What lenses to buy for Canon EOS 20D

[candice_fitzgibbons]

I am a graphic designer who has spent many years on the print production end of

photography. Although I don't have much photographer experience yet, but I have decided

to get a Canon EOS 20D for personal and professional use. People have told me and I have

read many reviews that it is best to buy the body only, not the kit with the 18-55 mm lens.

I would like to get several lenses. I would like to shoot textures, portraits, landscapes and

wildlife. Please, professional photographers suggest what lenses and accessories I should

buy. Thank You!

[ymages]

for landscape 17-40 f4L

a good zoom 70-200 f4 L

something certainly very good and polyvalent with stabilisator 24-105 IS f4L

if you dont need to shoot a lot of macro at once kenko tubes arereally interresting

[candice_fitzgibbons]

Thanks, I am looking at the Canon 24-105mm f/4 USM lens as my primary lens. Maybe a

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM as my second lens. What do ya'll think? Is that a good

place to start? Will those 2 lenses give me a wide range of capability?

[robert_potts1]

I would add an inexpensive macro for textures.

[dariusz calkowski]

I have 17-85 f4-5.6 IS. It can be bought as kit lens and it's very versatile lens but be aware of CA. On 20d 24mm it's not enought for landscapes and architecture. Much better then 17-55 but not as good like 17-40L. Try 17-40L + 50f1.4(great portrait and low light performance) or 85 f1.8(even better?) + 100-400L IS or 300 f4L and 1.4 TC for wildlife.

Oops, sorry I'm not a professional photographer.

[dk.]

I would get the 17-40mm F4L, 24-105mm f4L, 50mm f1.4, and 300mm f4L IS for your needs. The 100-400mm is fine too (and may be a good choice for you) but the 300mm f4L IS is sharper as it is a prime lens but the 100-400mm is a zoom (Push pull design and may bring in more dust, dust is your enemy) which may come in more handy for you and it has "IS" also and well it is still very good.

Of all my lenses my favorites two are my 300mmF4L IS and my 70-200mm F2.8L. Good luck and take care.

 

 

DK.

[palfy]

One major factor will be how much gear are you willing to schlepp around. If all you do is shooting near your car, then heavy equipment won't matter. If you need to hike for mile to get to where you are, or if you will be on your feet moving around for an entire day, weight will matter.<p>

 

When I want to go light, I use a 17-40/f4L (to be replaced with a 24-105/f4L) and a 70-300/f4.5-5.6 DO IS (which has not the best rep, but is a good lens, if you know what you do, thus the ideal trade-off between quality and weight). Otherwise, I take my full equipment with me.<p>

 

Three good articles on "what's in the bag":

Michael Reichmann's <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/china-in-the-bag.shtml">China in a Bag</a> and <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangladesh-bags.shtml">Bangladesh in a Bag</a> (both essays explain why he took a lot of equipment and ended up not using most of it) and Uwe Steinmueller at <a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/the_bag/uwes_cameras_2005/essay.html">Digital Outback Photo</a>. I recommend you read all three before deciding.

[palfy]

Actually, the correct article covering what worked for Michael Reichmann in Bangladesh is <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml">here</a>

[mjc photographic images]

I have the 20D and am slowly putting together a range of lenses, I opted for the 24 - 70 f2.8L rather than the 24 - 105 because for portraiture I prefer the 2.8 for the out of focus background. With the 1.6 crop factor the 24 - 70 is not really wide enough for landscape but it will do me for a while. I also have the 70 - 200 f2.8L non IS and the 24 - 70 is a perfect match for the 70 - 200. The f2.8 lenses are more expenseve than the f4 but I figure I don't want to buy f4 and realize I should have got f2.8 so I bought 2.8 lenses. My next descision is whether to get the 100 - 400 L IS or a 2X converter for my 70 - 200. I bought the 20D kit because the 18-55 is not all that bad in some situations.

 

Good luck with your choice

 

James

[mjc photographic images]

I also have the 50mm 2.5 macro which I use for macro and portraits it is pin sharp and I can't fault it. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ I use this site also for reference when thinking about purchasing a lens. When I was looking and asking for advice about which lenses to buy I got brain meltdown with all the different combinations and advice I received. In the end it was down to me to make a choice I would be happy with and I couldn't be happier with the kit I chose. As I mentioned earlier about the 2X converter or the 100 - 400 I know I will opt for the 100 - 400.

[guitarlover]

I am planning to get the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L lens for the digital XT that I plan to buy soon. Due to the cropping factor, I am forced to buy a another wider angle lens as well- I am going to choose the 10-20mm Sigma over the 10-22S canon due to cost factors. The whole bloody thing is going to set me back about $3000.00.

 

I await the day when the 5D will be sold for less than $1000.00 leaving me to simply stick to the 24-70mm lens only.

[pto189]

Some say 17-40 f/4L, 50 f/1.4, and 70-200 f/4 form an ideal set. This combination will leave you with one prime lens for indoor shooting. The problem is that 50mm is not a normal lens on the 20D. I think a perfect set should be three f/2.8 lenses: 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 IS. If one thinks 24-105 is a perfect walk around lens on a 1.6x digicam, he might be wrong. The new lens has been designed for a FF DSLR such as 5D, not the 20D.<p>

I keep the 17-40 f/4 most of the time on my 20D. When I'm shooting indoor, I use the 24-70. For macro and portrait work, I use the 100 Macro. I've sold the 70-200 f/4 and ordered the new 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS. It took me a three nights to decide between the 70-300 and the 70-200 IS. I have no limit on my budget, but I don't like the 70-200 IS being white, big and heavy. The 24-70 is also heavy, but I can live with it. It also took me a month to decide between the 300 f/4L and the 100-400 push-pull zoom and ended up with the 300 f.4 IS and 1.4x TC. I might get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS someday, but I don't see I need it now. My next lens could be the 24 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4.

[susan stone]

I'm relatively new to digital imagery also (also have a graphic arts background) and being on a limited budget and liking things as simple as possible I opted for the EF-S 17-85 lens for my everyday walk-around lens and have added the new 70-300 IS USM and that's all I carry with my 20D. I've been happy with the images I've been getting and if/when the day comes I can upgrade to a FF I'll keep the 70-300 and sell the 17-85 with the 20D. I do a lot of hiking and these two lenses lighten the load and give me the range I need. Good luck and Happy Holidays.

[whwhitejr]

Candice,

After looking and reading all I could get my hands on I spent a couple of thousand $ on lenses that were only fair on my two 20Ds trying to save a buck. What I found was the best combo for me was the 17-40 F4, the 24-70 F2.8, and the 70-200 F2.8 IS Zooms. The 50 F1.4,The 85 F1.8 and the 300 F4 IS primes. For me the IS is a no brainer as most of my shooting is off hand.(like with binoculars the higher the power the harder they are to hold still) I also have both the 1.4X and 2X extender. The Three Zoomes and the 50mm would be a good start. If Money is a problem the 24-70 F2.8 with the 50 f1.4 are a good start.Get the others a $$ allows.

I hope this helps,Bill

[jim_doty]

Candice,

 

If, as you suggest, you start with the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS USM lens as your primary lens and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM as your second lens, you will probably want a wide angle lens too. 24mm isn't that wide on a 20D. I would suggest the EF 17-40mm L lens as being in the same price and quality category as your other choices.

 

If you decice some day that 17mm isn't wide enough, you can add the Canon EF-S 10-22mm or the Tokina 12-24mm lens.

 

Your first two choices aren't the heaviest lenses on the block, but they aren't light either. The Canon EF 70-300mm DO IS lens is a nice alternative to the 100-400 lens and much smaller and lighter. FYI, I have both the 100-400 and the 70-300 DO lenses and I like them both. I take the 70-300 DO when I want or need to travel light.

 

Happy Shooting!

 

Jim

[yakim_peled1]

>> I am looking at the Canon 24-105mm f/4 USM lens as my primary lens. Maybe a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM as my second lens. What do ya'll think? Is that a good place to start?

 

Yes. Add the 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM and you're all set.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[robert_nancarrow]

Go with what susan stone said, it's an ideal 2 lens set-up for the 1.6 cropped sensor. Bob.

[kanellopoulos]

Very high quality lenses: 17-40 f/4, 50 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 macro.

 

 

If you do not require 1:1 magnification in macro, you could get

the 50 f/2.5 macro (instead of the f/1.4) and the new 70-300 IS. This way, you will have great coverage.

 

 

OR keeep the 50 f/1.4 and get a 500D close-up lens ($80) to use with the 70-300 for macro.

[guy_ingram1]

I'm in a similar position - planning a set of lenses to use with a 20D. I currently shoot with an old EOS 1 body, but will upgrade to a the 20D soon.

I own the 70-200 f4L which is a great lens - no change required. I also have the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 but it's not very wide with the 1.6 sensor, and it's noticeably less sharp than the 70-200, so I plan to upgrade it to L glass, specifically the 16-35 f2.8L. However, this creates a gap between 35 and 70mm, so how to plug it? I'm thinking a 24-70mm f2.8L, but the budget is pushing up, and I'm not going to want to carry 3 lenses around. It's a shame Canon don't do something like a 16-70! Maybe I'd be better off to spend that extra cash on a FF 5D, so the 24-70 provides the required WA?

[sloopjohne]

<i>If you decice some day that 17mm isn't wide enough, you can add the Canon EF-S 10-22mm or the Tokina 12-24mm lens.</i><br><br>

 

Ditto on the Tokina 12-24mm (19-38mm equivalent on the 20D)! (I'd avoid Canon's way-too-expensive and much slower EF-S-only alternative.)<br><br>

 

The Tokina is a sweet lens --solidly built (all metal body); very sharp, even wide open; great color and contrast; and scant barrel distortion at 12mm. I bought mine several months ago for my 10D and have been very happy with it since. (Btw, unlike the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, the Tokina will work on full-frame bodies, albeit no lower than 17-or-18mm since it begins to vignette at that point.)<br><br>

 

For very low light and for low-profile candids, portraits, and street shooting, I use a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8, which I also highly recommend.