Are these Lenses OK?

[gene_bomber]

I am purchasing a canon 20d body. I have to build my lenses up since

all I have are old Minolta 35 mm Lenses. I will be doing some

portrait photography but will primarily be doing landscape/

architectural photography. I have opted for prime lenses to begin

with due to good image quality and low cost. I have thought about

going with The canon:

 

ef 24 mm 2.8

ef 50 mm 1.8

ef 85 mm 2.8

 

These for now followed by the 100 mm macro lens also by canon.

 

are there any no prime lenses should buy first? Or in addition to?

 

Thank you in advance for your time.

[marrio]

There's an EF 85mm f/1.8 (not 2.8); and yes it would be a good choice. <p>Plus, an EF

35mm f/2.0 would be good too - same field of view of a 50mm lens on full frame.<p>And

you'll eventually want something wider that 24mm on that 1.6x crop factor 20D, so the

choices are 17-40mm/4.0L, 17-85mm, or 10-22mm zooms.<p>Consider the EF-S 60mm/

2.8 macro as well.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

If you like the flexibility of zooms and need something wider than a 38mm equivalent, but still want very high quality, I'd recommend a Canon 17-40mm f/4 L at $675. It's roughly on par with the 24mm for quality, but gets a fair bit wider. The 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 are both great choices. The 50mm f/1.4 is a little better than the f/1.8, but is also $200 more.

 

If you don't need anything wider, then you've got a good starting kit. You could always get the 18-55mm kit lens for $100 if budget was tight but you needed wide angle. It's not too bad when stopped down on a tripod.

 

The 100mm macro is great, but a little long on the 20D (160mm equivalent field of view). I'd put money towards the 17-40mm first, unless you really have a focus on macro shooting.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

[toddklassy]

None of your lenses are wide enough for true landscape and architectural photography. The only Canon lens that works well on the Canon 20D's 1.6 crop factor is the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

 

The approximate cost of the lenses you list above is around $800. It sounds like you are on a budget, so given what you stated above I would instead consider buying the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($700) and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II ($100). Instead of getting the EF 85mm f/2.8 and/or the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($500) you might consider getting the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($400), which could double as both a portrait lens and as a macro lens on the 20D.

 

I'm not familiar with the EF 85mm f/2.8, but I know the EF 85mm f/1.8 is the lens you want if you are doing serious portrait work. I think it is only $100 to $150 more.

 

Good luck,

 

Todd

[marrio]

There's only 85/1.2 and 85/1.8, but no 85/2.8.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

You clearly want to shoot primes (most of the other posters seem to have missed that). So YES they're good choices, however as has been pointed out the 1.6 crop needs to be taken into account. So you possibly need a wider lens (maybe not)? The 20 2.8 perhaps or Sigma 20mm 1.8 (35mm--ish on the 20d), or the Tokina 17mm or If you want wider it's probably easier to go with a zoom. The Sigma 14mm is more expensive than their 10-20 zoom, The Canon sub 20mm primes are VERY expensive.

 

The 50mm and 85mm are great portrait lense on the 20d (like 85 and 135 on full frame-ish).

[yakim_peled1]

>> ef 24 mm 2.8 ef 50 mm 1.8 ef 85 mm 2.8

 

I had them all. Excellent lenses. Wholeheartedly recommended.

 

 

>> These for now followed by the 100 mm macro lens also by canon.

 

If you plan on buying the 100/2.8 USM then I'd buy it before the 85/1.8. Reason: The 100/2.8 can also double as a great portrait lens.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.