Lenses for EOS 20D/30D

[patrick_lee3]

Hi,

 

I'm planning to buy either a 20D (cheaper) or the new 30D without the

lens kit. I am thinking of getting a 18-200mm and possibly a ultra

wide lens (maybe 11-18mm), that can be used also when I upgrade to a

full-frame DSLR later.

Any suggestions? Price is an issue here. Thanks.

[rob_murray]

Price is an issue here...

Thats why you should be putting your money into better lenses.

Super zooms are not very good.

[patrick_lee3]

Any suggestions, Rob?

[kbroderick]

<p>First, have you considered whether you really need the <i>x</i>0d rather than the

350d? The 20d and 350d have the same imaging engine and are generally capable of the

same quality of capture (i.e. Digic II and 8MP). The 20d is slightly faster and

ergonomically different, which is worth a couple hundred bucks to some folks (myself

included), while the 350d is smaller, lighter, and significantly less expensive. There are

plenty of comparisons between the 20d and 350d out there; for obvious reasons, that's

not yet the case with the 350d and the 30d.</p>

<p>Second, the two 18-200s I'm aware of are the SIgma and the Tamron. Both offer

incredible convenience at a low cost and with crummy optical performance; the Sigma

seems slightly sharper in the head-to-head tests I've seen online (you can probably find

them with Google), but I've been reasonably happy with the Tamron--it's admittedly a crap

lens optically, but it's mighty convenient for certain situations (e.g. hiking). Shooting with

an 18-200 may also let you determine which focal lengths you really want to use so that

you can better decide which of the more expensive lenses to get next. On the other hand,

you will probably come to realize that optics matter sooner rather than later, and you may

find that the 18-200 ends up being an ultra-convenient lens that sits around and gathers

dust because it's slow and not particularly sharp.</p>

<p>I'd strongly consider the 50mm/1.8, as well; for under $100, you can get yourself a

plastic lens of questionable build but good optics that does quite well in low-light

conditions. If you haven't already budgeted for other photo gear (a couple of bags, a

decent tripod, two or more CF cards, extra batteries, lens cleaning cloth, blower bulb,

filters, etc) and output costs (web hosting? printer and consumables? outsourced

printing?), you may want to factor them in, as well. A lot of the "minor" items snuck up on

me (e.g. bags, CF card reader, additional CF cards), and they don't seem so minor when

you add them up.</p>

[patrick_lee3]

I have considered 350D but opting for 20D instead for its ergonomics, faster speed and robust albeit heavier body.

 

My only problem is what lens to buy, and having read your comments, I should probably stick to the standard lens kit 18-55mm first(which I heard is pretty crappy too!) and decide later what better lenses to get.

 

Any recommendations for a cost-effective flash unit for the 20D? The Speedlite 580EX is way off my budget!

[ben_kriete]

The kit lens is better than most would have you believe. Use that for a month or so and you will have a better idea of what you want in an upgrade. Do you want faster? Wider? Longer? Image Stabilization? A good second lens is a 50/1.8. It's not a different range than the 18-55, but it is much faster for low light, and is optically quite good. It's also a good introduction to shooting with a prime (fixed focal length) lens. If it drives you nuts not being able to zoom, you'll know you don't want any more primes. And if you like being confined to one perspective and being forced to "see" with that focal length, you'll know that too.

[jarek]

I totally agree with Ken. You can get 20D with kit lens for almost the same price as 20D body. After using it for a month you will know what you need (wider? longer? faster? sharper?). If you decide that kit lens is not for you, you can always sell it on eBay.

Photozone site [http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews] is a good source of information about lens tests.

[dave leung]

<i>The kit lens is better than most would have you believe. Use that for a month or so and you will have a better idea of what you want in an upgrade. Do you want faster? Wider? Longer? Image Stabilization? A good second lens is a 50/1.8.</i>

 

-- I would suggest skipping the kit lens altogether and get the optically superior 50/1.8 while you decide what other lens(es) you wish to purchase. Once you decide on a 'better' zoom that suits your needs, you can still use the 50 for low light situations. The same can't be said of the kit zoom which you may never touch again.

[robin_sibson1]

The 50/1.8 is a long-focus lens on a 1.6-factor body and is really not a good choice as your ONLY lens, especially if you need to learn about your needs at a range of focal lengths. You won't find much enthusiasm for hyperzooms on this forum, and if you want decent ultrawide performance on a 1.6-factor body then buying a lens with claimed FF coverage at those focal lengths is not a good way to go.

 

If you are really strapped for price, buy the 18~55 kit lens at almost negligible marginal cost and use it as part of the learning curve until you can work out what you really want and have saved up for it. Buying a 50/1.8 AS WELL could be a good move to give you an optical standard by which to judge what you should aim for within the available tradeoffs between flexibility, size, weight, cost, speed, and quality.

[patrick_lee3]

Since the Canon EF 18-55mm is a crappy lens, would it make sense for me to spend a bit more on a Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM I lens instead? I don't think I can find out what my needs are with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. As a second lens, yes.

 

What's your take on the Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM I? It's slightly more expensive than the kit lens. Is it equally crappy?

[pjmeade]

The 20D kit lens isn't a "crappy" lens, it's just that a lot of us use "L" series lenses, which are excellent and it's not up to that standard.

 

You can get some very acceptable shots from the kit lens and it will give you an idea of where you want to go in the development of your equipment. It will continue to be a useful lens after you go on to buy a 70-200 or 10-22/17-40. It may get left at the bottom of the bag if you go for 24-70/24-105. The 50mm f1.8 does seem too good to miss.

 

Hope this helps.

 

P

[patrick_lee3]

Hi,

 

Based on what I've read so far, I'll go with the kit lens, and upgrade from thereon. I might as well get the 50mm f/1.8 as well, since it is so affordable (and for low-light shots).

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Very helpful indeed.

[kbroderick]

<p>With regards to flash options, the best option (IMO) for ETTL flash is the 420EX; you

should be able to find a used one for under $150, it's a genuine Canon product, and it

supports tilt and swivel. If you end up with a 550EX or 580EX down the road, you can then

use the 420EX as a wireless slave (assuming line of sight between the flashes). I'll agree

heartily with what the other posters have suggested regarding lenses, albeit from a slightly

different perspective--I <em>didn't</em> get the kit lens with my 20D and ended up

wishing I had. The 50/1.8 is definitely worth buying as well, unless you think there's at

least a reasonable chance you might want to go right to the 50/1.4.</p>

<p>If you haven't already, check out the classifieds on the reputable photo sites (e.g. here

on photo.net, on <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/">fredmiranda.com</a>); if you

understand what you're buying, you can often get a slightly better deal than eBay on used

lenses.</p>

[conraderb]

Patrick - you are looking to upgrade to a full frame later, so I ask you now: do you want toys, or do you want great photographs?

 

If you want toys, your plan is smart. Invest all of your cash in high tech bodies, and use crappy lenses.

 

If you want save your money AND get great photographs, buy the 10D and the 50mm 1.8. Your totals should be $800 or $900 max. Play around with it. When you have the money, get some serious lenses, and then upgrade the body.

 

The 18-200mm, whatever the brand, is strictly a consumer camera, and will not do justice to the quality that the 20D or 5D or ____ makes possible.

[ben_kriete]

The 28-80 is probably crappier than the 18-55, and I imagine you will find it less useful should you care about wide angle at all. I hear over and over how awful the 18-55 is, and yet I still took some of my favorite photographs with mine. Granted I now have lenses that cost 15 times as much and are capable of taking pictures in lower light and at different focal lengths, but you really can't get a more versatile lens for $100 bucks. Perhaps I have an exceptionally sharp copy, or maybe my standards are extremely low, but I fail to understand the bad reputation this lens has acquired - mostly, I think, from people who haven't even used it.

[patrick_lee3]

Ben,

 

Do you still use the 18-55mm kit lens, now that you have lenses that are far more superior than it?

 

Conrad,

 

I want great pictures. And I want a camera that I can use for a couple of years, at least, before I upgrade to a full-frame one. So, I think 20D is a reasonable choice (maybe even 30D if the price difference isn't great).

 

What are the serious lenses every photographer should/must have? Mind sharing what lenses you have?

 

Thanks.

[pjmeade]

Patrick, which other lenses you get is determined only by what you are prepared to pay.

 

For me, the 70-200 f4 is a great lens, if I had twice the money I would have bought the f2.8, if I had three or four times the money I would go with the 2.8 IS. As money is an issue the f4 will not disappoint.

 

As "walk around" lens, you may want to go with the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4 IS. I still haven't made my mind up on that one. They are in a similar price range and both are reputed to be excellent.

 

I'm not sure what the best wide angle option would be. I suspect it would be the 17-40 f4 L. Remember the 10-22 is an EF-S and isn't going to make the transition to full frame.

 

If you use the search facility, you will be able to find many thresds and reviews about Canon's lenses.

 

Good luck with the hunt for your kit.

 

P

[jim_larson1]

I agree with much of this thread.

 

First. . .don't get the 28-80. Not wide enough. Quality just isn't there.

 

Second. . .what is your budget? I could make recommendations based upon a $100, $500, or $4000 budget.

 

As a reasonable start. . .I would go with the 18-55/kit lens and the 28-105/3.5-4.5 -> good range, only $325 for both lenses, decent quality.

 

If you want to treat yourself, swap out the 28-105 ($225) for the 28-135/IS ($425). Similar optical quality, but you get the groovy IS gizmo.