Starting lens for 20d?

If one were to purchase 1 lens to start with (I've not had an SLR before), which one would be the best all around lens?

Remember, for the purposes of this discussion, choose a Canon lens and pretend cost is not a factor.

Well if you want a Canon lens then their new one for the 20D 17 to 85mm which with the factor gives you a 35mm eqiv of 27 to 136mm.

If you have the buck then there 17 to 40L but i falls short on the tele side but is a super lens.

Now if you go Tamron which I have then there 28 to 75 F 2.8 is a super lens but you fall short on the wide side. I use this as a carry lens and a portrait lens. and plan on getting the new Canon super wide zoom or Sigma 12 to 24mm both are great.

I heard about Canons kit lens 18 to 55 mm being bad but I saw some pictures that are pretty good.

Here is a portrait taken with the Tamron with no pre or post processing
it might help in the decission ifcost is a factor. Of coarse if money was no object then I would buy all L glass, but would keep the Tamron because of it close focus ability.

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/34856769/medium

That is such an easy answer 600mm prime!

Ok now really, 24-70 or the 17-40.

I just got my 20 D about 2 weeks ago and just figured out which way I'm going to go with the same problem. First, I pretty much agree with phili1 in the post above except I would not go with a Tamrom. A week ago I got the Tamrom 28 - 300...........took it back the next day, it was very bad. I've been reading as much as I could about Canon lenses in the past few days and I think tomorrow I'm buying the following two; 24 - 70 2.8L and the 70 - 200 4L. The 24 - 70 is a bit short on the wide end but except for that the reviews are nothing but good. Each person will had different uses so the best I can offer is to tell you to READ as much as you can.

here's some review for you

if you want to read up on the Canon zoom lenses try here..........
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …ws/showgallery.​php?cat=27

Gramps, not all lenses made by Canon are good as well. All Canon L lenses are pretty good but some are outstanding and some a re medioka. Fred Miranda site has allot of good advice.

Tamron lenses is certain cases are average but every once in a while there is a keeper. Teh 28 to 75 F 2.8 gets high priase. When ever you get a lens in a rangere from 28 to 300 mm something has got to give. I think the only lens with that range thats good is Sigma 50 to 500, this is an outstanding lens.

Before I but a lens I test it and read up on it , the best advise is the end users and there is not one report that I do not find a complaint. So if you have 30 people saying its great and one saying no, the greats have it for me.

Cost isn't a factor? The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L.
Cost is a factor? The Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom.

Both of those are excellent walkaround lenses. Granted the tamron would be nice if it were a little wider, but for the money it is an excellent little lens.

starting lenses

In same position as you are/were. . . I wanted quality and complete coverage with my new 20D but for the right prices.

Here's where I went: Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX; Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX and, finally, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L.

Looking (but not seriously) at Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM EOS Lens. Not in my price range but, based on what I've read, worth considering.

Good luck.

That lens is extremely specific in application and isn't really fast.

Buy a few lenses that cover the range and you'll get the quality you want.

50/1.8 is a must
17-40 is good
70-200 L... the one you can afford...