Switching to Canon

MinisterStanley wrote:
You are right Karuse1, I'm not really being honest with myself. I know I'm going to end up spending lots of money (but I just love my "toys"). As far as possibly keeping up with the Joness, I don't have to. Most folks I know (and I know this sounds sad) don't even own digital cameras. I got bit by the technology bug some years ago, and it has been with me every since. This goes way beyond just my camera. I upgrade all of my computers once a year, I upgrade my cell phone about twice a year. I get an itch is I see a new type of gadget and don't have it. As far as lenses, thank you all for the recommendations. Remember ladies and gentlemen, technical overkill is a good thing (I sure hope my therapist is not reading this)

Another "L"coholic for sure

The question about the lenses was asked because in my quest for technology, I have learned (and an expensive lesson it was) that sometimes the 3rd party accessories are just as good as the OEM accessories. I could buy Canon lenses if they are truly superior to the other available brands, but if I can (for example) buy another brand lens that is just as good as the Canon brand for less money, then I can spend the difference on something else. When I submit questions about lenses in the future, if you all say that one lens is better than another, I'll save more money and buy the better lens. I'm not being cheap, I'm just trying to be careful.

Absolutely. Then I suggest the following; I have found out that not only are faster lens simply better, because, hey, they're expensive and all the pro's use them, but since there isn't always sunshine a fast lens is a necessity, plus, those lens don't make compromises. The 28-135 IS, as good as it may be, gets sharp at smaller apertures, OTOH, the 70-200 2.8 is sharp at 2.8 and doesn't get any sharper when stopping down. Primes within that range are perhaps only slightly sharper, but I'm not for sure. So, the list of my 'could be' lenses:

16-35mm 2.8L (alternatively Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0)
24-70mm 2.8L (alt Tamron 28-75 2.8)
50mm 1.4L (alt 50mm 1.8 II)
85mm 1.2L (alt 85mm 1.8)
70-200mm 2.8L IS
disadvising the 100-400mm

Sigma 120-300 2.8 EX HSM (tripod is a must)
400mm 2.8L IS

If you're a macro guy, MP-E 65mm along with macro twin-lite flash

I had to compromise a little, so I got both Tamrons on the top of the list, 50mm 1.8II and I'll be selling the 100-400L to get the 70-200 2.8L IS. A friend lend me his 50mm 1.0, but I found it way too soft at 1.0 and 1.2 and since there really is no point in using it at 1.4, it's no good. It is, however, good for intimate portraits in low light, such as candle light, but it is simply too expensive to be used just for that. So, yeah, I'm all nuts about sharpness, but then again, who isn't, honestly?

Boy is my wifes not gonna like this new adventure!!!!!!!

I note that your original question about tehe different brands of lenses has not been answered yet.
Canon has three levels of lenses which vary in terms of quality.
- There low-end consumer lenses, these are okay for the price, but not recommended unless cost is your only consideration.
- Second are the mid-level consumer lenses, Some of these (such as the 28-135 IS and the two 50mm primes) are very good value for your money, others are okay. There also appears to be some variation in some of the lenses (such as the 75-300 IS) that result in various reviews
- Third is the high-end "L" for Luxury or professional lenses. These are for when cost is of no concern or when you need that little bit extra something. You pay for what you get, but very rarely will you be disappointed in an a Canon lens with the "L" designation.

Sigma lenses overall rate just behind Canon, generally their high-end lenses are better then Canon mid-level, but don't seem to make it to Canon L quality (with exceptions)
There have been some issues with Sigma lenses in the past, but I hear fewer and fewer of the negative comments, so would consider Sigma lenses a good value

Tamron lenses tend to be more hit and miss. They have some lenses which are good values and others which are a complete waste of money. Read multiple reviews of any desired lens carefully before buying, but some of them appear to be a very good value.
Although I personally would not consider Tamron, they do have some good lenses; just none I would consider (note: I have a strong bias against Tamron lenses base don my experience)

As to which lenses
I always recommend one of the 50's (1.4 or 1.8) as being mandatory lenses for a 1.6x format camera (such as the 20D).
Other then that decide what you want to do with your photography and how much you want to spend and go from there.

The best set for 20D (if never going full frame in next 3-5 years would be:
10-22
17-40/4L
24-70/2.8L
70-200/2.8L IS
100-400L IS
50/1.4
1.4 and 2x extenders

and if you need longer range there are always the 500mm or longer primes.


Just my opinion, feel free to ignore

Thank you. You guys (and girls) are great.

Don't forget the excellent Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 - it's very wide even on the 1.6 crop body (24mm effective length). The Tokina 17mm f/3.5 ATX PRO is also very good wide lens for the money - sharp, flare-resistant and build like the best of Canon L lenses.

As of 85 mm f/1.2L - I would never spend that much money on such a lens, it's advantages are easily reduced when you consider the price. The f/1.8 version is available at 1/3 cost and offers very similar optical performance. In fact, the f/1.8 version has MUCH faster AF mechanism, which makes it much more versatile lens.

Yup, I absolutely realize that and it's true. The 85 1.2 is kind of a wish lens, well, definetely one of the legendary primes. It's really not meant for sports or action, but there's nothing like it in low light, and one light stop can make a whole lot difference, not to mention the possibility of insanely shallow DOF. Also, as I'm really not into long-range, instead of buying silly lens like 500mm prime for 6k bucks, I'd take the 85 1.2 for a 1/4 (1/5?) of that price...

But let's stay ontopic. 8)