20D and REALLY poor man idea for lens

[phil_harmy1]

Hello all,

 

there was recently forum topic: "20D and poor man idea for lens",

wich didn't fit what was inside IMHO. Talk was about expensive(but not

most expensive) lens, wich wasn't poor man's set at all :p

 

anyway, after getting D20, I lack in cash, so I can't affort

those Canon L good lens.

 

I have chosen some lens, what should cover my needs and they

arent so expensive. For a macro, nature(birds/animals) and sport

shooting I have found those lens:

 

Sigma AF 70-300mm F4,0-5,6 APO Macro

 

Sigma AF 70-300mm F4,0-5,6 DL Macro

 

 

Tamron AF 70-300mm F4,0-5,6

 

Canon EF 90-300mm F4,5-5,6 DC

 

Canon EF 90-300mm F4,5-5,6 USM

 

 

they are pretty in same price class. It's very hard to decide,

what to choose and what works well with Canon 20D.

I would be very happy with any kind of advice, just don't

reccoment me buying expencive ones - because I don't have

a such cash. Of course Canon EF 100mm F2,8 Macro would be the

best for macro stuff and 300mm F2,8 L USM (IS) / F4 would be

the best for nature/action shots. But I need alternative. So please

look at my list and if you know/have any experience with those lens,

Please let me know. Especially I am intrested, how good are they

working with 20D. Does AF tracking works (for action/bird

photography), or it doesn't work because of low light (F4-5,6) ?

 

Thank you.

[jreades]

I can't answer your specific question, but I wanted to at least ask if you had considered asking the question a different way: what is the combination of lenses that I want to own in the long run and how does that fit into my budget now?

 

I had a bit of trouble finding some of the exact lenses that you mentioned on the B&H web site (might have been taking to many shortcuts in the search field), but I'm guessing that these lenses run from around $200 to $300 on average.

 

For that amount of money with that amount of range you simply are not going to get a lot of quality lens and I can't help but imagine that as soon as you can you will be swapping this out for something else of higher quality. With that in mind, why not start now with one mid-range lens and then look to build your 'collection' over time to fill in the gaps rather than buying something that does everything 'poorly' (of, course this is all relative) now?

 

The best analogy that I can think of is that of putting bad speakers on a good stereo system... Why?

 

All of that said, I completely understand what it's like to be on a budget since I'm on one myself.

 

Here's my existing set of lenses:

 

1. 35mm/f2.0 (bought used for < $200 from B&H)

 

2. 24-85/f3.5-4.5 (bought new for $309 from B&H)

 

My next purchases (when I can afford them) will be:

 

3. 70-200/f4.0L ($580 at B&H)

 

4. 1.4x II Extender ($279 at B&H)

 

And eventually, when I go digital, all of this will convert quite nicely.

 

Of course, your specific needs will vary, but my point is that you can build an excellent long-term system one piece at a time if you're willing to be patient. None of these lenses will be ever be chucked out because they are each, separately and together, useful no matter how 'good' or bad my photography gets.

 

OK, so I don't have anything that can get me to 300mm right now, but I just work around that as best I can. And if you really want to do birding then 300mm won't cut it anyway and most of the lenses that you're looking at will be on the slow side to boot.

 

Hope this helps,

 

jon

[bestactionshots]

LOL! HAHAHHA! Now that's really funny! I guess I was comparing those lenses only for the "starving sports shooter". Here's the link to my thread:<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ARK1">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ARK1</a>

[darklights]

Phil, I haven't used those lenses, but you can get a darn good idea of what image quality you'll get out of them by using the search engine on Pbase.

 

http://search.pbase.com/

 

I've asked for recommendations here in the past. The last one they told me was a real dog...I went and searched out images for quality, and it was indeed a dog of a lens.

 

Just type in the lens type and it'll give you sample photos to view.

[mark u]

Optically, the best choice among your options by quite a wide margin is the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II. The next (quite big) step up in optical quality comes at about 4 times the price - though you will also get much faster and more reliable focus for your money. You will have to accept that you can't have everything at this price point. If you place a high premium on focus speed, even at the expense of optical quality, then maybe you should consider the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 with its ring USM.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

My best recommendation is this; think about the lenses that you want, then possibilities around that, then look for them second hand. I now have a good set of lenses, a couple of years ago I had a set of so-so lenses. All my good stuff came second hand. A second hand 70-200 2.8 or 80-200 2.8 is a good start, as is a Tamron 2.8 Macro second hand. Also consider the Canon 100-300USM, this focuses faster than the 75 or 90-300's, and for Macro there's a Pheonix / Vivitar option for just over a hundred dollars that'll give (allegedly) VERY good results. Also the Kenko 1.4x extender gives very good image quality on a budget.

 

I could be picky and suggest that better image quality can be had from a 300d and 17-40L than a 20d and kit lens, how much were you considering budget when you plumped for the latest whizz bang DSLR? Remember when that DSLR is 3 generations old and worth 300 dlls the L lenses will have lost very little value.

[derek_hammond1]

I have the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro and have had some reasonable results with it.

It is without doubt the most flexible of the lenses you have specified.

I left a mini review of the lens on macrophotography.org http://www.macrophotography.org/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=4

[eddie_chan4]

I'd consider trading in the 20D or selling the 20D, then... Buy the DRebel/300D and the Canon 70-200/f4 L.

[citizensmith]

I'm with Eddie. A rebelD will take better pictures than a 20D if you can afford to put a decent lens on the rebel, and just a beer bottle bottom on the 20D.

 

With film cameras the lens was more important than the body. With digital that isn't as true due to the variety of sensors found in the bodies. The difference in sensor quality between the 20 and rebel is not as significant as the difference in optical quality between a 90-300 and a 70-200 f/4L. Sure its all round a better camera, but I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot by blowing all your cash on the body and leaving none for the lens.

 

To (kind of) answer your question though, a Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 would be a great choice for you but are only available used.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Hey-a subject i have some serious experience with! lol

 

<P>I agree with the others,the sigma Apo is definitely the best of the group you mention-but you have missed out at least one potential candidate

<BR>The canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 usm is an excellent lens and is likely slightly better than the sigma Apo (except for macro ability)

<BR>Also the canon 75-300 III/IIIusm could be a viable option

 

<P>Sorry i can't say for sure if the canon 100-300 is better or the apo sigma is better.I don't think anyone has done a comparison

<BR>Here is a comparison between the canon <a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html">100-300 and 75-300</a> (+the next page)

<BR>and here is a comparison between the <a href="http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp">sigma Apo and canon 75-300</a>

<p> As for the others-

<BR>The non Apo sigma is abit dodgey .Mine may have been a dud but i've heard others ranting about it to.

<BR>The canon 90-300 models are not good enough in my opinion.Colour and contrast are good but they're just too soft .The canon 75-300 versions are abit better and have interesting character (very strong background blur,modest colour/contrast).I have allways thought the 75-300's to be the 'bare minimum' in telezooms - something that i still think after using many brands/types.Note that the 75-300 is soft at 300mm which may strongly affect your choice.Yes all these zoom lenses are soft @ 300mm but the 75-300 (and lower models) are unacceptably so.

<BR>The tamron i have used but my example likely wasn't very good.Best i comment on others results i think.It seems to be typical of cheap consumer zooms like the canon 90-300 in that it has strong colour and contrast but sharpness may not be good enough

 

<P>All these lenses will work to various degrees with AF tracking in bright light but the slower focussing lenses will be unacceptable in low light!

<BR>These pics were taken with the <a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/">75-300 on a 300D</a> (this was the non usm model but this lens -like the 90-300- doesn't have true usm and there's very little difference in focus speed with the usm versions).Most of the pics i got that day are slightly out of focus-i deleted so many that day!

<P>All up i think you should definitely go for the canon 100-300-without a doubt.It has a true usm internal motor which is very quick at focussing + plus it is probably the sharpest .The only possible other choice is the sigma Apo with it's equal (?) sharpness and good macro abilities...but focussing may be a sore point

[jean_marc_liotier]

Sell the 20D and get yourself a 300D or a used 10D with good lenses, and sometime in the future you will be able to afford a nicer body for your good lenses. If you do the reverse, you will in the not so distant future end up with mediocre lenses and an obsolete body, and then you will definitely regret having put all that money into a body that is completely useless without good lenses. The life cycles of lenses and digital bodies are complely different : digital bodies follow the same cycle as computer hardware, which means that in three years or even two you will really desire a new one even if the old one is still functioning perfectly; whereas lenses although increasingly sophisticated remain something you can realistically hold on for twenty years without feeling a burning desire to replace. Get the best lenses you can afford, then see what spare change remains for the body. You won't regret it !

[danny_lee2]

Jean MArc is correct ! the 20D will go down in prices, the lenses really dont.

[bestactionshots]

For the REALLY POOR MAN, don't get any body at all! You don't have to worry about debts and depreciation on your gears...hehehehe

[phil_harmy1]

Thank you all for your advice, and if you got something do add - please do so! :)

 

The thing, why Canon 20D I decided when some organisations and advertisement firms started to want to use my pictures as posters

and so on. I was pretty pissed, that my pictures (3MPix) did lack

in resolution and they wasn't able to use those as posters,

but did give em out as "postcards". Back then I decided that I will get Canon 20D, because it has resolution, what I do need for many things. Even many picture-banks require 3500x2500 resolution. and that body is just powerful.

 

many of you reccomented me to sell 20D and get 300D with 17-40L but

I didn't ask anything about those wide/normal lens - only about

tele-lens :) If to talk about wide/normal ones, then I have decided to get Canon EF 50mm F1,8 II or Canon EF 35mm F2,0 - they should do their job perfectly. also I will take that fix lens ( 18-55mm F3,5-5,6 - wich should be ok too for his price )

 

anyway, about those tele lens, wich I did ask - My own choice was:

 

 

Sigma AF 70-300mm F4,0-5,6 DL Macro, but has changed now to:

 

Sigma AF 70-300mm F4,0-5,6 APO Macro

 

Why I don't consider Canon 100-300 what some reccomented - prolly because it lacs in macro abilities? But I will do more research on them.

 

If anything has something to add, reccoment or something - please do!

I will be happy for any kind of advice.

 

PS I think experienced man, who knows his body and lens, can get good results with normal lens, when unexperienced one can get good results only with the best lens. Atleast I belive in myself so :)

[pablo_s]

I'm with the others in that a DRebel with good lenses (like the 70-200/4 L) is better than the 20D with bad lenses, and also makes more economic sense. But since you seem to be set on the 20D, let me at least clarify what seem to be some misconceptions:

 

* I don't know of any Canon 90-300 lens. May be you are referring to the 75-300 and/or 100-300 lenses?

 

* Even though the Sigma say "macro" on them, they ARE NOT macro lenses at all. They probably have a somewhat smaller minimum focusing distance (as compared to other lenses you mention), but they won't get you anywhere close to the real macro range. If you want to do real macro on the cheap, buy the 50/1.8 and a macro filter set.

 

* All those lenses are soft and slow at the long end, and therefore not ideal for (good) bird photography. You can certainly use them to practice and learn, but don't expect to get publishable results in this area.

 

* You say that you are considering the 35/2 and 50/1.8 as "wide angle" and normal lenses. However, taking into account the 1.6 crop factor, these lenses aren't wide at all; the 35 is a "normal" lens and the 50/1.8 a moderate telephoto. The short end of the 18-55 is closer to a real wide angle lens but, although good for the price, don't expect miracles from a $100 lens (a DRebel with a 17-40 will produce better pictures than a 20D with a 18-55).

 

Although this is certainly more subjective, I think that for an inexperienced (amateur, or bad) photographer, having a good lens doesn't make a big difference because his/her likely problems with technique will offset whatever advantage ghe better lens may offer. On the other hand, an experienced (pro, good) photographer will make the most out of his/her good lenses because s(he) knows how to extract the best out of them.

 

Good luck with your purchase!

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

The 300D plus better lens is a good idea but abit late now.You'd lose a fair bit when sellin the 20D anyway...

<P>The sigma Apo or canon 100-300usm it is then

<BR>As someone said-there are no better lenses until you spend much more and get the L models

[sage_major]

I had the sigma 70-300 apo lens and just sold it because it would not focus fast enough for my primary usage, soccer shots of my daughter, however for normal zoom stuff, shots of the other side of the field etc, people standing around the lens was fine. The lens could not focus fast enought to track the players and would hunt even in Southern CA sun. I know that this does not help with your problem of which one to buy, buy depending on how scheduled your events are you may be better to just rent a better lens each time.

 

I did use the canon 100-400 last week and I got about 9 out of 10 shots in focus vs about 3 out of 10 when I was using the sigma. You will be able to hold the shutter down and shoot a bunch of photos and you may get 1 or 2 focused in time.

 

 

Here is the thread I started on sports

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AMK8

[panos_voudouris]

" Why I don't consider Canon 100-300 what some reccomented - prolly because it lacs

in macro abilities?"

 

The macro of those lenses is more like a marketing gimmick. True macro is 1:2 to 1:1

and beyond which these lenses clearly lack if you see the specs. They are more like "a

bit more close focusing than most other lenses"...

 

Depending on how long you want to go perhaps you could get a Tamron 90/2.8 macro

to do as a medium tele on your 20D or perhaps a Canon 135/2.8 SF to act as a

medium-longish tele. You can find both 2nd hand rather cheaply and they are both

fantastic lenses, Sharp and great background blur and miles better than any of the

cheap telezooms you mention. Not very useful for birds perhaps but for action the 135

might be just enough.

 

Otherwise the Sigma should do for now.

[soboyle www.oboylephoto.co]

BUY A 50 1.8 FOR $69 AND LEARN HOW TO SHOOT WITH THAT FIRST.

[._._z]

Shaun's right, even with that stuck caps-lock key.

 

Cheap megazooms simply aren't that good. Those lenses will not offer the same quality

image (sharpness, color fidelity, contrast, lightness) as an inexpensive 50/1.8.

[phil_harmy1]

Thank you, Shaun. I don't have to learn how to shoot with 50mm, maybe you do if you are such a man to tell it, next time save your

time and don't respond if you can't read and analyze. This wasn't issue what. All my talk was going to lens between 100-300mm.

 

anyway thank you all, who gave me good advice and thoughts about those 100-300mm range lens.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>Optically, the best choice among your options by quite a wide margin is the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super II. </i> </p>

 

<p> I hear the same from my friends. Just make sure you get the Mark II and not any other model. Also try to search for a used <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300.html">Canon 100-300/5.6 L</a>. </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>