lens for the 20D (i'm very picky)

[hornetzoo]

I'm looking for an expert's opinion. I just bought a 20D with no lens and I want to buy one that I won't need to replace when I get better at photography.

My criteria is the following:

1) Not more than $300, $200 would be better

2) A zoom lens, but I value sharpness, brightness and general image quality over range.

3) Good wide angle coverage.

Also, feel free to let me know if I am asking for the impossible!

cheers,
bobby

[021411]

Depending on where you shop, you could get a Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 for about $350-400. There is a rebate for them until the end of the month. I've seen really nice/sharp pictures come from that lens. I really doubt you will need to replace it.

[Redbird_xo]

Yes, you are asking the impossible. Should you find a lens that fits all 3 of your requirements, please kindly let me know. I will sure to get one.

[hornetzoo]

Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case. :) Does anyone else have a suggestion for a good compromise? How are the Tamron lenses. I remember seeing that they have a 6 year warranty. Does canon also give a good warranty?

[cactusclay]

Canon has a one year warrenty, but you might be able to get an extended one through Mac. I think it's called. The only lens I can think of that Canon makes that would not need to worry about upgrading, in the three hundred dollar range, would be a prime, not a zoom. Hope that helps.

[ScottE]

The only Canon zoom lens that gives good wide angle coverage on a 20D is the 10-22 (about 16-35 coverage on a full frame camera). Lenses like the 17-40 or 16-35 zooms reach wide angle, but don't really cover it.

That leaves non-Canon lenses to choose from. Several manufactures make 12-24 mm lenses and Sigma is bringing out a 10-20 mm.

If you are extremely picky about resolution you will want to stick prime lenses. For wide angle the 14 mm f/2.8 Canon would be good bet, but well out of your price range. Sigma and Tamron make somewhat cheaper versions.

Scott

[EricKonieczny]

You asking a lot of a lens with little money in terms of what lenses cost but here is my suggestion and I own one personally.


Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Autofocus Lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206434&is=USA


You can see examples here:
http://www.ekreating.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=21
http://www.ekreating.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=22

[eosster]

None available at that price range, be resonable with price.

[tim]

Get the Tamron suggested above from here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG). It's $329 after the rebate, plus shipping I guess, I found Tamron rebates much quicker and less hastle than Canon.

[hornetzoo]

I might splurge and go for this one instead:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006I53S/ref=pd_cps_e_4/002-1633985-7433638?v=glance&s=photo&n=507846

Questions: How does the build quality compare to the Tamron? What about the sharpness? How good is the IS? Is the USM going to make it much faster than the tamron? Can I still get the blurred background effect at this aperature? If I'm going to spend $420, is there a better lens for the same price?

[tim]

I'd take the Tamron (I did) because of the 2.8 aperture. IS is handy but doesn't make up for the 28-135 only being 3-5 - 5.6. I've decided not to buy lenses that are slower than F2.8 unless there's a good reason to - eg long telephoto lenses. The Tamron's fast enough, USM will be faster. You'll have trouble getting a well blurred background at F5.6, but it depends on usage - F2.8 is much better. Cameras with wider maximum apertures focus more easily in low light too.

[Gary W. Graley]

I have the 28-135 and the blurred backgrounds look fine and the IS is a very handy feature to have, low light works well, focuses fast.

But my favourite lens is still the Canon 85 f1.8 exceptionally sharp and whisper quiet focus and great blurred backgrounds, to compliment that lens, get the Canon 35 f2, I, like a knut, sold my 35 f2 to try and fund a 16-35L but after receiving two lenses that I didn't find that worked properly, gave up on that and now have, for the moment ;), decided to search out the Canon 35L f1.4 lens, they are hard to find right now but I do like that length of lens on the 20D.

So, for me, I'm keeping the 28-135 IS for my walk around type lens, and using the 85 f1.8 for portraits and the 35L, when and if I can get it, for low light photography and some walk around stuff as well.

This was shot with the 35 f2.0 lens, of the Castle in Edinburgh Scotland while there on business last month, the sky wasn't the best and my PS skills lack in making it nicer, hope to correct that this year. But the lens, even the 2.0 version, is a great little lens!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/GaryWGraley/EOS%2020D/castle3.jpg
G2

[johnbs]

My criteria is the following:
1) Not more than $300, $200 would be better
2) A zoom lens, but I value sharpness, brightness and general image quality over range.
3) Good wide angle coverage.

I think that price is not possible.

If you can stretch a little, I would recommend the Sigma 18-50/2.8.

I paid about US$370 in Hong Kong for it.

It is the equivalent of about 28-80 after the 1.6 multiplier

John

[Rigby470]

Please do not take this the wrong way, but why would you spend $1500 on a camera and skimp on a lense? I would go ahead and spend up to around $500. For that price, you can get several high quality lenses.

[Dante King]

I think the consenus on the forum is to invest in the glass. Damn it is expensive!

I have had great luck with my Tamron Lenses and love my canon lineup. My first lens was the tamron 28-300 (44-480 with 1.6 crop). Nice little lens. It is small and super light. Not the fastest and certainly does not sit on the same level as the 28-75 tamron, but for me it was all round starting point.

USM is a real plus. I have been going round and round about selling my 50mm 1.8 to pick up the 50mm 1.4usm just to benefit form the USM. Dont really care about the difference of 1.8-1.4. ABOSLUETLY love my canon 85mm 1.8usm. What a peice of work that is.

If you are looking budget with no pro expectations, go tamron and get a nifty fifty 1.8. Looking to invest? Well, there are many more costly recommentations listed in the EOS Lens Sticky (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752)

Good Luck itsa not an easy choice.

[raylks]

I think the kit lens can serve well. 18mm gives you wide angle view, and 55mm give you reasonable tele view.

I cannot find other zom lens for the budget.

[sugar_babygirli]

EEEKKK! I've had horrible luck with the kit lens! I haven't gotten 1 fairly decent shot that hasn't needed a ton of Photoshop fixing. That's awesome if anyone can get ok shots out of it, but it sure isn't working for me!

[raylks]

I get my kit lens when I receive my 300D, see my shots. I feel okay for it. (don't ask for L-grade sharp!)

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/paklai/CRW_1461.jpg

http://210.245.164.161/albums3/raylks/paklai/CRW_1461.jpg