Canon Lens's I have

Currently I have a 20D with the "Kit" Lens. I also have the 50mm 1.8

Lens. I rencently ordered an 85mm 1.8 at an amazing price, but it's

on backorder. Today I ordered a 700-200 F4 L Lens. I un decided on

canceling the 85mm 1.8 as I like shooting with available light.

 

My question is your experiences, I find the kit lens a little short

at times as which is why I ordered the other two lens's. I'm debating

on a 17-40L, but I've heard people raving about other choices. Two

things are making me second guess on the 17-40 F4 L is the price and

F4 part. My could be the 17-40L, and a numerically low number prime

lens or perhaps a 10-xx/12-xx lens. What have you done? Although the

Kit lens isn't great, the question is whether it's a good idea to go

with a 17-40L and something else, or just get the something else.

 

Perhaps there is something all together differnet I could do such as

a Tamrom 2.8 24-70 and a 10-xx/12-xx.

 

Sometimes I hate choices... :)

 

Sorry, for being long winded, and thanks for your opinions...

 

-Mario

Hi Mario

I've heard only great reports about the 85 and wish I had one. I do have the 17-40 and rarely use it below f/8, Infact I often use it at f/16 or 22 on landscapes to maximise depth of field so the f/4 issue isn't a problem for me. The 70-200 is an absolute star. I may have a particularly good copy but I'm really knoceked over by this lens. It's sharp and gives loads of contrast. Obviously, it's lighter and cheapoer than the 2.8. My point is that you have a great camera and kit lenses just won't do it justice. If you're going the L way, firstly my sympathies :} but do invest in a tripod.

Jim

Thanks Jim.

 

Yeah, I've heard great on the 85mm as well and at $280 plus another $25 off on the rebate was a steal. I have a tripod, although nothing fancy so I'll have to see if it can do the job.

 

I'll have to buy that expensive tripod collar for the 70-200 at some point.

 

Yeah, they say once you go "L", you never go back... :)

 

-Mario

If possible, stick with the Canon lenses. From my experience they focus the fastest and are compatible with all the bodies features. I personally have (all Canon) the 50 f1.4, 17-40L f4, 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f4L. On my 20D the 17mm end gives me about a 26mm wide angle and the 200 end gives me about 320mm. If I need more length, I simply crop. If I need more speed, I dial up the ISO. I would have loved to see Canon come out with a 24-70 f4L lens which would match my other zooms (in price and weight) but it appears it won't happen.

With these questions: Cancel both lenses. Get a grip. Once you get a grip, then reorder what you really need or want.

 

How wide do you need? I am perfectly comfortable with 17 or 18 on the wide end. How about you? If you need/want a 10-22 -> then buy one and work from there.

 

The 17-40/4L is a direct replacement for the 18-55 kit lens. Optical quality is significantly superior. Of course, so is the price. Is it worth it? Only you can judge.

 

The 17-40/4L and 50/1.8 is a great walk around combo. With a 18-55, the 50/1.8 is a great low light and portrait supplement.

 

If you get a 10-22, then adding 17-40/4L is not optimal in terms of overlap. I would consider the 24-70/2.8L as a good companion. If funds are more limited, then the 24-85 ($330ish) is a very logical choice.

 

The 70-200/4L is a premo telephoto zoom. It is not small (though not huge like a 70-200/2.8). This is not a lens you take everywhere, it is not an every day lens. But when you want a telephoto (and don't have $1000 to spend), this is the lens to get.

 

The 85/1.8 is long portrait prime. This is not vacation zoom. It cannot replace the versatility of the 70-200/4L, and composition requires thought. This is a specialist lens. Honestly. . .the two lenses complement each other and one can argue you need both. Occassionally, when I don't want to carry the 70-200/4L, I sometimes now throw the 85/1.8 in the bag for "just in case" work.

 

So my advice: It sounds like you have gear envy. It does not sound like you hate your 18-55, so don't replace it yet. The 70-200/4L is a great lens, and I suggest you buy one and see how you use it. The 85/1.8 is good, but it's application is very limited and I think you need other lenses first.

Mario, I have the tripod collar for the 70-200 and never use it. It was a waste of money IMHO. The other consideration might be the 100mm macro instead of the 85. I have this on order largely becuase of the macro facility of course and because it's reputed to be a decent portrait lens.

Jim

Mario, keep the 85mm on order - it's almost out of stock everywhere because the demand is so great for it. Once you have it - you most likely will never use the the 50. Get the 17-40 - it is a very fine lens & not a pain in the ass to carry around. I considered the 70-200 but it's too large & not for what I shoot & that's mostly portraits. The 50 is too short. 60 EF-S macro too sharp (returned it)

IMHO you should get a 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L. That leaves a little gap in between. The best one to cover the gap would be Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L but it comes at a price. So instead you could get a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It's cheaper and also 2x lighter than the Canon 24-70 (which weighs 1kg) so it'd make a nice 'walk-around lens'. I'm getting one of those myself, hopefuly very soon. :)

depends completely what you are shooting. i have the 85 and 50/1.4, and use the 50/1.4 about 3x as much cuz i am indoors a lot and the 85 on a 10d needs a little more space than is always available. (that said its a great lens). i could never survive with the 70-200 at f.4 shooting indoor sports, so have the sigma 70-200/2.8 for about the same price. instead of the canon 17-40, i have a used tamron 20-40/2.8-3.5, not as good contrast and colors, flares in the sun, but helps me indoors a lot. so you have to decide where you want to compromise.

For wide shots, I use a 16-35 f/2.8. It's my most used lens. I want to do more landscape shots, but since I shoot mostly people, I've learned that I do need the faster aperture.

 

Before you move up, I would suggest you ask yourself one question:

"What is it about the kit lens that I don't like?"

 

If you can answer that question, you'll have a better idea of what you need to do. If the problem is the lack of lack, then you'll need to decide if f/4 will be fast enough.

You want a 12mm? Really? I have had so much difficulty working with that field of view* that it will be a very cold day when I use it again. As much as some people seem to love the extreme wide angle lenses, I find the "boring" normal ranges to be more functional on a daily basis. Anywhere from 90 to 18 degrees is where I find 95% of my shots. They're probably the best ones, too.

 

*I say field of view, because I was, in fact, working with a 65mm lens on a 4x5 view camera.

Thanks all.

 

Jim, I'm basing some of my decisions from my 35mm camera.

Since it was a full manual camera, lens's were reasonable to own.

My favorites were the 50mm 2.0, 28-70 and 135mm lens. I had cancelled my 24mm lens I was getting because I ended up with the 20D at a great price. I decided on the 70-200 because sometimes 135mm was not enough. My 2x TC was sometimes too much with that lens.

28mm was wide enough most of the time, it was just that every once in a while. I'm use to shooting with available light, that's why the Canon 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 were so appealing to me.

 

Thanks again all...

 

-Mario

Well. . .the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 ARE appealing. I have them both.

 

I also have the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L, as well as a few wide primes.

 

I like all these lenses. I rarely, however, carry more than three lenses at one time.

 

I was recently in Europe, playing tourist. I found that I carried the 17-40/4L, 50/1.8 and one other lens at any given time. The 70-200/4L stayed in my room most of the time, and generally either the 85/1.8 or a 24/2.8 was in the bag along with the 50/1.8. The 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 were very important when shooting interiors of dim churches. The 17-40/4L took 90% of the photos.

 

Last year, I was in the rockies. There, I carried the 70-200/4L most of the time, even when hiking, usually with a 1.4TC attached. The 17-40/4L also got heavy use.

 

I am happy with my kit, even though I have more lenses than I would ever carry at once. If I were to get one more lens. . it would be a 24-70/4L. Or a 24-70/4L-IS. Too bad neither are made.

I'm guessing that you'll eventually end up with most of the lenses you've asked about if you hate choices. I would stick with the 85/1.8 and the kit lens. Then, if you want to upgrade the kit to the 17-40/4 all will be well. --tom

 

Oh yeah, the 70-200/4 is a great zoom.

I have both the 70-200/4L and the 85/1.8, and they go well together. The primes is more than 2 stops faster, and is really really good at all apertures (I have series of shots at f/2.5 and f/2.8 that look stunning). The zoom is about as good as zooms get.

 

I also have the 17-40/4L. Many other such short lenses either did not exist when I got it, or didn't mount on my 10D (and/or didn't cover full-frame - I still have a trio of film bodies). It's good at the wide end, which is where I use it. When I need quality in "normal" focal lengths (normal for a 10D, that is), I have a trio of 24/28/35 primes.

 

I personally find that 24mm is a great focal length on the 10D. I'd be pretty unhappy if I only had that focal length at the end of the range of 1 or 2 zooms (I'd get the size, weight, cost of a zoom, the image quality of the end of a zoom and only the ability to zoom in one direction around that favorite focal length). For what I like to shoot, I find a 17-40 to be a much more practical solution than a 10-22 coupled with a 24-xx.

 

 

FWIW, shooting at f/22 or even f/16 doesn't sound like a great idea on a 20D. If I really needed that much DoF I would personally recommend an 8MP 2/3" camera, probably KM or Oly. Getting a $700 lens and stopping it down so much that overall the camera performs less well than a $500 digicam sounds somewhat pointless to me. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

Hi Mario, where did you find the 85mm at that price? I've looked around but can't find that good of deal and I'd like to get one, thanks, Bob.

Hi Jean-Baptiste

You may well be right on this point of technique. I am still comparatively new.I also read there are diffraction issues when using lenses stopped down to this extent. The point I was trying to make (badly) that for my uses at least the f/4 is not a limitation.

Jim

Robert, right now Dell has 10% off camera and accessories and stackable coupons to take off more money.

http://www.gottadeal.com/dell.php

 

Just be aware that it may be too late to send in the rebate once you get it. Even that being the case, it's still cheaper.

 

My 70-200L F4 shipped next day and it was $20 cheaper than BH plus free shipping. I'll still have a $25 rebate on top of that.

I find a lot of Dell deals and coupons there that are pretty sweet.

 

I got the 20D with Kit Lens for under like $1090 after $100 rebate. You just need some creative coupon using on Dell. Never saw pricing like that before...

 

-Mario

Jim: the diffraction issues is exactly what I'm talking about (though I didn't use the D-word).

 

On my 10D, I avoid stopping down further than f/11, and on a 20D I'd stop at f/10 (smaller pixels).

Thanks JP and Mario, apologies for the mini-hijaxk.

Jim (McDonald), I didn't even think of the 100mm macro instead of the 85mm 1.8. We'll see what happens when I get the 85mm. If I don't like it, I got it new for so cheap, I won't loose any money by selling it.

 

Thanks again all...

 

-Mario