christi_jones Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Ok so I am on the verge of purchasing my 20D and I am not to thrilled about the kit lense. What is your opinion of a good walk around lens. I am going to get at 75-300 telephoto for my soccer shots but I was wanting suggestions on a good walk around lens. My main shots are of my kids, dogs and soccer. I will be moving to Hawaii in September and most of my shots are outside. Thanks in advance for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christi_jones Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 I say dogs but just goofy shots of my lab with my kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 The EF 17-40L f4.0 has been a great investment.<br> Just one opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcolwell Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I'll second Peter's suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoneguy Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 How much cash do you want to spend on this lens? $50, $100, $1000 etc...? It will help with recomendations. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_c_charlottenc_ Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Are you really going to buy the 75-300mm? Or did you mean the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM ? I agree, the 17-40mm f4.0L is a great lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_reiss Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (constant), if you don't need anything really wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 On a film camera, the 28-105 is a good GP lens. Scaling that down by 1.6 gets you to 17 - 65. Nearest current Canon product to that is the 17- 55 f2.8 IS (big bucks, crop digital only, may not yet be available) or the 17 -85 F4 - 5.6 IS (less bucks, crop digital only). Going off brand I fancy the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro (less bucks still, crop digital only) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 If you have to go for the 20D, then get the kit 18-55mm lens, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4 L. Just reiterating what I said in one of your previous posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dk. Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 "I was wanting suggestions on a good walk around lens" My first pick would be Canon 24-105mm F4L IS My second pick would be Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI My third pick would be Canon 17-40mm F4L If I were you and had the money I would get my first pick. If you are short on money then I would get my second pick. If you plan on taking more landscape shots in the future also then I would get my third pick. I had all 3 and still have 2 of them, they are all very good but I feel my first pick is the best one for what you want. Its always nice to have a prime lens too so pick up a Canon 50mm F1.8 it's a very good lens for the money. Take care. DK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I don't think anyone has recommended a Canon 75-300 telephoto - and with good reason, since they are all rather soft beyond 200mm. It's better to spend your money on something else. You have posted essentially the same question several times. Different people have made different suggestions, and they're not going to converge on a single solution, because their recommendations are influenced by their priorities. The strengths of particular lenses have been indicated to you. Now you need to balance your budget and your aspirations to reach some decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayhai Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I just spent a long time trying to make this decision, I had done a lot of research and was convinced to get the 17-85, but I realized that 4.0 was too slow for my needs, so i decidede to go with the sigma 18-50mm 2.8. The reviews tell me that is a very sharp lens at 2.8. It is light and compact, and seems like it will fit me perfectly. But you might value the 85mm range more for soccer. <a href="http://www.shuttertalk.com/articles/sigma1850ex/index.php">this review helped me</a> I can't find the other one that helped, but if you do your research, you will see that the 17-85 is extremly soft and distorted at its wide end. and is not that sharp. but might be the lens for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whwhitejr Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Christi, you will be disapointed with the focus time and how soft the 75-300IS will be. It hunts bad in good light worse in poor light. It don't like any thing moving. You can't pan with the IS on as it only has mode 1. Go with the 70-200 F4. I posted this on one of your earlier posts. The reason I am telling you one more time is because I made this mistake and I would hope that you wouldn't. If you don't like the kit lens you won't like the 75-300 or the IS version. The 28-135IS is a good walk around lens in the $400 range. Again I hope this helps. Regards, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hall2 Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 The Canon EFS 17-85 or other-brand equivalent was my first choice. I use that for 95% of all my work. Soccer requires a tele and tripod or monopod. The 17-40L is a bit specialized (but excellent, of course). Remember, the 20D has adjustable ISO with minimal noise so you can shoot 800 and 100 on one "roll." Most standard lenses are superb with L-series being even better than superb. If you shoot 8x10s and the occasional 11x14 or 16x20, you will be happy with the 17-85. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 My opinion on the 17-85/IS has softened as the price on this lens has come down over time. If you can get one for $500ish, then go for it. If cost is a factor. . .the combination of the $100 (or less) kit lens and the 28-135/IS is the clear way to go. Yes. . .the 24-105/IS is nice. . . but overpriced and overkill. Consider this lens only in combination with the 10-22/EF-S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stacy_egan Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I am usually happy with the 17-40 as a walk-around/landscape lens on my 20D. Sometimes it's too short and I think the 24-105 would be great, but I can't justify buying that lens. When the 17-40 is too short I reach for my 50 f/1.8 or 70-200 f/4. Congratulations on your Hawaii move! I imagine photo ops abound there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now