Ask a question for my friends.

[Xinca]

He only has EF 50/1.8 with EOS 20D(better than my 10D :-(). Now he is

going to spend 1000US$ to buy lens for it.

I told him EF 17-40/F4 and EF70-200/F4 are my choice but it will cost

him 1300 already.

 

1. EF 24/2.8 + EF 70-200/F4

2. EF 17-40/F4+ EF 85/1.8(EF 100/2.8 M)

3. tokina 12-24 + EF 70-200/F4

 

I think these are all the possible choice for him.

He do not want to buy EFS lens because he think the standard EF lens

will keep the value pretty good.

for my experience I think 2 is good because I find when I use the EF

70-200 I always use 70-100.

 

He is that kind of photography fan just like me: ALways do not know

what I am going to take.

 

So hopefully you guys can give some idea and I can print the page to

let him make the decision.

 

Tks a lot!

[andy_van_eynde]

What about :

 

- Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD (389.95 at B&H)

 

or

 

- Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO (439 USD at B&H)

 

and

 

- Canon EF 70-200 f4L (569.95USD at B&H)

[Xinca]

But in this way he will lost the wide angle.

[jreades]

You don't say anything about what type of photography your friend likes... I guess you want an 'all around' setup, but if he's really into birds or something then none of the lenses listed is really going to fit the bill and he should be looking at something like the 200-500/f5-6.3.

 

Aside from budget, there's also the question of weight and usage -- for instance, I have a 70-200/f4 but I don't really carry it around with me a lot except on trips where I know I'll need it because even though it's not heavy, it's no lightweight either. The dubious honour of 'most frequently used lens' in my 'collection' belongs to the 24-80/f3.5-4.5. Which might be a bit long on a DSLR if your friend wants to take lots of pictures of buildings from up close but is a great lens for just walking around. It's about $300 so you'd come in at $400 less than the 17-40/f4 (which is, of course, a better lens, but it also costs over twice as much).

 

HTH,

 

jon

[andy_van_eynde]

Well My lens combination is :

 

- EF-s 17-85 IS USM

 

- EF 70-200 f4L

 

Main problem with an alternative for the EF-s 17-85 is that most of them only start around 28mm and found it not wide enough on a 1.6 crop. So ended with this as only choise!

 

So if you still want to stay wide I would go gor the 3rd combination you mentioned : Tokina 12-24 + EF70-200f4 (+50 f1.8 he already has).

 

Andy

[robert_nancarrow]

I agree with Jon, it depends on where his emphasis is photography is. For instance, I don't take too many wide angle shots so I have the Tokina 12-24 for the occassional picture and even though it's a very good lens if wide angle was what I did a lot of I'd own the 17-40 and/or the 10-22 Canons. What I have spent money on are the longer lenses by buying some L zooms. So if your friend is more toward the wide end spend it on good lenses there and if he's toward the long end spend it there, he can't go wrong with the 70-200 f/4. And he can't expect to cover a wide to tele range with L quality for under 1000.00. Bob.

[pto189]

There are three ways to burn money: Canon EF lenses; Canon EF-S lenses; 3rd-party lenses.<p>If you go for the EF-S group, then there is no brainer. Buy 10-22, 17-85 and 60 Macro. They're specially designed for the 20D, so you won't have the prolems with focal length. I'm not worry about the compatibility becasue Canon will make all future 1.6x cameras that are compatible with the EF-S series. The only problem is that they're consumer grade and slow.<p>If you are like the majority who think Sigma and Tamron lenses are good in quality and price, then go with either Sigma or Tamron: Sigma 12-24, 18-50, 24-70; Tamron 17-35, 28-75, and so on. By buying 3rd party lenses, you don't have to burn a whole bunch of your hard-earning money and still have good quality lenses.<p>I buy Canon EF lenses only and buy L lenses if I can. First I bought the 50 f/1.8 to shoot 1000 pictures with my 20D. Then I bought the 17-40 f/4L because I need a zoom. Then I added the 100 f/2.8 Macro for portrait and close up work. This is a fantastic lens that you don't want to miss. I bought the 70-200 f/4L buy found that it is not a versatile lens as I expected because from 70-100, I can use the 100 Macro. On the other end at 200, I cannot hand hold the lens especially in low light condition. I recently added the 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x TC and love this combination. You need an IS lens for focal lengths longer than 100.<p>Here is my suggestion according to my buying experience. Ask yourself if you can live with 3rd party lenses. If not, then buy the 17-40 now. You won't regret with this lens. I don't suggest you to buy the 70-200 f/4L next but buy the 100 Macro instead. You can take a lot of pictures with this lens. This is the sharpest lens I own. Think of skipping the 70-200 f/4L and buy the 300 f/4L IS instead. Many folks here will tell you 17-40, 50, 70-200 is an ideal set. I agreed before. I disagree now. To me, the perfect set is 17-40, 100, 300. You can buy more prime lenses to fill the gaps but only after you know exactly the focal lengths you need. For low light indoor shooting, you need between 24-35.

[Xinca]

"I bought the 70-200 f/4L buy found that it is not a versatile lens as I expected because from 70-100, I can use the 100 Macro. On the other end at 200, I cannot hand hold the lens especially in low light condition."

 

That's my feeling too now.

[george_tietz]

the 70-200/f4L is a good lens for the money.I am getting spectacular shots outdoors. May have to get a bracket for my inside shots. The 1.8 50mm is great for low light. I need to get the 24-70/2.8L to replace the kit lens and for a wedding coming up anybody have any input on it?

[jim_larson1]

First. . if you are talking EF-S . . and quality. . you are limited to only one lens because these suckers are so darn overpriced.

 

What do you shoot? I find the 17-40/4L more useful than my 70-200/4L. Therefore. . .17-40/4L and 85/1.8 are the way to go!

[carl_weller]

I agree with Jim,

 

17-40 and 85 are great [your option two].

 

But, if your friend does tend to shoot more at the longer end than the wider end, I would say get the 24 and the 70-200 [your option one].

 

He won't be disappointed by the quality of any of those 4 canon lenses. It does depend on what and where he likes to shoot, but for the money either option is a very versatile kit.

 

regards,

[Xinca]

To be honst he will use this camera for his son(will born in the next month) at most of time.

Then he will come with me to do some steet shooting.

Maybe some landscape when we are finshing.

Tks.

[Xinca]

And I do not think he will shoot bird at all but maybe some flowers.

[sheldonnalos]

I vote for option two... 17-40mm and 85mm f/1.8.

 

I have the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm f/4, but I think the 85mm could substitute for about 75% of what I use the 70-200mm for. Overall, 85% of my shots are done with the 17-40mm.

[Xinca]

Does anyone has experience both on EF 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 M?

I heard of that 100/2.8 focus slow but compare to the 85/1.8 how slow it is?

Becuase the 100/2.8 is only 100 more maybe it is better choice than the 85/1.8?

[byronlawrence]

you know for less than a thousand, the Sigma EX HSM 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens (not as wonderful as the canon IS counterpart, but way cheaper, $700 ish) IF your friend considered this lens I think he would be happy, but it does lack the low end of the focal range. that would leave him a little money left over to spend on another or save a little longer and get the nice canon L lens to cover the low end... or do it the other way around.

[yakim_peled1]

1, 2, 2a and 3 are vastly different. Each has it's pros and cons. I know what I would like but I have no idea what he will. Thus I can not recommend any. Sorry.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jreades]

For street shooting, flowers, and a baby boy I would think that the 70-200/f4 is overkill at this point in time. This is not a discrete lens and on a 1.6 crop camera you're looking at a 112 to 320mm effective zoom.

 

I'd *suggest* that he consider not spending all of his 1K right now, and just purchase a couple of shorter, very fast lenses for the tasks above and wait until he's going somewhere (e.g. wildlife shooting) that really needs something longer. Otherwise I tend to suspect that the 70-200 will sit in a drawer gathering dust.

 

How about two of:

 

1. EF 35/f2 -- $230 (56mm effective)

 

2. EF 100/f2.8 macro -- $470 (160mm effective)

 

3. EF 20/f2.8 -- $400 (32mm effective)

 

All of these are very light and quite small. The 35/f2 -- which I own -- weighs so little and is so small that I often stick in the bottom of my Lowepro TLZ *Mini* under my camera with 24-85/f3.5-4.5 attached. The 70-200 will never fit this bill and you'll have to buy a much larger bag to carry it in.

 

Also, I have to agree with others who said that the f4 *can* be at times problematic in lower-light conditions [like what you would encounter in the jungle]. Admittedly, I was using a film SLR and didn't have the per-shot ISO ability of a DSLR, and I think that this would have made a big difference to how many shots I made (I still came back with some great ones [for my skill level], BTW). With 1.4x TC attached AF *is* slower, even if photo quality was still exquisite. As I said above, I would recommend that your friend wait to buy the 70-200/f4 (and perhaps the 1.4x TC to get something with an effective range of 448mm for just $850) until he has a specific need for it. I feel that it's really too long for a DSLR in day-to-day usage so you should weight towards the shorter end.

 

HTH,

 

jon