EOS 20D worthy of new lens?

[rfader]

<p>I do portraits of kids and families and have had great success using my Canon EOS 20D with the 18-55mm lens it came with. I'd love to upgrade to better glass that'll still allow me the mobility I need to capture kids on the move. Would it be worth it for me to buy a better lens such as the EF 24-105mm, the EF 28-135mm or the EF-S 15-85? Not certain if the EF-S series is even compatible with me 20D. My budget is tight (whose isn't?) and also wondering if there's a reputable used dealer to consider. I'd so appreciate the advice from the more experienced!<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Robin</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Try the 50/1.8 II. Cheap, fast and sharp.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>IMO, the 20D is a fine camera, certainly worthy of good glass. It will mount EF-S lenses.</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.8 the Bob mentions is all he says, but also a very slow focusing lens (at least on my 20D). It might not do well shooting "kids on the move".</p>

<p>All the lenses you mention are reasonable. I own the 28-135mm IS and it's my "walk around" lens when I don't need wide-angles. Another budget option is the new 18-55mm IS; at about $170 it's a big improvement over the original kit lens (although neither focus terribly fast). Also, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 gets good reviews and my colleagues with them also speak highly. The new 15-85mm sounds very interesting. If the optical quality is decent, I may get one of them to use as my "normal" lens.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>Maybe an 85mm f1.8, give you a bit more reach for when the kids are running around, also a great portrait lens, focuses fast...plus low-light capability. Just have to zoom with your feet.</p>

[george_prescott]

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>I also own a 20D and faced the same questions you have (I also do a lot of portraits). In a nutshell, right now your lens is the weak link of your system. I bought the 50mm 1.8, and share Bob's views. I later purchased a 24-105L, and also a 85 1.8. All these lenses are a dramatic improvement over the kit lens.</p>

<p>KEH (keh.com) is the best place to buy used, but you may not always get a big discount on some of these lenses. But, the 50 1.8 is well under $100 anyway...</p>

<p>George</p>

[peter_rowe]

<p>Robin - the 20D is a great camera. I think that if the resolution meets your needs with print size right now then you can stay with the 20D and upgrade the lens. I have always found it better to get a different lens, as in different focal length or aperture rather than something similar to what I have. This will give you more creative options and you will find yourself doing new things. The 24-105mm is a really great lens. I have one and use it on a the 20D and 5D. The bottom end of 24mm is a bit long on the 20D, I think the low end at 17mm or so works better there. As mentioned, you could go with prime lenses and that can be a very cost-effective solution. The great thing about primes is that they are usually fast so you can really get more creative with things like depth-of-field effects that are not possible with your 18-55mm. The 50mm f1.8 is really cost effective but on my 20D it a bit non-consistent - some shots are deadly sharp while others are quite soft for no apparent reason, but it is very inexpensive and many swear by it. I also have the 35mm f2. Now there's a great little lens and a good range too on a crop camera and is always consistent. It's more expensive though at about $225 (when I got it) and the focus is a little noisy. I have the 85mm f1.8 and it is great but I find it too long on the crop camera for portraits (it's the equiv of 135mm there) so you need a lot of space. and the minimum focus distance is over 3 feet so you can't get too close for close-ups. On the zoom side I think we have to mention the 17-55mm too, I don't have that (I have the 17-85 which I love) but it is supposed to be the best mid-range zoom made for a crop camera that you can get, it's f2.8 too so you can get those DOF effects. Then theres the new 15-85mm. These are all EF-S lenses and will work on your 20D but won't on full frame so if you are planning on a full frame like a 5D you should really try and go with the full frame lens like the 24-105mm or a prime, the primes are almost always full frame. All of the above lenses are Canon but of course there's 3rd party too. I have not had great luck there so I stick with Canon now but many are extremely happy with 3rd party lens from Sigma Tamron, Tokina etc.</p>

[rfader]

<p>Many thanks to you all for the thoughtful responses.<br>

My one remaining question is...are all digital SLRs likely to go 'full frame' in the not so distant future? Just wondering if I'll soon regret not buying a full frame lens.<br>

Robin</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>My one remaining question is...are all digital SLRs likely to go 'full frame' in the not so distant future?</cite>

 

<p>Absolutely not.</p>

 

<p>From a practical perspective, look at the recently-introduced 7D. It's a heck of a camera, is getting pretty darn good reviews, and it's 1.6-crop just like your 20D (and mine). In some ways, the 7D beats the full-frame semi-pro 5D II and even the 1.3-crop fully-professional 1D III (which Canon just replaced).</p>

 

<p>And from a cost perspective, it will always be less expensive to produce a 1.6-crop camera. The sensor is smaller (it's about 40% of the area of a full-frame sensor), which leads to an obvious advantage in materials cost (i.e. you can make about 2.5 1.6-crop sensors with the same amount of silicon as a single full-frame sensor). There's also a yield advantage; every silicon wafer has some defects in it, and the larger the sensor, the higher the chance that it contains a defect which would cause the sensor to be thrown out. For instance, a silicon wafer that (and I'm pulling numbers out of thin air here, without any idea whether they reflect the real world) makes 100 1.6-crop sensors makes only 40 full-frame sensors. If there are ten defects on that wafer, you can still make about* 90 1.6-crop sensors, but you can only make about 15 full-frame sensors, so your 2.5:1 advantage has now expanded to a 6:1 advantage. Given these two factors, it's probably reasonable to expect that the same quantity of silicon that produces one viable full-frame sensor can produce at least 3-4 viable 1.6-crop sensors. That alone allows you to sell a 1.6-crop camera for less money than a full-frame camera, and we haven't even looked at the other things that are smaller (i.e. consume less materials and therefore cost less), such as the mirror, the motor that moves the (less massive) mirror, and the pentaprism (or pentamirror on the cheaper bodies). I have no idea what the actual cost of producing a full-frame body is relative to the cost of producing an equally advanced 1.6-crop body, but if you look at the retail prices of a 50D and a 5D II, you can be assured that markup is not the only reason one costs substantially more.</p>

 

<p>Putting my money where my mouth is, late last year I replaced my (full-frame) 17-40mm f/4L USM lens with the (1.6-crop) 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. At the time, I was planning on upgrading from my 20D to a 50D this year. Now, I'm planning on upgrading to a 7D, which will probably last me for at least the nearly 5 years that the 20D has. And I fully expect that when I upgrade to a 7D III or whatever in 2015 or so, it will be another 1.6-crop body, and my EF-S 17-55 will work perfectly well with it.</p>

 

<p>*: this is using the simplifying assumption that the defects are spread out so that each one only affects one sensor. In reality, it's likely that there would be some sensors, particularly for larger sensors, that would be hit with more than one defect, so the advantage may only be 4:1 or 5:1. But it's been too many years since my university statistics classes, and too many beers with dinner, for me to try to work with the actual probabilities here. Anyway, you get the picture.</p>

[mr._b]

<p>I just bought a 17-40mm F/4 L lens for my 30D (basically same as 20D) and I'm very glad I did. Before this purchase I didn't have any particularly good glass for the wide end. Lenses are more of an 'investment' anyway since I won't have my 30D for ever but I should own my lenses for several years to come.</p>

<p>I've had the pleasure of shooting the 24-105mm and the EF-S 17-55mm. I adore the 24-105mm lens but 24mm just isn't wide enough for 1.6 crop and like the 17-55mm, kinda out of my price range. Anyone including myself will tell you the 17-55mm is optically excellent but ultimately I couldn't convince myself to spend the exorbitant amount of money on a lens with unimpressive build quality and a extending barrel that sucks in dust.</p>