guidance needed (another 20D / Lens question)..

[poolak_banerjee]

Hello all,

 

This is Poolak again with new query on 20D and lens.

 

At last, I have bought a 20D (body only) and connected my 17-40. The

images are coming pretty good but the problem is the weight of the

overall unit - almost 1.2 kg.

 

As I mentioned in my earlier posting, I have a EOS-55 and 28-105 lens

(that I will give it to my relative). So I am left with 17-40 and my

100-300 lens.

 

I am thinking of having a steady lens for 20D (the way I had 28-105

with my EOS-55) but don't know what to look for. My colleagues (having

20D) are suggesting whatever they use - some saying go for EFS-60,

some other mentioning EF-50 (f1.4) or EF-50 (f1.8).

 

In response to my earlier posting, you suggested me not to go for

EFS18-55 or EFS17-85 as I have 17-40.

 

I need some additional guidance for a light-weight Canon lens that can

cover potrait to landscape (in decent range) and which is not a direct

competitor to my 17-40.

 

Cheers,

 

Poolak

[yakim_peled1]

Indoor portrait lens: 50/1.8 or 50/1.4. Indoor portrait lens + macro: 60/2.8 USM (50/2.5 may have too slow AF for indoor portraits). Outdoor portrait lens: 85/1.8. Outdoor portrait lens + macro: 100/2.8 USM.

 

I'd suggest 50/1.8 + 100/2.8 USM. You have good lenses, no EF-S ones (if you ever get an EF DSLR in the future), no overlap with the 17-40/4, reasonable price and 1:1 macro. Seems enough.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[andy_sprauer]

You should of bought the 350XT body instead of the 20d. Get the 70-200

f4. Keep the 17-40 - I love this lens.

[byronlawrence]

andy, more for my curiousity (and no arguement intended), why would you opt for the rebel or 350 xt instead of the 20d?

 

and to Poolak. depending on what you want to spend but to cover the range between the two lenses you have and not spend too much i think the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 Is may be a fairly good lens albeit not an L lens but still good given what it is

[david_lau3]

Poolak said 20D + 17-40 is too heavy. Of course this is subjective as such combination is in fact light weight to me.

 

350XT will be much lighter than 20D and will help to reduce the weight of the combination for you.

 

If you keep your 17-40, I will second the suggestion of 70-200/f4. This combination gives you a range of 28mm to 320mm equivalent by 2 not so heavy lenses.

[kelvin_wong3]

heavy? your set-up? try shooting/covering a event for 3days with a 1vhs+70-200 f2.8+ 550ex+cpe2 and an eos3+bpe2+16-35 f2.8+550ex and 20rolls of film and back-up primes 20,50,135; thats what i call heavy.

 

from your present setup,you are short of a ultra-wide to moderate length lens,and since you want a zoom, get the new uber wide lens from sigma (12-24 f4.5-5.6 ex dg asph) or tokina (12-24 f4 digital)or canon (efs 10-22 f3.5-4.5 usm).

 

i'm not trying to be rude or mean or anything like that, but come on, 20d+17-40 is anything but heavy.

[poolak_banerjee]

Kelvin and others,

 

Now I feel so lightweight myself mentioning that 20D + 17-40 is heavy.

 

Well, I will bear it anyway. But do you recommend me to keep 17-40 as a standard lens (to have 28-64mm with 1.6 crop factor)and go for 10-22 for wide angle?

 

What about 28-135 as a fixed lens for my 20D?

 

Cheers,

 

Poolak

[carl_weller]

The recent trend is for greater than 28mm at the wide end and the 17-40 does this very well on a full frame body.

 

It turns into a 27-64 on a 1.6 body, but thats OK IMHO. I wouldn't bother with the 10-22 unless you are absolutely dead set on having wider than the 17-40 already provides. The 10-22 is no match for the 17-40. You won't find a better lense than the one you already have. In photography lense quality usually means heavier and bigger, thats just how it is. You have to suffer for your art :)

 

I agree with many other posters; get a 50mm [either 1.8 or 1.4] for a 80mm equivalent portrait lense, which is very light and makes a good 2 lense combo OR go the whole hog and get a 70-200/4L to go with your 17-40.

 

I'd be inclined to get the 70-200 myself and probably the 50 1.8 as well. You should be able to get both for around about $600-$650.

 

regards,

[thomas_munch]

If you think the 17-40 is heavy on a 20D, you probably don't want to handle a 70-200/4 - sure, it's a relatively small zoom for this range, but it is still a large lens (and yes, I understand the f/2.8 zooms are even larger).

 

 

I just purchased a 17-40 and I'm *very* favorably impressed after a short afternoon of playing around with the lens. If you want more reach in a small package, and a very sharp lens with blazing fast AF, I'd suggest the 85/1.8. Then again, I'm reading your post and it looks like you might be in the market for a 24-85...

 

--tom

[kelvin_wong3]

just to let you know, i wasn't trying to be mean in my last post or to make you feel bad, just my blunt response. sorry if i made you feel bad...

 

17-40 is a great lens, it's a keeper. the 10-22 had a couple of good reviews; if you are trying to build a lens system which covers the most focal range, the 10-22 is the way to go. granted the 50 f1.4 is a good lens, it either forces you to be creative or you are gonna feel constricted by it. if you think you are gonna do lots of low light/flashless type of photography, by all means, get it. 28-135, i've used to have one,can't complain about about its sharpness or resolution on panX(iso 50 monochrome film), but its built quality is average,it will suffer from zoom creep after it's been well used, and be careful when you have it zoom out to 135mm, a sharp jolt on the front cell now will dislodge the ring usm af mechanisim(happen to me twice). do a search on the performance of the 28-135 on digital bodies, it is said that the 28-135 does not resolve/soft pixs that well...

 

my 2-cents

[poolak_banerjee]

Hi Thomas,

 

I agree with you - I have used 17-40 with my film EOS-55 and it was wonderful.

 

I have seen the 70-300 also in Japan market, not only heavy, but very costly too (of the order of 130,000 yen (~1300 USD) - may be I have to sell my new 20D and live with EOS-55 :)

 

I am a photo amateur and would like to have a lens that I can have fixed on 20D and keep the other ones (lie 17-40 / 100-300) in my bag.

 

What does 24-85 give me vis-a-vis 28-135 (that I am contemplating)?

 

Cheers,

 

Poolak

[kelvin_wong3]

ps: don't even consider the 50 f1.8 mk2, its built quality/handling is total crap. if you can find the 50 f1.8 mk1, thats another story.

you may want to add a marco lens later on,try thr 50 f2.5,its a versatile option or the 100 f2.8 macro - good for potraits and macro pixs. the 180, sharp as it may be, is too big/heavy option for EFFECTIVE outdoor marco photography,IMO. i'm sure there are others who may disagree but like i said,IMO.

[poolak_banerjee]

Kevin,

 

I understand your point on 28-135 (I have to see the review and think again). I am going to keep my 17-40 anyway. IYHO, what I should be amining for (lens, not object) as a kind of general purpose lens?

 

Poolak

[kelvin_wong3]

it really depends on what you shoot most often and how much weight/equipment you feel comfortable lugging around.from where i'm from,personal safety is not a problem,i'm only limited by weight and subject constraints.i started with zooms before converting to primes.the quality of the image,story it tells, is most important to me at this particular phase of mine.

 

can't help you much in this department as this is more of a personal preference thing - shoot lots of images,take a course,talk to other photographers,attent workshops and photography conventions if you can.

 

seen some of your pixs-they are more documentary in nature than say landscape.am i right? as i have said above, i'm in a phase right now, i'm considering switching to mamiya 7II-it gives me larger negative in a portable package.you should consider it...i live in singapore, and i've pro-level labs practically at my door step and they do anything from monochrome infared to large format/hi-res scaning. i don't know your suituation, so...

 

hope that helps

[kelvin_wong3]

get a good camera bag - domke or billingham, i heard they are superb(and last forever too), they enable you to carry more without feeling tired. try to carry as wide of focal length range with you if possible; thats why i'm recommanding 10-22,17-40,100-300.maybe a 580ex would be wise. an 'event' occurs only once, dont want to miss capturing it for prosperity,right?

 

personally, if i'm shooting cityscapes,i'll carry 3 lens - 16-35,50 f1.4,135 f2 or a 100marco, an x-pan, timer cable release and filters;

 

documentary/photojournalist type - 50 f1.4,135 f2,550 ex flash;

 

covering a event that i'm paid - 16-35,50,70-200 f2.8, two 550 ex flash,cpe2,light tripod(monopod if i can get away with it),xtra batteries & film, eos 3, 20 f2.8 and 135 primes, a point and shoot digital camera as back-up.

[david_lau3]

Poolak, if I can only have one lens on my 20D, it will be the 17-40.

Only one lens on camera means you need to take a chance if that lens can capture the scene you want.

 

In general, a wider angle allows better chance to capture a scene. If you want a tighter shot you can still chop the image later. But no way to expand if your lens is not wide enough.

 

24mm on 20D is 38mm. If this is the widest angle you can go, you may miss opportunity for landscape photos and you will have problem in clamp space.

[poolak_banerjee]

Since I am hearing some different comments on 28-135 and most of you are recommending EF70-200 F4L (the price is double than the 28-135), I am confused (as usual).

 

1) the price is high for 70-200mm (double than 28-135 in Japan)

2) it is heavier than 28-135

3) I miss 40 to 70 (i.e., 64 to 112 in DSLR) with 17-40 and 70-200 combination.

 

Is it ok to keep 17-40 as a walk-around lens?

 

Any guideline/suggestion on 28-135 versus 70-200?

 

Cheers,

 

Poolak

[thomas_sullivan]

I use the 20D and 17-40L f/4 as my walk around lens. Heavy, maybe, but try a Mamiya C220 for a couple hours.........that's heavy! But, that TLR did teach me lessons in trying to deal with the weight. One, if you carry the cam around your neck, find a strap made for REALLY heavy camera set ups. And if you still cant deal with that, get it off your neck and carry it with the strap wrapped around you wrist like a street shooter. So....1) if you are going to carry it around your neck with a neck strap get a <a href="http://www.optechusa.com/product/detail/?PRODUCT_ID=23&PRODUCT_SUB_ID=&CATEGORY_ID=4"><u>Op/Tech Pro Strap</u></a>, and the Super Classic Strap also looks like about the same. They have a unique strap set up that is designed to reduce the effect of the weight on your neck.........AND it works!..........2) If that don't work to your liking, you can remove the strap part and use the quick disconnect system connected to itself, and wrap it around your wrist like a street shooter does. I've shot with 20D/17-40 combo for 8 hours like this without any aches or pains (in the arms or neck that is................pounding my feet for 8 hours is a totally different thing on the feet and legs)

[raoul.jasselette]

I think this is typically the problem with a Canon 1.6 crop factor DSLR : which "standard" lens to use. I have a 10D and exactly the same question.

So what ? 17-85 IS (yes, I know, you already have 17-40, but I speak for myself) ? Nope : 5.6 will give me no background blurr... I need 2.8 or more open. I currently use a 50mm1.4, which is defenitely a good lens. Not too heavy (also this is not a problem for me). But it's not a zoom lens. Alternatives are Tamron 28-75 2.8 (too long the shortest focal), a 24-70 2.8 L (you said HEAVY ? This is too much for me, not to say a word about "obstrusive" !)... I also own a 16-35 2.8 L but, that's too short for a general purpose, also that's my most used lens...

I'd like to have something like a EF(-S) 20-50 f2.0 L, with the size and weigth of a 17-40. But it doesn't exist. So switch to a 1D for 1.3 crop and use the 24-70 2.8 L anyway ? There is no answer to me (yet) ! This is the true weak point in Canon DSLR strategy, for me !