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
    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:
    There is also a new flash:
    for those who are into them.

    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tony Spadaro

    usenet Guest

    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:
    The only thing I can find to bitch about on the 20D is the tiny buffer
    for RAW shots.
    usenet, Aug 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tony Spadaro

    Annika1980 Guest

    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
  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.
    Steve, Aug 20, 2004
  5. Tony Spadaro

    Chris Brown Guest

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

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Aug 20, 2004
  7. 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,
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
  8. 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.
    Brian C. Baird, Aug 20, 2004
  9. Tony Spadaro

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    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.
    JPS, Aug 20, 2004
  10. 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?

    David J Taylor, Aug 20, 2004
  11. Tony Spadaro

    JPS Guest

    In message <5lvVc.4021$>,
    "David J Taylor"
    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.
    JPS, Aug 21, 2004
  12. Fair enough - thanks.

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

    usenet Guest

    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
    usenet, Aug 21, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.