which lens would you recommend

[tc3596]

I have the Canon 20D with the 18-55 kit. I also have the 75-300 IS

USM lens. I really want to obtain great photos (at least what $600

could get me). I am willing to get rid of the 75-300 and the 18-55

lens and upgrade to one "L" series lens. What would you recommend as

a great everyday "L" series lens that would suit many different types

of shots?

[bobatkins]

The 70-200/4L is good and about all you can afford.

[david_lau3]

There is no one single lens that provides 18-300 range without compromising on quality, weight and max aperture.

 

If I can only have one lens on 20D that provides excellent image quality for most situations, I will take the 17-40/f4 L.

[tc3596]

I guess you are right, there is not just one lens that will do it all. I like photos of family and friends and I would like the ability to get real up close and personal (i.e. drops of rain in a puddle or bugs) I guess telephoto is out, although important, I would rather spend my money on a quality lens vs the 75-300

[timothy_randolph]

The 85mm 1.8 takes really great photos. It is just a bit more than half your budget and is a

good compliment to the kit lens.

 

Try that and the kit lens and you should have a better idea if you want to do more with

primes or you want to spend the dollars to get high quality zooms.

[thomas_munch]

You suggest that you want to "get close" so perhaps a macro lens will do the trick? The 100/2.8 USM gets you a *great* telephoto lens that can take amazing close-focus images, and it doesn't overlap focal lengths with your existing zoom (~$500 with lens hood, purchased separately but a nice addition). The 100/2.8 also makes for a great portrait lens. Then again, it doesn't have the red stripe of an L...but most who own it don't much care as they just enjoy the results.

 

Also, the 70-200/4 is a great zoom lens, if you've got your mind set on L glass and would prefer a zoom.

 

--tom

[delwyn_ching]

Save a few more bucks and pick up the 17-40L at ~$670.

[godefroy]

May I suggest a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 28-70 f/2.8 which you can found used... They will make a 38-112 f/2.8 on our camera. They have little macro capabilities (eg: for drops...)

 

Give it a try, you'll see for yourself.

 

Happy shooting.

[yakim_peled1]

If you use the 18-55 more I'd suggest 17-40/4. If you use the 75-300 more I'd suggest 70-200/4.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[pbizarro]

Well, you can try and get the most from your current lenses, e.g. by using a tripod perhaps? Better lenses do not automatically translate into better photos.

 

Keep your current lenses, and perhaps buy a cheap prime (28, 35, 50), to see whether or not you are more comfortable shooting with zooms or primes. If the latter, then you can wait a bit and get some great fast lenses; one kit consisting of 28-85 (or 100) prime lenses is wonderful and light.

 

Then if you miss wide angles, you can get the 17-40.

[poolak_banerjee]

I am Poolak and I pop up again. I am now using 17-40 as a walkaround with my 20D. Wonderful lens with 20D (I used it with EOS-55 too).

 

I am planning to go for 70-200 f4L but some experts are also recommending to go for 28-135IS. 28-135 is much cheaper and lighter than 70-200.

 

However, nobody denies the superiority of 70-200. yesterday, I went to Yodobashi Camera (Tokyo) and checked the 70-200 on a 20D body, quite awsome - a misfit (may be) in the hand of an amateur :)

 

Cheers,

 

Poolak

[johnb]

Tim I agree with many here, the 17-40L is a great lens.<br>

What Thomas Munch suggested is even better, 100f/2.8 macro<br>

In fact judging by the types of photos you want <br>

<i>"(i.e. drops of rain in a puddle or bugs)"</i> <br>

the 100 macro fits this perfectly.<br>

Here is an example of up close and personal<br>

<center><br><A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3415203" title="Click to Open Photo Spec page" target="_blank"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3415203-lg.jpg" alt="Click to see Photo Specs" style="WIDTH: 500px; HEIGHT: 333px"><br>

EF 100mm f/2.8 macro<br>

click for specs

</A></center>

[tc3596]

It sounds like a lot of people like the 17-40L lens. I'm assuming this would replace my 18-55 lens. I have also heard that the 70-200L is awesome. I may have to do without that one, price issues. Thanks for all your opinions.

[poolak_banerjee]

My incomplete sentence may create some confusion. The complete one is

 

"However, nobody denies the superiority of 70-200. yesterday, I went to Yodobashi Camera (Tokyo) and checked the 70-200 on a 20D body, quite awsome - a misfit (may be) in the hand of an amateur ~like me~:)

 

Nevertheless, how you folks compare 70-200 with the 28-135 for a non-pro (like me) for 20D as a companion lens to 17-40? I am using 17-40 as my walk-around lens.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Yes, a lot of people (myself included) like the 17-40/4. Lots of people also like the 70-200/4 (I probably would, too, if I had it). If you could afford both, and maybe a 50/1.8 (or, better yet, 50/1.4) to fill in the gap and add some speed to your lineup, and maybe a 1.4x teleconverter for the times when 200 just isn't quite long enough, you'd be all set. But budgets do tend to get in the way of buying all the photo gear you'd like, says Steve, waiting until next year (after my bank account has taken the hit of buying the 20D) to replace my now-too-long 300/4L IS USM with the 70-200/2.8L IS USM.</p>

 

<p>You need to figure out which lens is in greater need of an upgrade. That could be decided in at least two ways. One is "this is the lens I use the most, so upgrading it will affect more of my photos." The other is "this is the lens which I find the most disappointing, so upgrading it will produce the greatest improvement." Only you know how much you use these two lenses, though my guess is that you use the 18-55 far more than the 75-300, and only you know how happy you are with the results of the two lenses.</p>

 

<p>I think someone else already pointed out that it's not just the lens; it's the rest of the equipment as well, and it's the guy using it. The 20D is a fine body. Do you have a tripod? If you use flash, do you use the pop-up flash or do you have something better? And how about your own skills in various areas (such as composition, choosing the right shutter speed and/or aperture for a given photo, digital photo editing)? Could you use a photography course at a local college, or help from a local photography club, or a stack of photography books?</p>

 

<p>P.S. beware of L series lenses. They're addictive.</p>

[qh]

I've just bought the 70-200mm f/4 for my 10D and love it. I use this lens no less than the 17-40mm in street photography. So it's really up to your taste, wide angle or tele? Pick one and buy the other later when u can, you won't regret :)

 

P.S: Yeah, L lens is really addictive!

[kevin_bates]

You may want to think about using a Tamron 28-70 2.8 lens. I've been using it on my 10D for a year and a half and I'll continue to use on my EOS 1D Mark II when it comes in. A very good lens since Tamron has been in the lens business so long. Take care for now.

[dogbert]

"I want to obtain really great photos (at least what $600 could get me)."

Despite what most people say around here (who prefer to talk about equipment than how to make good photos) really great photos are largley the product of photogpraphic technique. The lens is only a minor consideration.

[melissa_eiselein]

"Despite what most people say around here (who prefer to talk about equipment than how to make good photos) really great photos are largley the product of photogpraphic technique."

 

Sad, but true. I am indeed the poster child for having great lenses and no photos to go with them. <sigh>

 

Tim, everyone else has given their suggestion. I'm going to give you mine. Sell the 70-300 IS, which isn't a bad starter lens, but isn't a good one either.

 

Take the money you get from it (about $250?) and add that to your $600. Now, buy the 70-200 f/4 (USA version is $580 at B&H in addition, there's currently a $25 rebate) and the 50 1.8 ($70 for the import version). The 50 1.8 can be a very nice portrait lens on the 20D if you aren't up in your subject's face. It's very sharp and is considered by many to be Canon's best buy for the money. It will also allow you to shoot in low light conditions.

 

Then, take the leftover cash (about $175 after tax and shipping?) and put it in your savings account. Add to it a little at a time each and every payday. While you are saving, shoot with the wide kit, f/4 telephoto and fast 50mm. Pay special attention to what is going right and what is going wrong. Doing so will help you think about what you need next. Maybe it will be a better wide angle lens such as the $680 17-40 f/4? Or maybe a macro, such as the $470 100 f/2.8? Or perhaps you'll be needing something else altogether such as another fast prime?