Best all around lens for 20D? How about the new EF 24-105 F-4 L IS USM?

[donna_polski]

I am looking for your suggestions on an all around lens. I have two

children ages 3 and 15 and they take up the majority of my

photography shots. I am buying the 70-200 F-4 L for my sons'

football games (thanks to your recommendations) but because the lens

is so big, that's all I'll probably use it for.

 

Can you recommend a great lens for taking shots of my daughter

(she's fast)and birthday party shots? My son is getting confirmed

at the end of October and I'd like to have my lens for that so I

really don't have time to wait for the reviews of the new 24-105,

yet this lens looks awesome (well, it does to this beginner).

Thanks again for your help!

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

IMO it's pretty useless 'normal' zoom for the 20D, just simply not wide enough. If you want 'L' then the 17-40L is an excellent lens, if not then the 17-85mm has IS and will give you longer range.

[ky2]

The 24-105/4L is certainly not a fast lens-- definitely not indoors for subjects in motion. Consider fast primes for this task: Sigma 30/1.4, Canon 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8.

[grahams]

Donna - for an all-round lens you need to start at around 17mm because of the "crop factor" of the 20D's sensor size compared to the size of a 35mm film camera image size. A 28 - 105 would be a good choice for a 35mm film camera. For your 20D, Ben is right - the 17 - 40L is a good choice.

[ajweiss]

"Not wide enough" is a relative thing.

 

I use a 24-70 lens as my all around lens, and I am happy with it. Maybe only once out of

1000 shots do I wish it were wider. I personally don't like the look of most truly wide-

angle shots, so 38mm is wide enough for me most of the time. On the rare occasion that I

want a wider view, I have the 18-55mm zoom that came with the camera.

 

Think about how wide you need to go. 24mm might be just fine for you.

[andy_van_eynde]

I ended up with the EF-S 17-85. On the wide end I really need at least the 17mm of this lens (a 24-xx would be too narrow for me).

If 24 or so would not be a problem for you then also check out a tamron or sigma 24-70 f2.8!

 

Andy

[robin_sibson1]

On its own, the new 24~105 does not offer anything beyond just the wide side of standard on a 1.6-factor camera. That may not be a bad choice for what you want, but in general is a bit limiting. However, by teaming it with the EF-S 10~22 you get high-quality 10:1 ratio coverage, although the changeover point may not be ideal. I have been using a 17~40 on my 20D for the last year (excellent lens) and supplementing it with primes, but have really felt the need for the flexibility of a zoom in the standard to medium-long range. I now have the 10~22 and 24~105 'team' as well as the 17~40, and will be discovering whether the very considerable attractions of the 17~40 make me feel the need for it as the preferred lens in its range, or whether I am content with just the two. I am already satisfied that I am not sacrificing anything significant in using the 10~22 in the 17mm to 22mm range, but I am not yet clear about the relative merits of the two L-series lenses between 24mm and 40mm. In any event, I shall keep the 17~40 to allow for a possible future move to FF. The 24~105 certainly seems to be an impressive performer by comparison with the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 at f/4, and although fairly heavy it handles quite comfortably on the 20D.

[haunting_your_thoughts]

If I had the same issue... I would definately NOT consider the 24-105. Why? Although the range maybe excellent, there's no such lens that excels in quality both at the wide end (24mm) and the long range end (105mm) Not to mention the fact that it's an f4.0.<br><br>For children you are better off getting a zoom lens with the least limitations. You dont need something too fancy, at the same time you shouldnt go for something dirt cheap. When I have kids, I would be using the Sigma 18-50mm or the Tamron 28-75mm to do general purpose shots. For football, If I cannot afford the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, I probably would go for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. If I find the game being played in well lit areas, I would even risk it with a Canon 75-300 and make the soft images sharper by editing the images. To avoid risk of losing those very important shots, you can even get a Canon 100mm f2.0 or Canon 135mm f2.0 L lens both of which are fast and excellent for portraits and sports. But... It's not my money we are talking about here.... so, i wish you the best.

[donna_polski]

Thanks again for your help. It looks like the best choice for me is the 24-70 L lens. I hope I don't miss too much on the wide angle side. If so, I'll have to look at those lenes next. Thanks.

[sandy_labana]

Most often I use 17-85mm lense on 20D for candid pictures of my grandchildren. Generally, I don't have time to change lenses. If the light is not enough I use flash (580EX). For planned picture, I use 85mm F1.8. I have not felt the need of any other lense for kids pictures. Sandy

[jimstrutz]

I agree that 24mm is not wide enough. It's certainly not wide enough for me. It could be wide enough if were only using it outdoors or in large spaces, but I don't find many houses large enough. It might work for a confirmation, but I want something wider for a birthday party.

 

I bought a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Fast optically & sharp all over.

[whwhitejr]

Hi again Donna,

I have two 20Ds and a 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L and a couple of primes for lowlight stuff. I also have a 550ex flash and a420ex flash. Most of us have spent 15k or more by the time we thought we had (almost) enough stuff. I have spent lots of bucks getting to this point. I do weddings and family shoots as well as some portfolio's. But for my own family birthdays and just quick shots I use a point and shoot Canon SD500 7mp (about$450 on line)because most kid shots are snap shots anyway and it fits in my shirt pocket. I can still make them good quality 8x10's if I want.I hope this helps, Bill

[yakim_peled1]

1. An "all around lens" means different things to different people as they have different needs and shooting styles.

 

2. For the price of the 24-105 you can have 28/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 135/2.8 and still save 100$. Just a thought.....

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[brideday]

The 17-40 4 or 16-35 2.8 Hands Down as the best all around lens. It's light enough and versatile enough for most situations.

 

Kalim

[dogbert]

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC. Will complement the 70-200 nicely. Fast and sharp and wide enough for indoor group shots. There is no Canon equivalent of this lens.

[kanellopoulos]

My most used lens with the 20D is certainly the 17-40 L. I also have the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 I usually change to the 50/1.4 for portraits and to the 100/2.8 for macro/tele. The 24/2.8 is for now more or less unused (but FF is approaching us fast...)

[henry_minsky1]

After going through a lot of lenses, here is what I have found is what gives me the best for my 20D, for my style of photography.

 

 

+ Sigma 18-50/2.8 zoom lens my primary lens

 

+ Canon 55-200 USM my telephoto lens, very comparable to the 70-200 f/4 (I used to own that lens)

 

+ Canon 50/1.8 portrait lens, and for low light and outdoors

 

These are not very expensive lenses, compared to what is available, but they give me very good results, and are small and easy to carry.

 

The Sigma is pretty fast, but the performance at f/2.8 is a little disappointing. At f/4 though, it is fine.

[sfink16]

I don't understand all the wide angle enthuiast. Eventually a cheaper 5D equivilant will become norm in that a full frame camera will not have a crop factor. In 5 years when I replace my 20D and by that full frame camera, I'll have the best of all worlds in the 24-105 IS L lens. Like someone said ealier, my 18-55 kit lens works great for the 1 out of 1000 shots I need wider then the 24 on my 20D.

[jimstrutz]

Yeah, but Donna asked about lenses for her 20D, not on a mythical future camera, and 24mm on a 20D isn't wide enough for *most* of us. Some people think it's fine, but I don't find it acceptable for what I do.

 

BTW, I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that we will all be shooting with full frame sensor camera in the next 5 years. Maybe, but maybe not.