering that in most cases it is much faster to get it right in-camera, I dont see any reason to not use it. There are times, however, when the nature of the landscape and lack of a clearly-defined horizon makes digital post-processing a better alternative, however.

Get a 2-stop hard edged filter to start with. This, along with a CPL and shooting scenics in the golden light (dusk and dawn) will really give you images that pop.

Vandit

[fortinaa]

Great tips Vandit.

I am going to re-affirm the opinion of getting the kit lens to start with. You can't beat it for under $100 (although some will argue for the Sigma 18-50). In good light, this lens will be fine for landscapes. If you find you want better later, get the 17-40 or 17-85 IS (just beware that the latter option is EF-S and won't work for film or full frame sensors later). For wildlife I don't think the recommended 70-200 will be long enough. It's a great lens for shorter range and sports, but don't plan on shooting many birds with it unless they are large, and you are very stealthy! The 100-400 is a very nice and very expensive option. Otherwise, you could look into the Sigma 50-500mm if you are ready to carry some weight around for the focal range it gives. It costs 2/3 of the 100-400, but you lose the IS. I ended up getting a 400mm prime after finding out the hard way that 200mm wasn't long enough for birds on a 1.6x camera, and the 2x extender didn't help image quality.