EOS 20D and which lense to consider

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Charles, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. Charles

    Charles Guest

    I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).

    I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
    graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
    few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
    lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
    benchmark at the moment).

    What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
    you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
    have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
    preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.

    And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
    difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
    lenses on a 20D camera?
     
    Charles, Aug 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <Charles> wrote ...
    >
    > What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    > camera?


    You'll probably find that people are very sensitive about their lenses,
    especially on brand name viewpoints lol. For the sake of saving arguments
    from cropping up
    I'm not going to list what I think you should get, but I'll say that most
    everyone who is serious about photography [and even those who are not] has
    the Canon 50mm 1.8 in their gear. It is a VERY affordable lens with
    surprising quality results. The Professionals often opt for the more
    expensive 1.4 version of the 50mm lens. You'll likely not notice much of a
    difference in image quality with the 1.8, and can pick it up for definitely
    under $100USD. You won't be disappointed.

    Take care,
    Linda
     
    Linda Nieuwenstein, Aug 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, Charles wrote:

    > I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    > it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    > benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).


    You don't need to buy "L" glass. Canon consumer-grade lenses are, for
    the most part, quite good. And it's all made together to work together.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 26, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Charles@?.?.invalid writes
    >I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    >it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    >benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
    >
    >I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
    >graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
    >few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
    >lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
    >benchmark at the moment).
    >
    >What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    >camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
    >you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
    >have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
    >preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
    >
    >And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
    >difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
    >lenses on a 20D camera?


    I think you are being over-influenced by the words of die-hard
    enthusiasts. Sure, Canon L lenses are good, in fact excellent, but they
    are really not necessary to get decent results under most conditions. If
    you want to make 12x16" prints, or get good results in almost no light
    and need an f/2.8 zoom or an f/1.4 fixed focal length lens, or want to
    capture eagles in the sky 200m away, then you have no choice but to go
    for the ultimate in quality and price. If you buy them just because
    everyone tells you "they are the best" but you don't have these needs,
    then you may be better off buying other things.

    If your needs are for prints at say 4x6" size for distribution to
    friends, or for putting up on a family web page, and will be taken in
    decent light, then I don't think you will be able to tell the difference
    between the L lenses and the better examples of the independent makers'
    products (or indeed Canon's cheaper lenses).

    I speak as someone who owns and regularly uses L lenses. In some cases,
    I upgraded from cheaper prosumer versions, and for the uses I mention
    above I would have difficulty telling the difference. I can tell the
    difference in 12x16 or even 10x8 prints, done with great care by myself,
    and on full sized files viewed at very large size on Photoshop

    Apart from costing much more, the L lenses tend to be noticeably heavier
    than the less expensive ones. My advice - and bear in mind I don't know
    you so this has to be a bit of a guess - is that from the question you
    asked, you would be well served with decent consumer or prosumer lenses
    at around $4-500 each, rather than blowing it on 1 heavy pro lens. When
    you have developed you interest in photography into a fetish, like most
    of us posters here, then you should also have the knowledge and
    experience to know when you need a much more expensive lens.

    FWIW, here are a few specific suggestions.

    The Canon 28-135 IS USM is a genuine bargain; I replaced my wide zoom
    and long zoom with L lenses to get better quality, but I have not so far
    seen any need to replace this.

    The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is superb, and good value if you like
    taking close ups. The Tamron 90mm macro is also highly regarded, though
    I have never used it myself.

    The 50mm f/1.8 is also an absolute bargain. I paid 3x as much for the
    f/1.4, but I doubt if you could tell the difference 95% of the time.

    The Canon 20-35 zoom is reasonably good. I replaced mine with a 17-35 L
    zoom a few years ago as I found it wasn't quite up to scratch - but I
    was using the photos on 12x16 prints.

    The Canon 18-55mm kit lens is nowhere near as bad as some people have
    painted it (or it has serious production variations). At least, for the
    USM version; my daughter has one and gets very good results from it.
    Considering it is almost a give-away, I suggest you get one with your
    20D.

    Difficult to be more specific as we don't know what kind of photographs
    you take - do you take a lot of landscapes or buildings (wide) or sports
    shots (long).

    I decided a couple of years ago not to buy any more Sigma lenses. The
    14mm I bought in the 1990s would not work on my EOS 10D. It is a known
    issue that Sigma lenses may not work on Canon bodies brought out after
    them. To be fair, some very reputable people are highly impressed by the
    quality of some of them.

    Hope this helps.

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 26, 2005
    #4
  5. On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:24:02 -0500, Charles wrote:

    >I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    >it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    >benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
    >
    >I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
    >graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
    >few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
    >lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
    >benchmark at the moment).
    >
    >What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    >camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
    >you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
    >have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
    >preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.


    17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L. they were my first two L's for my 20D and
    throw in a 50mm F1.4 for low light and you are off to a good start.

    At B&H the 17-40 is 679.95 and the 70-200 is 579.95.


    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Aug 26, 2005
    #5
  6. On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:03:47 -0500, John A. Stovall
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:24:02 -0500, Charles wrote:
    >
    >>I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    >>it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    >>benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
    >>
    >>I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
    >>graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
    >>few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
    >>lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
    >>benchmark at the moment).
    >>
    >>What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    >>camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
    >>you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
    >>have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
    >>preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.

    >
    >17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L. they were my first two L's for my 20D and
    >throw in a 50mm F1.4 for low light and you are off to a good start.
    >
    >At B&H the 17-40 is 679.95 and the 70-200 is 579.95.


    Here is a good site for how all the Canon Lenses preform. The reviews
    are by users.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/


    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Aug 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Charles

    Eatmorepies Guest

    <Charles> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    > it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    > benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
    >
    > I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
    > graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
    > few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
    > lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
    > benchmark at the moment).


    > And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
    > difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
    > lenses on a 20D camera?


    If you only want to produce snapshots but want an SLR, go for the 350D and
    save some money. I use a 350D and 3 L lenses because I want to use it for
    more than snapshots. L lenses have a downside, they are big and heavy as
    well as expensive. If I could make do with cheaper and smaller lenses I
    would happily use the 18-55 kit lens, an EF 28 - 105 USB and possibly an EF
    70 - 300 USB.

    At a size of 5 by 7 you would notice little difference between the lenses.
    But if you want to crop or focus very fast or get an extra stop or two in
    dimmer light then L lenses begin to make sense. I love 'em - I'm hopefully
    off to get my fourth tomorrow.

    John
     
    Eatmorepies, Aug 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Charles

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Charles wrote:

    >And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
    >difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
    >lenses on a 20D camera?


    That depends on the specific lenses. Canon may make the few very best
    lenses, but they are very few in number, and are generally heavy
    telephoto lenses with multi-thousand-dollar price tags. In many lens
    categories, Tamron lenses are sometimes better optically than the
    Canons, but they are generally as or more expensive than the Canons.
    Tamron's bottom lenses are probably worst than Canon's bottom lenses.

    Tamron's Macro lenses, and their 28-75/f2.8 are all well-regarded, and
    generally considered optically suoerior to Canon's offerings in their
    class. Tamron doesn't have any IS models, though, and their focusing
    tends to be a little slower and a little noisier.

    In other words, there are no simple answers.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 26, 2005
    #8
  9. On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:24:02 -0500, Charles wrote:

    > I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because it
    > seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any benefit
    > over Tamron lenses in my case).


    L lenses are really more lens than you need. At least, image qualitywise.
    Why waste your money? They are designed to meet the rather high
    requirements of professionals and film. Plus, many pros and amateurs
    shoot both film and digital, and just get the best lenses for film and use
    them with digital as well. Doesn't mean you have to. If all you're going
    to shoot is the 20D (or some other DSLR), you don't need to get lenses,
    and pay the extra price, that cover the 35mm film frame. Just get lenses
    that are designed to cover the digital sensor and no more.

    > I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some graduations
    > (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very few action shots.
    > I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for lenses but a very rough
    > guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a benchmark at the moment).


    If that's what you're mostly going to shoot, you definitely DON'T need L
    lenses. Consumer grade Canon, Tamron or Sigma lenses will do just fine.
    The only exception would be for low light work like night sports or school
    theater productions, etc. In those cases, maybe a fast prime lens or two
    for those situations.

    > What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    > camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would you
    > recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I have
    > more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
    > preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.


    Don't go by what's popular or what everybody else is using. Get what
    works for YOU.

    I suggest that you buy only one lens first. One that will handle about
    80% of what you intend to shoot. Usually that means a zoom of moderate
    wide angle to normal or short telephoto range. After you use it for a
    while, you'll know what second lens to buy. And most times it won't be
    what you would have purchased had you purchased both lenses at the same
    time.

    > And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
    > difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron lenses
    > on a 20D camera?


    No. A most definite no. Not even a serious or professional photographer
    would be able to tell the difference in just "eyeballing" a snapshot.
    Using an 8x loupe...? Maybe. Using a loupe on an 8x10. Probably.

    Stefan
     
    Stefan Patric, Aug 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Charles

    tzipple Guest

    wrote:

    >
    > Tamron's Macro lenses, and their 28-75/f2.8 are all well-regarded, and
    > generally considered optically suoerior to Canon's offerings in their
    > class. Tamron doesn't have any IS models, though, and their focusing
    > tends to be a little slower and a little noisier.
    >



    "Generally considered optically superior..."? Not in my neighborhood.
    Most folks that I know are not dying to trade their Canon 28-70 f/2.8
    lenses fot the Tamron. Or their macros for that matter. The part about
    the lenses being cheaper, noiser, and slower to focus is certainly true,
    however.

    Don't get me wrong. Tamron is fine. I got a deal on a used Tamron macro
    and it is certainly good enough that I feel no need to trade up to
    Canon. But Canon lenses generally are a better bet in all ways except price.
     
    tzipple, Aug 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Charles

    Skip M Guest

    <Charles> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    > it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    > benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
    >
    > I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
    > graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
    > few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
    > lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
    > benchmark at the moment).
    >
    > What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    > camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
    > you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
    > have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
    > preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
    >
    > And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
    > difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
    > lenses on a 20D camera?


    The 17-40L seems to be the popular choice, but you won't really see any
    difference between it and the Tamron selection on small (less than 8x10)
    prints. Another choice would be the Canon 28-135 IS, an excellent non L
    lens.
    The fast L zooms are all over $1000.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Aug 27, 2005
    #11
  12. Charles

    dylan Guest

    I'd consider:

    for family shots

    18-55 kit lens ?
    17-40 L
    20-35 (lower cost)
    all will give a reasonable wide angle on a 20D

    28-135 gets good comments

    50 1.8 will work as a portrait lens

    Telephoto depends on how far away you are

    85 1.8 is good
    100 2.8 gets good comments
    200 2.8
    300 4 popular
    400 5.6 good value compared to 2.8 range
    100-400 popular
    + 1.4x TC
    choice is yours.
     
    dylan, Aug 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Charles

    LCD Guest

    <Charles> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm considering the 20D camera and one or two Canon L lenses (because
    > it seems to highly praised tho I'm not sure if I will really get any
    > benefit over Tamron lenses in my case).
    >
    > I'm just shooting for my own needs such as family photos, some
    > graduations (telephoto lenses helpful here), family outings and very
    > few action shots. I haven't yet determined exactly my budget for
    > lenses but a very rough guess would be around $1000.00 (just for a
    > benchmark at the moment).
    >
    > What are the most popular Canon L lenses that most people buy for this
    > camera? And if different to my first question what L lense(s) would
    > you recommend I consider to buy? Obviously, if I only buy one lense I
    > have more money to spend on it rather than 2 lenses so one would be my
    > preference but if two lenses is really better suited for me, okay.
    >
    > And last question, do you think an average joe will be able to see the
    > difference in snapshots (visually) if I use Canon L over the Tamron
    > lenses on a 20D camera?


    You'll get much more for your money of you buy Sigma, Tamron or Tokina. The
    Sigma EX line often equals or betters Canon Ls. Look at the 10-20EX,
    18-50EX, 70-200EX. Buying the 18-50EX and 70-200EX would fulfil most of your
    needs and can be had for about $1000. Go to www.dpreview.com and ask there
    in the Canon SLR forums.
     
    LCD, Aug 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Charles

    Guest

    In message <5BTPe.2811$sw6.1157@fed1read05>,
    "Skip M" <> wrote:

    >Another choice would be the Canon 28-135 IS, an excellent non L
    >lens.


    I'd call this a good lens; I don't know if I'd call it excellent. The
    IS is nice, but optically, the lens isn't particularly sharp or a good
    auto-focuser. It's pretty soft at 28mm. I'm thinking of replacing it
    with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 28, 2005
    #14
  15. Charles

    Skip M Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <5BTPe.2811$sw6.1157@fed1read05>,
    > "Skip M" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Another choice would be the Canon 28-135 IS, an excellent non L
    >>lens.

    >
    > I'd call this a good lens; I don't know if I'd call it excellent. The
    > IS is nice, but optically, the lens isn't particularly sharp or a good
    > auto-focuser. It's pretty soft at 28mm. I'm thinking of replacing it
    > with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


    I guess what I meant was "excellent for a non L lens." I've found it very
    sharp, again, not compared to my 24-70 L, but sharp all the same. And AF
    has been excellent, except in very low light levels, and that could be
    attributable to the camera's capabilities, not the lens'. At 28mm, wide
    open, it compares favorably to my 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro Tokina, and it
    isn't all that far behind the 24-70 L.
    I could send you images from the 28-135 and the 24-70, but they're HUGE!

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Aug 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Charles

    Guest

    350D
    50/1.4
    200/2.8
    2x
    20/2.8
    0.8x
     
    , Sep 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Charles

    -hh Guest

    For very roughly around $1000 and trying to cover a broad range not
    knowing much about your needs, I'd consider the following as a
    comprimise set:

    Tokina 19-35mm or equivalent ~$175
    Canon 28-135mm IS ~$400
    Canon 75-300mm IS ~$400
    Canon 50mm f/1.8 ~$75


    -hh
     
    -hh, Sep 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Charles

    Aad Guest

    "-hh" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > For very roughly around $1000 and trying to cover a broad range not
    > knowing much about your needs, I'd consider the following as a
    > comprimise set:
    >
    > Tokina 19-35mm or equivalent ~$175
    > Canon 28-135mm IS ~$400
    > Canon 75-300mm IS ~$400
    > Canon 50mm f/1.8 ~$75
    >
    >
    > -hh
    >

    OP shoult have bought another camera with these lenses.
    What a waste.

    Aad from Holland
     
    Aad, Sep 1, 2005
    #18
  19. Charles

    -hh Guest

    Aad wrote:
    >
    > OP shoult have bought another camera with these lenses.
    > What a waste.


    A waste in which way?

    Do you mean "too much camera for these lenses", or do you mean "too
    much lenses for the camera"?


    And for a $1000 investment in lenses with the camera body already a
    given, what would you recommend instead?


    -hh
     
    -hh, Sep 1, 2005
    #19
  20. -hh wrote:
    > Aad wrote:
    >
    >>OP shoult have bought another camera with these lenses.
    >>What a waste.

    >
    >
    > A waste in which way?
    >
    > Do you mean "too much camera for these lenses", or do you mean "too
    > much lenses for the camera"?
    >
    >
    > And for a $1000 investment in lenses with the camera body already a
    > given, what would you recommend instead?
    >
    >
    > -hh
    >

    If I had to choose only one lens for a 20D, it would be a Sigma 28~70
    f2.8 EX, DG, HSM. I could live with moving back and forth for most of my
    shots. I absolutely cannot see the value in Canon Zoom lenses under the
    70~200 f2.8. Over, of course is a different matter.

    Tokina wide zooms for Canon are very soft. They make an OK portrait
    lenses but certainly not something I'd consider for detailed work. But
    then the "kit lens" which comes with a 20D can be a bit soft too and
    this also makes an OK portrait lens if you don't mind not having a
    really wide aperture.

    --
    Douglas,
    You never really make it on the 'net
    until you get your own personal Troll.
    Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Sep 1, 2005
    #20
    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. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Would You Consider--Canon EOS D30 or D60

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    477
    Robert Barr
    Oct 22, 2004
  2. Rob

    EOS 20d lense recommendations

    Rob, May 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    412
    John A. Stovall
    May 14, 2005
  3. Tom

    old lense on a Canon EOS 20d

    Tom, May 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    339
    Todd H.
    Jun 6, 2005
  4. eh
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    717
  5. RnR

    Good all around zoom lense for Canon EOS 20d

    RnR, Jan 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    600
    Bill Funk
    Jan 3, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page