richard_speer Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Please excuse the basic nature of this question, as I am apparently having a conceptualization problem, but: one lense: EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. one lense: EF 70-300mm 4-5.6 IS. Which of these would you recommend for my first lense with my first digital SLR, a 20D? I am basically a beginner who plans on taking mostly outdoor pics, with more emphasis on landscape than animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 No brainer IMO. --> the first one. A 70-300 would be pretty limiting as a sinlge lens on a 1.6 crop camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakon_soreide Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 If landscape is your emphasis, then it's a simple choice: 17-85, which at the wider end is quite a capable landscape lens, as well as throughout its zoom range making a great do-it-all walk-around lens, although I'm sure some would recommend you get an even wider one for that purpose. <p>I have it myself, and love shooting with it. Even if I'd had other lenses for my 350D, I'm quite sure that's the one that would have stayed on my camera most of the time.<p>Image stabilisation is great, making hand-holdability down to around one tenth of a second quite possible. Highly recommended! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Depends on how you like to shoot landscapes? Remember that 70mm on a 1.6 crop is already a lot. From the two above I would also go for the 17-85 if it is for landscapes (like to take wide pictures for landscapes)... For animals I would use the 70-300...because most of the time they are further away Maybe also consider the EF-s 10-22mm... http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm Ps own the 17-85 because I wanted a lens with a decent range and that was still wide enough on my 20d. But in some situations I would have liked it to be even wider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 ...and also like my 17-85! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalit Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Wideangle lens: 10 to 22 mm. I use my 16-35mm mostly. However I have felt limitations to not have between 35 to 75mm. 17 to 85 is a very good range, just check the lens quality and aperture as per your need. Regards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo_ma Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Get both, they make for an excellent 1-2 combo, especially for travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgarity Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 As others have said the EF-S 17-85mm is a better choice for landscape than the 70-300mm. A couple of people also mentioned the EF-S 10-22mm. Thats a GREAT lens but its not a good choice for a beginner. It takes a good deal of effort and skill to compose at focal lengths between 10 and 17 mm. Until you have learned a bit about photography and the art of composition, you would probably be better served with the 17-85mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icephoto Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 <i>I am basically a beginner who plans on taking mostly outdoor pics, with more emphasis on landscape than animals. </i><br><br> No brainer--go wide. For landscapes you'll appreciate the extra room that the 17mm side of things will give you and the 85mm (with the crop factor) is equivalent to 2.5x the focal length of the lens a good deal of us old-timers learned on.<br><br> The only concern I would have (and this is where my old-school roots may be showing) is that if you learn on the IS lens you may develop habits that will be hard to break when you have to use a lens that doesn't have IS on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pto189 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 <i>...that if you learn on the IS lens you may develop habits that will be hard to break when you have to use a lens that doesn't have IS on it.</i><p> Jim made an excellent point that few people here have discussed about IS lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkhan Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 If I do mainly landscape and if I had both lenses, I would use 70-300 a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 There's some info on the 70-300 here (If you haven't found it already): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx Does seem a bit of a specialty lens, with some compromises in design to keep it ultra compact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrspock Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Go wide. You'll use it 10X more than the longer zoom. With the 1.6X crop factor, you won't be able to use the 70-300 in many situations, particularly snapshots inside your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve santikarn Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 if your camera already comes with the 18-55 mm kit lens then go for the 70-300 zoom. If it doesn't come with any lens then go for the 17-85 mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis alvarez Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 With the 17-85 as your first lens you won't be limited to take the pictures that most of the time you are going to take, but if you go for the 70-300 as your only lens, you will be limited to head shots if you are inside a house. Go wide first then complement with the telephoto zoom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffOwen Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 For my 20D I bought the 10-22 first the 17-85 second and 70-300 last. When I go out on 'walkabout' I would take the 17-85 as it covers a good middle range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean de merchant httpw Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 What type of landscape do you wish to shoot? Do you want to shoot in once rural areas with heavy injections of modern homes? If so, go for the longer lens as the compression of perspective will let you hide a 1980s style home behind a barn to retain a 1930s rural look. Do you want to shoot in areas with lots of power lines? If so go for the longer lens as a wide angle tends to make excluding power lines very hard. Do you wish to shoot in areas with majestic but distant backdrops (i.e., mountains 100 miles away0? Go with the longer lens so you can use compression of perspective to shoot a barn half a mile away and make the mountains appear closer. Do you want to shoot beneath the canopy of a forest? Then go longer as you often need to get closer to a subject as trees will block the line of site to get the same composition with a longer lens. Do you live in an area where there are few power lines (the US States of Illinois, Wyoming, Montana, ... and most US National Parks come to mind)? For many other landscape subjects it just depends on where you can get too. Longer lenses can shoot between trees to create a scene without foreground distractions in a city. Shorter lenses can get you the wider field of view of a scene where other objects would block the view you wish to capture when shot with a longer lens. There is no right or wrong, just different scenes that demand different tools. Myself, I love longer lenses for the compositional control they give a shooter (they simplify getting simple/clean backgrounds more often). But a wider lens also has its place. Long glass enables getting shots without trespassing that would require trespassing with a wider lens (though I often just ring doorbells at farms and ask permission to shoot and share prints as a thank you). That said, even though I have not intention of getting the 18-85 I would suggest that for a beginner as it is a nice compromise of focal lengths (wide to normal to short telephoto) while the 70-300 is a pure telephoto lens. Then shoot for a while (5000+ shots) until you find the situations where you need a different lens to capture your vision of a scene. some thoughts, Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Mendel, I suspect the OP is looking at the 70-300 IS USM, not the more expensive and compact IS DO USM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 As other have already stated, for landscapes none will be really good. A wider lens starting from 10mm or 12mm will be much better. Personally I'd get the Canon 10-22 USM. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Richard, A lot of posters here have focused on the landscape part of your post rather than the first lens part. Though both are excellent lenses I would not recommend either the 10-22 or the 70-300 to be the only lens you own. The 17-85 IS on the other hand is probably the best single lens choice out for a 1.6x crop factor camera. The only competition out there would be the Sigma 18-50/2.8. It lacks IS but is faster (larger maximum aperture). For your stated purposes however the 17-85 IS is probably better. More range and IS. Fast lenses are essentially irrelevant for landscape photography. I will point out that neither the 10-22, 17-85 or the Sigma 18-50 can be used on a full frame camera. The EF-S lenses won't mount and the Sigma will nto project a large enough image circle. That would not stop me from buying any of these lenses however. No one has yet made the hackneyed suggestion of the 50/1.8. It is a lens with a cheap autofocus motor, plastic lens mount, and lousy manual focus "ring". The optics are very good and it is a good portrait lens on the 20D. I have one and use it extensively. Not a lens I would recommend as the only lens you own but at about $70 you should get one and use it. PS: "Lense" is my pet peeve. The word is lens. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/lense.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Adam, think you're right, didn't notice there were two candidates in that focal length. 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