Canon 20D and new lenses - official

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tony Spadaro, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Here is the announcement
    http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_eos_20d.html
    I think I'm about ready to make the jump to digital with a camera that is
    1500 for the body and will have 3 EF-S wide angle lenses that will fit it.
    With the 17-85 IS lens the camera comes to 2Grand -- which is well under the
    amount I spend on film and processing in two years. There is also a lens
    starting at 10mm - but it is pricy and only goes to 22mm. Here is the
    release on the lenses:
    http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_efs_lenses.html
    There is also a new flash:
    http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_580ex.html
    for those who are into them.


    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Spadaro

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Tony Spadaro" <> stated
    that:

    > Here is the announcement
    >http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_eos_20d.html
    > I think I'm about ready to make the jump to digital with a camera that is
    >1500 for the body and will have 3 EF-S wide angle lenses that will fit it.
    >With the 17-85 IS lens the camera comes to 2Grand -- which is well under the
    >amount I spend on film and processing in two years.


    I think you're making a wise decision, Tony. The 10D is a good enough
    camera that it has pretty much retired my film bodies, & the 20D looks
    to be quite a big improvement on the 10D. So far, the most useful (ie;
    unbiased, "warts & all") review I've seen of the 20D is the one on Rob
    Galbraith's site:
    <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6458-7153>
    The only thing I can find to bitch about on the 20D is the tiny buffer
    for RAW shots.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    , Aug 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Spadaro

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From:

    >The only thing I can find to bitch about on the 20D is the tiny buffer
    >for RAW shots.
    >


    Agreed. Six shots just doesn't cut it at 5fps.
    You can't even shoot an entire golf swing using RAW mode since the golf swing
    takes about 2 seconds. I guess I could get 2 20Ds, though.

    On the plus side, the 20D offers enhanced White Balance adjustments. You can
    really dial the correct WB setting in when shooting in JPG mode, which might
    make this option more attractive. One of the main benefits to shooting in RAW
    mode is the ability to fine tune the WB at conversion time.
    Annika1980, Aug 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Tony Spadaro

    Steve Guest

    I have been trying to decide on a lens for the Canon 10 d and from what I am
    reading, since I am new at this, Most of the lenses on the market are soft,
    Canons , Sigmas, Tamrons, on and on except the L glass from Canod. If so
    what good is a 8 mp Camera if the lenses will not take advange of it.




    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kibo informs me that "Tony Spadaro" <> stated
    > that:
    >
    > > Here is the announcement
    > >http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_eos_20d.html
    > > I think I'm about ready to make the jump to digital with a camera that

    is
    > >1500 for the body and will have 3 EF-S wide angle lenses that will fit

    it.
    > >With the 17-85 IS lens the camera comes to 2Grand -- which is well under

    the
    > >amount I spend on film and processing in two years.

    >
    > I think you're making a wise decision, Tony. The 10D is a good enough
    > camera that it has pretty much retired my film bodies, & the 20D looks
    > to be quite a big improvement on the 10D. So far, the most useful (ie;
    > unbiased, "warts & all") review I've seen of the 20D is the one on Rob
    > Galbraith's site:
    > <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6458-7153>
    > The only thing I can find to bitch about on the 20D is the tiny buffer
    > for RAW shots.
    >
    > --
    > W
    > . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    > \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    > ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Steve, Aug 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Tony Spadaro

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <PHmVc.286204$a24.85226@attbi_s03>, Steve <> wrote:
    >I have been trying to decide on a lens for the Canon 10 d and from what I am
    >reading, since I am new at this, Most of the lenses on the market are soft,
    >Canons , Sigmas, Tamrons, on and on except the L glass from Canod.


    Only if you insist on using zooms, and then shooting them wide open.
    Chris Brown, Aug 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Who told you the lenses are soft? If you are looking at 20o dollar
    all-in-ones -- yes they will be soft, but you can buy a damn sharp Canon
    50mm f1.8 for 80 bucks. Stick with good lenses and forget the generalities.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Steve" <> wrote in message
    news:pHmVc.286204$a24.85226@attbi_s03...
    > I have been trying to decide on a lens for the Canon 10 d and from what I

    am
    > reading, since I am new at this, Most of the lenses on the market are

    soft,
    > Canons , Sigmas, Tamrons, on and on except the L glass from Canod. If so
    > what good is a 8 mp Camera if the lenses will not take advange of it.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Kibo informs me that "Tony Spadaro" <> stated
    > > that:
    > >
    > > > Here is the announcement

    > >

    >http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_eos_20d.html
    > > > I think I'm about ready to make the jump to digital with a camera

    that
    > is
    > > >1500 for the body and will have 3 EF-S wide angle lenses that will fit

    > it.
    > > >With the 17-85 IS lens the camera comes to 2Grand -- which is well

    under
    > the
    > > >amount I spend on film and processing in two years.

    > >
    > > I think you're making a wise decision, Tony. The 10D is a good enough
    > > camera that it has pretty much retired my film bodies, & the 20D looks
    > > to be quite a big improvement on the 10D. So far, the most useful (ie;
    > > unbiased, "warts & all") review I've seen of the 20D is the one on Rob
    > > Galbraith's site:
    > > <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6458-7153>
    > > The only thing I can find to bitch about on the 20D is the tiny buffer
    > > for RAW shots.
    > >
    > > --
    > > W
    > > . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    > > \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    > > ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 20, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <nmhVc.179431$>,
    says...
    > Here is the announcement
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_eos_20d.html
    > I think I'm about ready to make the jump to digital with a camera that is
    > 1500 for the body and will have 3 EF-S wide angle lenses that will fit it.
    > With the 17-85 IS lens the camera comes to 2Grand -- which is well under the
    > amount I spend on film and processing in two years. There is also a lens
    > starting at 10mm - but it is pricy and only goes to 22mm. Here is the
    > release on the lenses:
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_efs_lenses.html
    > There is also a new flash:
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040819_580ex.html
    > for those who are into them.


    Damn spiffy! It's lighter, the noise is purported to be lower and a
    higher burst rate is awesome and a half. I'm glad they upgraded the AF,
    too.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <PHmVc.286204$a24.85226@attbi_s03>, says...
    > I have been trying to decide on a lens for the Canon 10 d and from what I am
    > reading, since I am new at this, Most of the lenses on the market are soft,
    > Canons , Sigmas, Tamrons, on and on except the L glass from Canod. If so
    > what good is a 8 mp Camera if the lenses will not take advange of it.


    People are overly concerned with "softness." Yes the L series glass
    Canon makes is typically extremely sharp, but there are some very sharp
    consumer lenses from Canon, too.

    If you're looking for sharp and cheap, you can't get any better than the
    50mm f/1.8. The autofocus is a little slow, but it's $80. For a little
    more money, the 20mm f/2.8 USM and 28mm f/1.8 USM are very sharp primes.

    In the zooms, you can get L glass for under a grand with the 17-40mm
    f/4L at about $750 and the 70-200mm f/4L for about $650. They aren't
    the fastest lenses, but f/4 is fast enough for most amateurs.

    In the consumer zooms, the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a decent lens.
    It isn't super sharp ALL of the time, but the image stabilization helps
    in low light. For about $450, it's a bargain.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Tony Spadaro

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:

    >In article <PHmVc.286204$a24.85226@attbi_s03>, Steve <> wrote:
    >>I have been trying to decide on a lens for the Canon 10 d and from what I am
    >>reading, since I am new at this, Most of the lenses on the market are soft,
    >>Canons , Sigmas, Tamrons, on and on except the L glass from Canod.

    >
    >Only if you insist on using zooms, and then shooting them wide open.


    Well, I have the 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.4, and they are both very soft
    wide open. Letting in lots of light does not mean letting in lots of
    quality light! They tighten up pretty good though, with just a stop or
    two. I really wouldn't use them at 1.4 unless I wanted a very soft
    image on purpose; their main value is in the viewfinder.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Aug 20, 2004
    #9
  10. wrote:
    []
    > Well, I have the 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.4, and they are both very soft
    > wide open. Letting in lots of light does not mean letting in lots of
    > quality light! They tighten up pretty good though, with just a stop
    > or two. I really wouldn't use them at 1.4 unless I wanted a very soft
    > image on purpose; their main value is in the viewfinder.


    So why not buy cheaper F/2 lenses that work properly over their whole
    operating range? Are you saying the the brighter viewefind image
    justifies the expense?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Tony Spadaro

    Guest

    In message <5lvVc.4021$>,
    "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >[]
    >> Well, I have the 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.4, and they are both very soft
    >> wide open. Letting in lots of light does not mean letting in lots of
    >> quality light! They tighten up pretty good though, with just a stop
    >> or two. I really wouldn't use them at 1.4 unless I wanted a very soft
    >> image on purpose; their main value is in the viewfinder.

    >
    >So why not buy cheaper F/2 lenses that work properly over their whole
    >operating range? Are you saying the the brighter viewefind image
    >justifies the expense?


    The cheaper, slower lenses may not be as sharp as the faster ones, at
    the same f-stop in the f4 to f11 range. And they will not focus as well
    in poor lighting, either manual, or AF.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Aug 21, 2004
    #11
  12. wrote:
    []
    > The cheaper, slower lenses may not be as sharp as the faster ones, at
    > the same f-stop in the f4 to f11 range. And they will not focus as
    > well in poor lighting, either manual, or AF.


    Fair enough - thanks.

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Tony Spadaro

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Steve" <> stated that:

    >I have been trying to decide on a lens for the Canon 10 d and from what I am
    >reading, since I am new at this, Most of the lenses on the market are soft,
    >Canons , Sigmas, Tamrons, on and on except the L glass from Canod. If so
    >what good is a 8 mp Camera if the lenses will not take advange of it.


    It sounds like you've been reading too many of the Preddiot's posts. ;)
    Any of the Canon lenses that are good on a film body will be good on the
    digital bodies as well. Speaking from personal experience with the 10D,
    my asdvice for the 10D user on a budget who wants razor sharp photos is
    to get some of the Canon primes, rather than relying exclusively on
    zooms.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    , Aug 21, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ed Smith
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    750
    ~ Darrell ~
    Apr 16, 2004
  2. Alex Vilner

    Canon 20D lenses: Canon vs Sigma

    Alex Vilner, Sep 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    104
    Views:
    1,866
  3. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    354
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  4. ob1cnob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    358
    ob1cnob
    Mar 30, 2006
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    485
    whisky-dave
    Jun 28, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page