Help with lenses for 20D

[james_smith20]

Hello,

I am fairly new to photography and I need some help with some new

lenses. I am traveling to asia for 4 weeks and will take my new 20D

with me. I want some great pictures and need some advice on

lenses. I have a canon 100mm 2.8 macro. I am also looking at the

100-400L IS lens. I would like to use the 100 400L IS lens for

wildlife and outdoor scenes far away. I would also like a good

lense for general landscapes (beach scenes, buildings and general

pictures of life in the places I'm at). I would also like a wide

angle lens. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

thanks

js

[joshchapman]

The standard wide angle/standard lens that everyone on PN seems to recommened for digital is the 17-40 L. And with good reason, since it's a great lens. As far as the telephoto, well, 100-400 is going to be pretty long on a 20D. How far away are you going to be? You might want to check into the details of wildlife shooting where you're going to be, and maybe ask those who have done it what kind of equipment they were using.

[mark_chappell]

Second the recommendation of the 17-40 (unless you want REALLY wide views in which

case the 10-22 might be a better choice). Definitely keep the 100-400 if you want to do

wildlife, unless it's only going to be used for big mammals in a zoo. It's also a really

handy lens for a lot of landscape work (that and the 17-40 account for about 90% of my

landscape shooting).

[yakim_peled1]

For the 20D I'd opt for the 10-22 as I think the 17-40 is not wide enough on the 20D.

 

The 100-400 IS is a very good lens but do you really need 640mm effective focal length? It is also very heavy and when back-packing this might be an issue.

 

I'd go for a 10-22 + 50/1.8 + 70-200/4 set because for me (YMMV) light weight and wide-angle are more important than tele and IS.

 

May I suggest a search? A lot has been discussed on all these lenses.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[grant g]

I like the EF-S 17-85 IS for travelling. Have you considered a hyperzoom at

all? I also use a cheap Sigma 28-300 for travel and use in daylight.

 

For wide angle, the 10-22 is excellent.

[yakim_peled1]

Obviously, you can get much lighter setup but I think that compromising too much (IMHO) on optical quality is not a good idea.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[lotsawa]

I just came back from shooting a demonstration (against human rights violations in Tibet) in the streets of Berlin. I used three lenses (mainly 17-40, sometimes 85/1.8 and 200/2.8) and two bodies (digital 300D and analog A2E). Although I used the 300D/17-40 combo most of the time (because of the advantages of digital), it was sometimes just not wide enough, and it felt like a 'revelation' to mount that lens on a full frame body. I am more convinced this lens was really designed for full frame and it becomes a bit disappointing and looses its appeal on a croped sensor body.

 

Imageing you want to shoot a group of people in front of the Brandenburg Gate. You want to have the people in reasonable size and the Gate too. So you need the perspective of a real wide lens. Or you just can't step back too much because other people will cross or there is just not enough space. In different situation like that the 17 (~27mm equivalent) were not wide enough. OTOH it is not very long either, so you IMO you loose too much and gain too little on a APS-C size body.

 

Therefore I second was Yakim said, you may seriously consider the EF-S 10-22 instead of the EF 17-40. (Or if you want a walk-around lens with some more range, you might also consider something like the EF-S 17-85).

 

Other things I noticed, btw (sorry, a bit off-topic): The viewfinder of the 300D can be a pain in comparision to that of the A2E, especially in a somewhat busy or even hectic situation and when it is cold and rainy. Not even is the image smaller and dimmer, also the information in the viewfinder can be hardly read. But ok, it is digital, just make sure the ISO is set high enough, aim at the target and fire!

 

Also I found the 300D and 200/2.8L is an excellent combo. Fast and reliable AF, excellent image quality. And since there have been qualms about that: I added the Sigma 500 Super flash and it worked great for fill-in, even at quite long distances. I used the Sigma as direct flash, no FEC was needed (some FEC is needed more often if you use the Sigma indirectly, but that seems to be the case for the Canon flashes as well).

 

Good luck!

[johnb]

James<br>

The 100-400L IS would fit the bill perfectly for your wildlife and outdoor scenes. Like some here recommended, the 17-40L will fit your needs also. I have both and they are very worth there cost (to me).

<br>

Enjoy the trip :+)

[rob_murray]

I would not want to travel with the 100-400 lens on a trip..too big

too white, too heavy, too expensive...For travel photography a wide

angle is needed much more than a super telephoto.

[jim_larson1]

Mid grade lens: 17-85/EF-S IS; 28-135/IS; 70-300/DO-IS

 

High grade lens: 10-22/EF-S

 

Pro-Grade: 17-40/4L, 24-70/2.8L, 100-400/L-IS, 70-200/4L.

 

The 10-22/EF-S, 24-70/2.8L and 100-400/IS is a righteous kit. The only problems are cost and the fact that the 24-70 and 100-400 are both extremely large and heavy. Unless you are travelling with a "BIG" kit, and are in secure areas, I would not travel with the 100-400/L-IS.

 

The 10-22/EF-S is a good lens, but honestly I think you will want something between 22 and 100 :) I have traveled with the 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4L and have been happy. For real long range work I add a 1.4 TC to the 70-200/4L. Note that the 70-200/4L is a bit big in it's own right and lacks IS. . .but image quality is top notch and therefore is a reasonable compromise. (your milage may vary)

 

The 70-300/DO-IS is small, tiny even. Perfect for telephoto street photography. Micheal Reichman raves about this lens. . and does not mind the $1100+ cost. Castleman quantified tests of this lens reveals that this lens is not really close to the quality of the "L" zooms.