Choice of lenses for 20d

[michel_schmid]

I just changed my 10d for a 20d and would like to get the best

possible combination of lenses. I travel (size + weight)a lot and

shoot landscape and people. I like sharp fotos.

 

I was thinking of following combination:

 

1. EF 17-40L

2. EF 24-85 USM or EF 28-135 IS USM

3. EF 70 - 300 DO IS

 

Can anyone share his expeerince with me.

 

Thank you!

Michel

[yakim_peled1]

Do you really need the whole 17-300 range? For landscape on the 20D I'd opt for the 10-22. For portraits I'd opt for 50/1.8 (indoors) + 85/1.8 (outdoors). For the tele-end I'd consider the 135/2.8 SF or the heavier 70-200/4 L. The DO is small and light but very expensive. It also slow and has ugly bokeh (IMHO) so not suitable for portraits (again IMHO).

 

If you insist on a zoom in the middle than the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is better than both Canon's mentioned.

 

Search. There's a lot of info on all.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[marcus_erne]

How about these choices?

 

- EF 10-22mm (or Tokina ATX 12-24mm)

 

- EF 28-128mm IS (or 17-85mm IS)

 

- EF 75-300mm IS (is cheaper)

[jimstrutz]

1) Probably your best choice is the 17-40 f/4L

 

2) The 28-135 IS USM is by most accounts slightly sharper than the 24-85 USM, and it has image stabilization wich makes it hand holdable in more situations. Since you already have the moderately wide end covered, I would get it. In fact, I did get it. Great lens, but it's not quite up to the quality of the 17-40L. Another choice might be the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, but it's not cheap and quite large. Tamron's 28-70 f/2.8 is nearly as good optically for a lot less money and weight.

 

3) The 70-300 DO is not as sharp as either of your other two lens picks, but it's not bad, and it does have the advantage of IS and small size. Too bad it's so expensive. I suspose the other logical option would be the Canon 70-200 f/4L, which is certainly better optically, but larger and only goes to 200mm. But used on a 20D that's like a 320 on a film camera.

 

If you really want to cut down on weight you could put the 50mm f/1.8 in the #2 position and dump the zoom. To save even more weight substitute the Sigma 18-125 for #1 & #2. Most people agree it's pretty sharp up to 100mm, especially stopped down one stop.

 

Another option is to get a 20mm, 35mm, 85mm and 200mm primes. As sharp, or sharper than the best zooms, and faster too. But can you live without a zoom?

[yakim_peled1]

This is an excellent suggestion. The only thing I'd consider changing is the 20/2.8 for the 10-22. Reason: 20mm (~32mm) may not be wide enough on a DSLR in many cases. BTW, I have the 35/85/200 primes. They are truly excellent.

 

And yes, living without the zoom convenience is very much possible (I have 5).

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jbq]

17-40/4L is a workhorse for travel/landscape, though if you need ultra-wide angles the 10-22 is probably worth considering as well (not quite as versatile, though).

 

Both the 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 are sharp and light.

 

Here's what I'd do (close to what I did):

 

17-40/4L is the basic workhorse. 50/1.8 is good for portraits and low-light. 70-200/4L is the "good" telephoto, and 80-200/4.5-5.6 is the "small and ultra-light" telephoto.

 

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the 17-85 EFS - a really versatile lens, which you could manage to use as your only lens, or combined with a 70-200/4L with which it would share filters.

[michel_schmid]

OK - i love zoom's they make me feel so flexible! That's wy i go for them. Probably have to try non zoom's as well.

[._._z]

For 80% of your landscapes/people, that 17-40 would probably fit the bill. Since it's a

little slow for low-light work (and selective DOF) add a 50/1.8. If you really need

something longer after using those lenses for a while, buy something afterwards.

[KenPapai]

I just ordered online today the Canon 50/1.8 (79 dollars).

<p>

I hope it's as good as all claim it is, especially as compared to the 50/1.4. The mini reviews and suggestions above seem excellent.

<p>

This is my first prime lens with my 10D, I currently own three, non-L zooms: 24-80, 28-200, and the Sigma 15-30 (very nice).

<p>

-Ken<div></div>

[andrew robertson]

Please don't feel that you need to cover every focal length with absolutely no gaps. Prime

lenses are almost always much better optical performers. It looks like you are ready to

drop about $2000 on lenses, and I think you could do MUCH better than you are.

 

The 28-135 IS is a superb lens, and I use it often. I would feel crippled if it were my only

lens in that range, though, as it is not very bright. I can't really recommend AGAINST it

either, so get it, and get the 50mm f/1.8, and get the 24mm f/3.5 TS-E. If you are into

landscapes the TS-E lens opens whole new worlds.

 

If you still need a longer telephoto lens in the future, get a 300 f/4L IS. The DO lens, while

small and light, is a pretty crappy optical performer. You'd get better results with the 10

year old 75-300 IS.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>You used to have a 10D. That implies that you have, or at least used to have, one or more lenses. What are/were they? How well did they meet your needs?</p>

 

<p>The best indication of what your needs are is your own experience with your existing lenses. Let's say, for instance, that you have the 28-105, and you find that you rarely use the long end of it and the wide end is close but not quite wide enough. That suggests that the 24-85 is worth considering. Or, if its range is not bad but you wish it went longer, the 28-135 could be the right lens for you. If it's nowhere near wide enough, the 17-40 is probably a good choice.</p>

[michel_schmid]

Hi Steve

 

I still have follwoing lenses which i wanted to change against better ones:

 

75-300 IS USM / 25-85 mm USM / 17-40 4.0L USM (will keep this one).

 

I was thinking, that in the meantime, better lenses should be on the market.

[jim_larson1]

Nope. Canon has not released an optically top notch lens since the 17-40/4L. (except possibly the 10-22 -> initial reviews are good!)

 

With your current lenses, I would jump straight to a 70-200/4L on the long end. Great step up from the 75-300/IS.

[tom_schutz]

Consider this combo:

 

1. 50mm f1.4 (great for portraits; great for low ambient light; nice bokeh; small,

light).

 

2. 200mm f2.8L (great price/quality ratio; small & light; 320mm equivalent w/ 1.6x

factor).

 

3. 17-85 IS (sharp enough for people shots; great versatility; IMO, best lens for street

shooting on the 20D, and also for candids when the light is sufficient).

 

 

The only thing missing here is the really wide range. I don't really need it; maybe you

don't, either.

 

Cheers,

 

Tom S.