20D kit lens question

[Hipgrncln]

Am switching from Nikon to Canon. Trading the D70 and lens's for the 20D and need to start building my lens inventory. My question is to order just the body and build my lens inventory on my own or is it more cost effective to order the 20D in the kit form and get a lens. The only kit lens I might be interested in is the 17 to 85 is USM. Is it a good place to start??? Other lens I will get over time is

Some sort of Macro
50 1.4
80 to 200 2.8 IS
80 to 400 IS

Bob J

[Andy_T]

Hi Bob,

first of all ... good idea to switch from NOINK to Canon :wink:
The 18-55 kit lens is a very inexpensive lens and quite decent on the wide end for the price asked (100$). It is not what you would generally call a 'quality lens'.

The EF-S 17-85 IS is presumedly of better quality, but also a lot more expensive. I *think* it is 600$ if you buy it separately and 450-500$ if you buy it as part of the kit.

There are some very good third party lenses (e.g. the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX, Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG Macro or the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI) that are cheaper than the 17-85 and offer better image quality (though not the focal range and IS)

The other lenses mentioned form a very decent kit, although the focal ranges are a bit different from their NOINK counterparts: 70-200/2.8 L IS and 100-400 L IS.

Best regards,
Andy

[DxHatchback]

personally, if i had to do it all over again, id stay away from the 18-55 kit lens and just pick up something else in its place

[kenyc]

Am switching from Nikon to Canon. Trading the D70 and lens's for the 20D and need to start building my lens inventory. My question is to order just the body and build my lens inventory on my own or is it more cost effective to order the 20D in the kit form and get a lens. The only kit lens I might be interested in is the 17 to 85 is USM. Is it a good place to start??? Other lens I will get over time is

Some sort of Macro
50 1.4
80 to 200 2.8 IS
80 to 400 IS

Bob J

That's what I did (the 17-85 kit) to get started (moving from Minolta). It's a good lens (not "L" but good). I'm pleased with my choice. I quickly added the 70-200 EFS IS 2.8 L ...

KAC

[billh101]

I started with the cheap kit lens and after only a couple months, it doesn't touch my camera any more. I know there are a lot of people who are happy with the 17-85, but I went with the 17-40 4.0L. It's a good lens, but not very long or fast. I've also added the 80-200 2.8L and the 50 1.4. I don't have everything that I want in a system, but it's pretty respectable with the 20D. If you had a D70 and are trading it off, I'm guessing that you're looking for pretty high quality. If that's the case, I'd go for the L lenses if you can get by with it. You can use good glass for years to come, long after the 20D is outdated.

[csnudelman]

The 18-55mm "kit" lens ain't so bad, it ain't so good either but will let one use the camera right away. I wouldn't spend the money for the 17-85 but that's me. I would save/wait a bit (as I did) and get something really nice. And I damn sure wouldn't buy Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses, although, Phoenix may be a very good choice (less money wasted on a 3rd party lens).

[guitarman]

The 18-55mm "kit" lens ain't so bad, it ain't so good either but will let one use the camera right away. I wouldn't spend the money for the 17-85 but that's me. I would save/wait a bit (as I did) and get something really nice. And I damn sure wouldn't buy Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses, although, Phoenix may be a very good choice (less money wasted on a 3rd party lens).

I originally went with the 17-85 IS after two bad copies, I went with the 17-40mm L and its been excellent. I really miss the range but I couldn't put up with the crappy quality I was getting from the 17-85. On the two copies I tried the Lens flare and purple fringing were just unacceptable. CA was worse as well. It did not focus well. On the 17-40mm none of these problems exist. Focusing is great, I've had no purple fringing, no lens flare (although I think the lens hood helps alot. I didn't use that on the 17-85) And the CA is very mnimal. Almost none existen. Any problems I do experience are easily remedied in Camera RAW. I wish I could afford the 24-70mm L to get longer, but it looks like I may have to settle for teh 28-135. But if I get the same crappy results I will wait till I can afford the better glass.

[csnudelman]

Guitarman, I do have the 24-70L and it is worth the wait if need be. Sometime soon I hope to get what you have, the 17-40L. I just can't afford the 16-35L. I also have the 135L and, of course, the 18-55 kit lens.

[condyk]

Guitarman, I do have the 24-70L and it is worth the wait if need be.

I'm considering a standard zoom lens and would like to see some test shots of the 24-70mm L. Do you have any that you could post as examples? I'd have to wait a while to get it, but it seems from what you say the results would be worth it.

My other choice is the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 which seems a better lens at approx 35% of the 24-70mm L lens price, at least judging from the recent fstopjojo test of the two and other user images I've seen posted. I'm happy to pay for the best of the two, even if it costs more money. I'm considering the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 as well, which offers a bit of worthwhile width over the other two.

[Medic1]

I say, if you have the money......buy the body only, and then pick up a good wide lens. The 18-55 is not terribly bad as far as price vs. quality goes (I had mine from when I bought the Drebel), so if you want to save a bit go for the kit lens. However, depending on your style of photography I would say you may want to get a better lens......I shoot mainly with my lenses at the long end of the spectrum (100-400 and 70-200), so I am not overly concerned at the moment with having a great wide angle lens.

To each their own.......look at it as a cost vs. usefulness kind of thing. Put your money where your going to get the best use out of it....

[guitarman]

I'm considering a standard zoom lens and would like to see some test shots of the 24-70mm L. Do you have any that you could post as examples? I'd have to wait a while to get it, but it seems from what you say the results would be worth it.

My other choice is the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 which seems a better lens at approx 35% of the 24-70mm L lens price, at least judging from the recent fstopjojo test of the two and other user images I've seen posted. I'm happy to pay for the best of the two, even if it costs more money. I'm considering the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 as well, which offers a bit of worthwhile width over the other two.

I'd have a hard time believing that the sigma would be a better lens at 35% of the cost. But I'm certainly willing to look at it. For that low of a cost if it was twice as good as the 28-135 but not quite as good as the 24-70, for that price it is definitely worth considering. I have not yet used a third party lens and that is a little scary. I'll have to investigate if there are any problems with the sigma lenses and Canon bodies.

[condyk]

I'd have a hard time believing that the sigma would be a better lens at 35% of the cost. But I'm certainly willing to look at it. For that low of a cost if it was twice as good as the 28-135 but not quite as good as the 24-70, for that price it is definitely worth considering. I

Yes, I was hoping to see some image samples from csnudleman from his Canon L so I could compare. Hopefully, he'll still post a couple if he has any. Certainly there are plenty of superb Sigma samples around and at the moment it seems a no brainer purchase.

fstopjojo's test is here:

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470shootout

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Do what I did, at first I was going to get the 20D with the 18-55, then found out that is was not as good as L lens, so I opted for the 17-85, its price did not really entice me to buy it. So I ended up getting a 17-40 f/4 and 50mm f/1.8 II with my 20D which made it more cost effective because I bought it all onlien from one dealer.

[blue_max]

Maybe to shoot with the 24-70 you have to be an ace photographer. It seems a lens that can be used to great effect, but is capable of showing one to be a fool. Can a lens really do that?

We don't have the same variation with the third parties, so what's really going on?

It's soooo much money, that it must really, definately, without a doubt, be the best lens. I really hope so, because it has such a reputation, I wouldn't want to be the fool that payed so much for it.

I have seen incredible photos from it and dire ones. It sure doesn't suffer fools lightly.

I lust after one, but am afraid to use one!

Graham

[Outdoor23]

I was having the same problem when buying my 350D. Even though the kit lens is only $70, but its $70 you save when you buy the lens you really want. I'm going for the 17-85. The 17-40 is a great great lens, but its too short for me. the Sigma 18-50 is a good one too, but I rather stay with Canon on my first lens (Might change my mind is Sigma's 18-50 has a HSM), but who knows when that will happen. Welcome to the Canon train!

[csnudelman]

Maybe to shoot with the 24-70 you have to be an ace photographer. It seems a lens that can be used to great effect, but is capable of showing one to be a fool. Can a lens really do that?

Graham

How does a lens show one to be a fool?

[KevC]

Possibly consider the 17-40/4L or Sigma 18-50/2.8 in place of any of the kit lenses. However, I'd stick with the 18-55 since it's so darn cheap and pretty sharp when stopped down to about f/8.

[blue_max]

How does a lens show one to be a fool?

Badly expressed I know, but it seems that people report getting bad shots from it - and then excellent ones. It doesn't seem to be so prevalent in other lenses. I can only assume it doesn't suffer fools lightly, to quote the phrase. It must be more demanding and less tolerant, but why, or how can that be is beyond me.

What is it about this lens, that polarises views to such a degree?

Graham

[condyk]

... I can only assume it doesn't suffer fools lightly, to quote the phrase. It must be more demanding and less tolerant, but why, or how can that be is beyond me.

A number of people report trying a few copies before eventually finding one they like, so either they get expert while awaiting UPS to call with their next copy (unlikely!) or the lens can have quality assurance issues, i.e. Canon use the public to QA for them rather than having a procedure and QA staff at the final production phase. Or, the QA they have don't do that great a job.

If lens 'failure' or below spec. results is acceptable to Canon say one in a thousand, or five hundred, or whatever, then why employ expensive QA staff who will only spend most of their days passing Ok lenses? Bad luck for the end buyer who gets a duff one, but they can always get it replaced with a new copy which will likely be Ok! Cheaper than employing QA people! I dunno, just a guess!

We also seem to get spates of complaints about specific Canon lenses: i.e. is mine soft? What do people think of this ruler test, etc!! The 17-40 and 70-200 spring to mind for different reasons (the other two members of the Canon L trinity), at least they're the ones I've noticed come up over last several months.

This just seems to cause others to worry about their copy and a lens gets a reputation in probably doesn't deserve. Remember the spate of Tamron 'issues' and then when someone (Andy, I think!?) did a poll the result was convincingly that there were actually few lenses with issues ... probably the problem was just lots of people talking about what they'd read 'somewhere' made it an issue!

It would be good if people who push the 24-70mm L lens could post some images from it. Then potential buyers could at least judge the quality it is capable of for themselves and knowing the images were taken by a competent individual using a A1 sample.

I'm not convinced about this one personally. If the quality is no better or worse than the equiv. Sigma or Tamron, according to some, then clearly long term compatibility is the only other sensible reason to buy the Canon version. But then you could buy a new Sigma three times over 10-15 years and still have change and stay compatible. You could buy four of the Tamrons! In fact, how far are we away from a new Canon mounting system? Five years, two, ten? They way technology had gone with DSLR's may be closer than many think. Again, just guessing!

Until there is some evidence the L is consistently a great lens clearly worth £900 then I fancy it's a daft lens to buy given the competition. An L without such strong good competition I see the logic in choosing that route. This time ... no!

[tim]

The kit lens is great value, and under good condition I can't tell pictures it takes from the ones from the Tamron 28-75. The kit lens flares badly, and the F2.8 is, for me, a must-have. Get it as a starter lens and a cheap wide angle IMHO.