20D + what? Same old question... :-(

Ok, I'm in a similar pedicament as many before me. Which should be my first lens to use with a 20D? For me it's a question of the 17-85 IS USM or 24-70L USM at coming on for 2x more cost. But I could afford either - so budget, *if* I think it's worth it, is <£2K. Really I'm trying to work out best 'value' with value meaning what I get out of the camera - how much I end up using it, how impressed I am with the results, how much I *enjoy* it. I'm a hobbiest user not a professional. I take a big mixure of shots, inc portraits and some motor sport. Have tended to avoid landscapes if only because in the past (with my G3) I've been dissatified with the quality in the detail.

It goes like this, as far as I can tell.

17-85: Relatively slow lens (esp at 85mm), compensated for to some extent by 20D's great high ISO performance & the lens's IS. Half the price of the 24-70. Wider zoom range. Good 'one lens'/carry round solution. Comments about too much CA at wide angles, but I could always avoid using it below 24mm unless there was no alternative . Seeing bad CA after spending all that money will not seem like good value to me, I fear (a bit like seeing moire on a D70 setup). Smaller apertures will make getting narrow DOF harder when I want it. May lose it's 2nd hand value quite quickly, as a non-L, EF-S only lens.

24-70L: f2.8 throughout the range means shutter speeds should be fast esp. at high ISO. Thus the need for IS is less. Pretty much unquestioned glass quality. Will be easy to sell if I need to, even into the future. Narrower zoom range - ultimately more lens changing when I get more lenses. 2x the price. Bigger and heavier - no point in having better glass if it means I don't have the camera with me so much. Plan would be to get 'proper' prime wide and tele lens later.

Unfortunately 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors don't work with either lens, do they?

Decisions decisions... I've so far resisted picking up a mint 1D for ~£1500 as it's just too big and heavy (and really outside my budget by the time I put a lens on it), and I fear I'll always be "iffing and butting" as you whether to take it with me...

Any advice?

W

You just might consider the 28/135 IS USM.

A very good- not too expensive- "everyday" lens.

I like mine very much

Yes, I was looking at that after I posted my message. Quality wise, on a 1.6x camera, I wonder how it compares with the 17-85?

W

I have heard they are very similar in quality.

The way I'm going at the moment I may well buy the body and the 50mm 1.8 and decide what to do re other lenses when I'm used to the body!

I bought the 20D kit (with the 18-55 zoom) , the 50mm 1.8 and the 75-300 IS zoom.

I find that for most of my shooting I am using either the 18-55 or the 75-300 so I can frame the shots as I want them, and that I am using the 50mm 1.8 only when lighting conditions make the other two slower lenses less desirable.

I mention that about the kit lens because you might be just as well to purchase the kit and play with it for a while before deciding on any other lenses.

But if you want to buy just the body, then I would suggest the inexpensive yet superb 50mm 1.8 lens would be a great first choice to get comfortable with the camera on.

I am thinking of looking into one of those 28-80 range of zooms soon, though.

Yes, the body + 50mm 1.8 isn't all that different in price to the 18-55 kit. Question is if to go for 17-85 kit. I guess not.

Great set-up. You will get very fine quality photos while
getting used to the camera.
In my opinion the 24-70 is too much to start dslr-ing with,
not least because it is heavy and bulky.
My first lens with the 10D was the 50 1,4 - after that came
17-40 and the rest is L-history incl. 20D.

J.
-

Great set-up. You will get very fine quality photos while
getting used to the camera.
In my opinion the 24-70 is too much to start dslr-ing with,
not least because it is heavy and bulky.
My first lens with DSLR was a 50mm - it is a good point
from which to progress.

J.
-

wibbly -- your idea to start with the 50/1.8 is a wise one.

most folks these days are so eager to start making great photographs that they will gather up 3 or 4 cheap zoom lenses to "cover the whole range". i think in most cases this is to "cover up the lack of skill by spending money" and is also a symptom of our modern disease of perfect convenience, which leads to creative dullness.

get the 50/1.8 (or the 35/2.0 or 28/1.8 or 28/2.8-- these are a bit more pricey but more of a "normal" (50mm equivalent) lens for the 1.6x sensor on the 20D.

spend lots of time with the camera, get to know it well enough that you can operate it in a pitch-black room.

having one good quality "normal" prime lens will be very inspiring.