20D lenses

[CrazyPuma]

Hi all

I just bought a 20D kit (my 1st digital camera) and the lens that comes with it stinks. I mean, it's ok for general use and all that...but it's hard to test how good the camera might be with this thing.
Some of it is my current utter lack of understanding how digital cameras work and the fact I'm nothing special w/a camera but still...I can definitely see how poor it is, even compared to my 20 year old 35mmSLR lenses.

I've looked around websites for lens reviews but most of them review Canon L lenses and honestly, after spending $1800 for the camera and a few accessories I don't want to spend $1000-1500 on a single lens at the moment.

So of the cheaper stuff, say in the $300-500 range, what's decent?
One site recommended the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM ...is that the best in this range? Is it good enough to be able to judge the camera's quality?

[crusher420]

For the price range you are looking for. Probably. The IS adds a lot to that lense. You may also want to pick up one of the EF 50mm f/1.8 lenses as well. This is a very handy lense and has been invaluable to my addition...and for like 70 bucks American..it is a steal!

[gasrocks]

Two good choices in your price range: Tamron 28-75/2.8 or (better yet but different) Canon 70-200/4 L. Both would be good starters!

[lordjim]

I would look at the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD if I were you. A lot of people on this forum loves it including myself. You can find some sample pics here:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_28-75_28_xr_di_ld_if

Hope that helps.

[CrazyPuma]

That was quick..thanks, I'll look into those. :)
I plan on getting the big-gun lenses later but I think my husband would have a fit if I tried to buy everything I really want now. :D

Cheers.

[oloughlinc]

I would also suggest the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di LD. This is my walk around lens, and I love the sharpness.

[condyk]

For user reviews and collated scores check out fredmiranda.com (register, but it's free and no spam!) What do you like to shoot? That really impacts on what you buy first. Get a lens you will use a lot and enjoy using and you will really start to look at your excellent 20D in a new light.

I have the Tamron, but the new Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro is picking up lots of acclaim for a similar price.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3261&navigator=2

I was disappointed by the Canon IS and sold it quickly.

[CrazyPuma]

What do you like to shoot?

Tighter focus shots - is that the right jargon? heh - but not the micro-closeups like insects or two pistels on a flower. Animals+nature in general. Textures/patterns. Tree vs. a forest. I get bored shooting distance wide angle.

[FScott]

I second the 50mm 1.8. For $70 it is very sharp and I use it a lot, especially for indoor shots. I also have the EFS 17-85 which I really like as a walk around lens. It has an amazing range. For a longer lens, and just on the edge of your price range is the 70-200 F4L. This is the cheapest "professional" lens and is incredibly smooth and sharp.

You should really spend some time here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752

Here:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/

and Here (as previously mentioned):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

-- Scott.

[Titus213]

I guess I'm amazed that so many people who admit they don't know what they are doing with their digital cameras find the kit lens so bad....

[wolf]

I agree with the recommendations for the Tamron 28-75. Excellent lens for the money.

[kkapple]

For the price range you are looking for. Probably. The IS adds a lot to that lense. You may also want to pick up one of the EF 50mm f/1.8 lenses as well. This is a very handy lense and has been invaluable to my addition...and for like 70 bucks American..it is a steal!


How does this lens perform with the 20D?
I was reading about some problems in another thread.
I was thinking about getting this lens as well.

[nigelch]

/I guess I'm amazed that so many people who admit they don't know what they are doing with their digital cameras find the kit lens so bad....[/QUOTE]

I agree entirely with this sentiment. It is indeed true that some lenses are better than others, but when they cost ten times as much, they should be. But that having been said, I have used the "kit" lens with my 20D to shoot pictures for publication. If my publisher thinks the lens is OK, then its OK. Maybe the fault lies elsewhere?....
N

[FScott]

How does this lens perform with the 20D?
I was reading about some problems in another thread.
I was thinking about getting this lens as well.

Well, it is always YMMV but the poster asked for recommendations on better glass so that is what he got. You may get fine results with your kit lens, possibly due to superior talent. I've gotten variable results, but still carry it as a backup. There are some independent reviews, for example:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55.html

where the point is that for $100 it is a descent lens especially away from the ends of its zoom range and stopped down to f8 or so. However, we all use what works for us. If some of us are deluded into thinking that a faster, better focusing, intrinsically sharper piece of glass will help us attain results that we value, then what is the point in arguing?

Most folks who have responded recommend the 50mm 1.8. This lens is a great complement to the kit lens. It is much sharper, and costs very little. If I didn't want to spend much money I would buy this lens and leave it on the camera. If I just couldn't get the shot with this lens, then I would reach for the kit lens.

-- Scott.

[CrazyPuma]

I guess I'm amazed that so many people who admit they don't know what they are doing with their digital cameras find the kit lens so bad....

And I'm consistently amazed how often some folks feel a need to respond to a person's initial frustration with a kind of mild (or not so mild) character/n00b insult. Assuming, based on a short post, that I'm so idiotic as to not have even considered that my level of skill could be the possible reason for disatisfaction, is not much different.

If you read my post you might have noted the fact I have film lenses that are 20 years old, (potentially) indicating that I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to photography. I'm not a 'pro' by any means - many here would likely giggle at 99% of any photographs I might take. :) I'm the 1st to admit that I'm quite lacking in technical profiencency in terms of exposure etc. - mainly due to lack of serious practice - but I know what I like in a picture.

"Stinks" may be overly harsh to describe the kit lens - I did say it's fine for general use - but it doesn't appear to suit my purposes for how I like to use the camera. The manual focus ring feels cheap, wobbly & unstable, like the slightest breeze would unseat the position, and I can't see clearly enough through the viewfinder/lens glass to manually focus half the time (the glass looks very 'grainy'). Perhaps with the reliance on auto-focus & after-shot editing, this is a 'feature' of all digital lenses/viewfinders and something I'll have to live with...or perhaps I have a shoddily put-together kit lens.

My intial testing on things like flowers, Q-tips, and the like weren't to my satisfaction and after hearing how great this camera is and seeing sample pictures, I was irritated/frustrated that the sharpness of the image (never mind the ideal exposure stuff, I'm just talking sharpness) was, IMO, lacking. Therefore I wanted advice on a better lens/next level of lens so I could get one and test it, to see if the fault was my kit lens, my skill or lackthereof, my expectations, or whatever.

Yes, I've played with the parameters. Yes, I may be missing something else that would help. Yes, I might just be used to film & prints vs. digital & monitors, or maybe I need new glasses/contacts. Yes, I'm sure that for some things, you can get 'publishable' images with the kit-lens. Doesn't change the fact that I'm personally unhappy with it.

To those who have helped/may later help in this area, thanks again.
To anyone else...phooey on you, then. :)

EDIT: I did just realize that this is probably in the wrong forum. *slaps forehead* Mods, move away. :lol:

[Andy_T]

And I'm consistently amazed how often some folks ... <snip>

A bit wound up, are we :wink:

Well, there's no need for that, as we all are one big happy family here :lol:

Actually, I think you are both right ... the kit lens might not be stellar, but it's a decent performer on the wide end.

I normally do not recomment it as only lens.

As you mentioned that you find wide angle quite boring and normally do quite close crops, I completely understand that you are not overly happy with what you get.

My own (unscientific) comparison with my lenses showed that I get a sufficiently sharp picture (sharp when viewed at 100% crop) when I use my Canon EF 50/1.8 @ f/2.8, my Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI at f/4.0 and my Canon EF-S 18-55 @ f/8.0 ... quite some difference :shock:

Please bear in mind that when you view an image as 100% crop on your PC, this is equivalent to blowing it up to 20"x30" ... I do not know if you did something like that routinely with your 20 year old SLR. If not, you might be surprised that your lenses are not *that* good ... after all, the people who did this with 35 mm film were normally professional photographers using professional grade lenses.

For a 5"x3" print, the quality of the kit lens should be sufficient (although it might look quite crappy on the big screen).

The second major difference between film and digital is that you have to apply sharpening to your images with digital to get the most out of it. This is because 99% of professional and serious users prefer to have the flexibility of using their own sharpening instead of having the camera sharpen the images in the camera (because you can add sharpening later, but not remove it again :confused: )

So ... take a look at the 50/1.8, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and also on the 70-200/4.0L.

Also, take lots of images, ask the right questions and learn how to use your new toy :wink:

And welcome to the forum :D

Best regards,
Andy

[jfrancho]

I don't think that anyone directly tried to insult you. You'll need to realize that the written word always seems harsher than when it is spoken. You opened the door with the statement:
I'm nothing special w/a cameraI take that to mean you are unsure of your capabilities, yet feel qualified to pass judgement on a lens. Anyway, I know what you really meant.

On to my suggestion. You are going to add some sharpening every image you take after taking it. The camera does not apply enough sharpening itself. Before you think that that is a deficiancy, think again. You are under control, you decide how sharp you want the image. If you shoot in RAW mode, you will learn that there are several other parameters you can control. This is a good thing. As for sharpening software, I'd suggest you start with PS Elements 3. This will give a lot of editing capability and you can convert your RAW files with the ACR plugin.

As far as the kit lens goes, I have superior glass in my bag at that range, but I still use it. There are things I just can't do with any other lens. To reccomend a lens without knowing what kind of shooting you'd like to persue is a little diffacult. I would suggest the Canon 70-200 f/4L for a long lens. I like the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for wide. For an "all purpose, I have no clue what I'll be shooting, but only want to carry one lens," I use a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3. For general telephoto and low light I have the 50 f/1.4. I am considering a Sigma 20 f/1.8 and Canon 28 f/1.8 to fill out my primes.

I hope this helps.

[KevC]

You say you like *tighter focus* shots, I'm guessing you mean narrow DOF. One petal in focus, the other not?

I'd pick up the EF50mm f/1.8 for your first lens, it's price gives you a lot, with a pretty darn wide aperature. As you may already know, wider aperatures give you narrower DOF, which is why the kit lens wasn't so nice at a narrow f/5.6 on the long end.

Another one to consider is the EF100mm f/2.8 macro. f/2.8 doesn't give you *that* narrow DOF, but you seem to be interested in macro. This also doubles as a quite nice portrait lens! Good luck!

[condyk]

Tighter focus shots - is that the right jargon? heh - but not the micro-closeups like insects or two pistels on a flower. Animals+nature in general. Textures/patterns. Tree vs. a forest. I get bored shooting distance wide angle.

I DID read about your 20 year old SLR lens ... so good for you. The Empire Strikes Back :lol: :lol:

Not sure I read you right on tighter focus shots. I took it to mean people/group type shots which may be way off!! Anyway, if I'm right, seems you need a standard zoom: Tamron or Sigma as mentioned are fine buys and good general walk around lenses. One or other should do you for trees and texture too, though depends how dark your environment. May need a flash. AND for real Macro 1 to 1 you will need a Macro from Sigma, Tamron or Canon. All produce excellent efforts and they will also do you for portrait type shooting. Very sharp lenses all!

The 50mm II is great for the money but hardly necessary if you go for the Tamron or Sigma ... except for the odd indoor/lower light situations. I find it is the ideal ebay sales photo lens: sharp and lots of keepers! Would get you started nicely if you didn't want to shell out much cash at the moment!

Seems you also may need a longer 'standard' zoom too: Canon 70-200mm F4 L and F2.8 L, Sigma 70-200mm EX f2.8 (Bargain!) and for PROPER LONG(ER) shots then the Sigma 100-300mm EX f4 and 1.4x, Sigma 50-500mm EX Bigma, Sigma 80-400mm EX OS and Canon 100-400mm IS L can all be recommended based on owning or trying after lots of research. As you know, for real wildlife shooting, as opposed to Zoo and backyard shooting, you need minimum 400mm.

[CrazyPuma]

A bit wound up, are we

Who, me? Never! :)
Actually, just used to gaming forums where almost every post is an excuse for long threads of *cough* 'discussion' *cough* I get used to over-explaining myself in response to those situations. Plus I'm typically long-winded and occasionally pompous by nature. :D I wasn't upset or anything.

I have done some heavy-duty darkroom activity making very large black and white prints (long ago), so yeah, film had it's own sharpness limitations. You just see so many surreal-sharp photos on the net/in mags nowadays, and while I was aware most of that has to do w/expert manipulation my eyes were still disappointed.

It feels strange to do my photo sharpening with the computer. Can look so great, but yet doesn't look the same. Reminds me of the move from LP's to CD's when my ears had to take a long time to decide that CD's were indeed better. Different, but better.

[Sathi]

I would recommend the Tamron 28-75 as well.

[LightRules]

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8. See my sig.

[CrazyPuma]

In response to the 'tighter focus' question: Not one-petal focus. Maybe 3 or 4 petals sometimes. Hard to describe favored distances for shooting/composing..maybe I'll post some pics later.

Sounds like Sigma & Tamron are the ones to look for at the moment. Time to start shopping. :D

[Andy_T]

CP,

this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785)might also be interesting for you if 'tighter focus' is what you are after.

Also ... DO check out fstopjojos lenstests ... he has a very useful comparison of the fast 24-70 range of lenses there (without the Canon 24-70 L, unfortunately).

Best regards,
Andy

[Titus213]

My apologies for upsetting you. I didn't mean to slur your talent or capabilities but you did say you were new to the digital world and there are many examples of excellent results from the kit lens posted on this forum. Indeed, the kit lens is not up to my FD lenses either. I sincerely hope you find what you are looking for in the $300-$500 range. I guess they should be at least 3 to 5 times as good as the kit lens. I’m sure they will allow you to find out how good the 20D really is…..

Have fun and welcome to the forums.