|
trenchdigger
May 13, 2005, 6:34 PM
Post #1 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
I'll likely be dropping some serious cash on a 20D and some nice lenses in the near future. I'm not interested in AF-S series lenses as I want the lenses to be usable on a 35mm slr as well. Which lenses do you have/wish you had?
I currently shoot a Canon T-70 and AE-1 with a 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Vivitar, 35-105mm f/3.5 Canon, and 70-222mm f/3.5 Soligor.
I'll probably get the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 for the mid range, but I'm also looking at the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5.
I'm pretty set on picking up a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. It's just so big and heavy, but I guess you can't get the premium optics without the weight.
I'm considering either the 16-35mm f/2.8L or the 20-25mm f/3.5-4.5 (plus it's over $800 cheaper).
Comments? Suggestions? Recommendations?
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
alembical
May 13, 2005, 7:12 PM
Post #2 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2005
Posts: 6
|
I just went through the same debate (but with Nikon). The conversion factor makes a non-digital lens selection real important. I think the Cannons have roughly a 1.5 times conversion factor. Without getting a digital designed lens, finding a cheap decent quality wide angle lens can be difficult. It seems for many climbing applications, that real wide angle lens is real nice, but a 19-35 even becomes a 30 or so, which can be okay, but I would think wider angle might even be nicer. I would definitely consider the 16, if it is not too much more expensive (which is all relative).
Alembical
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 13, 2005, 7:21 PM
Post #3 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Thanks. I love my 19-35 on my old school camera. The 16-35mm would start at around 25.6mm equivalent on the 20D and the 20-35 would start at around 32mm equivalent. The upper end of the zoom (35mm) would be 56mm for each.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
May 14, 2005, 3:10 AM
Post #4 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
Wider is better!
35mm equivilent dream list:
24mm, 20-21mm if good rectilinear results can be obtained.
Skip the 50mm Personal preference, but I don't like "normal" 35mm is as close to "normal" as I like.
85-105mm Prime in that range somewhere.
200mm
2x adapter to bring 200mm to 400mm
The bigest drawback to digital is that there are no really good true wide angle lenses due to the conversion factors and the mechanical limitations of 35mm mirror/mount configurations.
|
|
|
|
|
cwffemt
May 14, 2005, 3:36 AM
Post #5 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2005
Posts: 1
|
I have a 10D with a Sigma EX 17-35 f2.8-4.0 and a cheap old Canon EF 75-300. At a wider angle the Sigma doesn't give an excellent quality image but I am still very pleased with it. There are more expensive wide angles that would do better I'm sure.
I'm not sure, but judging by the title you may be trying to decide between the digital rebel and the 20D??? If you are debating, meet in the middle and get a 10D. If you have the extra money and want a 20D, get that. I have a friend who moved to a 20D from a D60 and was really impressed. Keep in mind that the newest camera will cost you some extra bucks just because it's new. The 10D is now going for half what I payed when it was a new model.
Don't stereotype digital cameras as all having the 1.5x conversion factor. Some higher high-end cameras have a full size image sensor, therefore there is no cropping of the image which causes the conversion factor.
|
|
|
|
|
mshore
May 14, 2005, 4:04 AM
Post #6 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 114
|
Great Resource - http://dpreview.com/
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
May 15, 2005, 2:50 AM
Post #7 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I really, really like my Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Sweet. For climbing, faster glass is good. And with the 20d, you can shoot higher ISO with little noise, thus allowing you to get fast shutter speeds in pretty low light.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 15, 2005, 3:42 AM
Post #8 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: I have a 10D with a Sigma EX 17-35 f2.8-4.0 and a cheap old Canon EF 75-300. At a wider angle the Sigma doesn't give an excellent quality image but I am still very pleased with it. There are more expensive wide angles that would do better I'm sure. I'm not sure, but judging by the title you may be trying to decide between the digital rebel and the 20D??? If you are debating, meet in the middle and get a 10D. If you have the extra money and want a 20D, get that. I have a friend who moved to a 20D from a D60 and was really impressed. Keep in mind that the newest camera will cost you some extra bucks just because it's new. The 10D is now going for half what I payed when it was a new model. Don't stereotype digital cameras as all having the 1.5x conversion factor. Some higher high-end cameras have a full size image sensor, therefore there is no cropping of the image which causes the conversion factor.
I'm pretty set on getting the 20D. I want the features it has. I also mentioned the D60 because it has the same FOVCF of 1.6, thus lenses will perform similarly on that camera with respect to focal length.
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
May 17, 2005, 5:22 AM
Post #10 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Camera ordered... the 20D.
Also ordered the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as it is light, small, and will give me a slightly wider wide end than the 28-105mm, and it also got better reveiws with respect to image quality than the 28-105. I also ordered the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I love macro shots and I figure this would be a good lighter weight tele lens. It gets rave reviews for its sharpness and will reproduce up to 1:1 in macro shots. That's cool...
When the funds will allow, I plan on ordering the 70-200mm f/2.8L and maybe even the 16-35mm L.
Can't wait to get the new camera!
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
May 18, 2005, 8:23 PM
Post #11 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
The 70-200/4 is a stellar lens. Much cheaper than the 2.8is. One stop slower, half the size and half the price of the 2.8 non is. Just as sharp if not sharper than the 2.8 versions. Most climbing photos(not all of course) can be shot a f4 or greater.(personal experience). Do you really want to be dragging the weight of 2.8IS up a climb?
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
May 18, 2005, 8:37 PM
Post #12 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
Heya Adam,
I have the 10D with the 16-35/2.8L and 70-200/4L. I love the 16-35, though the 17-40 wasn't around / available when I ordered the 16-35. The difference there is the 2.8 vs. 4 really.
For shooting climbing, the 70-200 doesn't really get much use for me. I really wish I had the 24-70/2.8L, I'd use it much more I'm sure. 70-200 onto the 20mm-ish CCD is really about 110-320, which is pretty long distance, and can be hard to hand hold even at 4.
Also, for $65 or so don't discount the utility and quality of the 50/1.8, I use mine a LOT.
Good luck :) This is reminding me to stop being lazy and actually use my camera some more :)
|
|
|
|
|
stefan_t
May 30, 2005, 3:22 AM
Post #13 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 4
|
I realize that you have already purchased the camera, but I think that I should add my 2 cents anyways:
I am surprised no one mentioned the 17-85mm lens. While it isn't the cheapest lens, it is considered as one of the best possible bang for buck deals out there. Not to mention it fits the 20D like a glove (it was made for it) and covers quite a significant range. The draw backs are that it is an EF-S lens, so it can only work on the 1.6x sensors.
Just so you know I don't own this lens, or camera, but I have used them, and I want to get them. For more information I highly recommend going to http://www.luminous-landscape.com a great site that holds tons of information.
For longer telescopic work, you might want to consider the 70-300mm DO lens. While it is slightly more expensive than the 70-200/4 and might not be quite as good quality, it has a much bigger range. But its main advantage is the fact that it is so small and lightweight, plus it has IS. So if you would actually be climbing, having those two lenses would cover a large 17-300mm range with good quality, a cheap price and lightweight. The site mentioned above holds reviews of both lenses and the forum has coutless people who have used both lenses and should give you a better idea of their pros and cons.
Hope that helps, all the best. And i envy you for the camera.
Stefan
|
|
|
|
|
atarinaper
Jun 2, 2005, 5:01 AM
Post #14 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2004
Posts: 86
|
In reply to: Camera ordered... the 20D. Also ordered the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as it is light, small, and will give me a slightly wider wide end than the 28-105mm, and it also got better reveiws with respect to image quality than the 28-105. I also ordered the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I love macro shots and I figure this would be a good lighter weight tele lens. It gets rave reviews for its sharpness and will reproduce up to 1:1 in macro shots. That's cool... When the funds will allow, I plan on ordering the 70-200mm f/2.8L and maybe even the 16-35mm L. Can't wait to get the new camera!
note that the 100mm macro will not produce a 1:1 ratio on a 20d because of the 1.6x crop, you should have went with the new 60mm ef-S macro for that. It will however be great for shooting bugs and flowers and will help get you a little farther away. Fix that up with the canon MR-14EX macro ring lite and you will produce some awsome shots with even light.
Otherwise, id get the 70-200 f2.8L first and then the 16-35. thats the route i am taking.
have a good one!
andrew
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Jun 2, 2005, 6:44 AM
Post #15 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: In reply to: Camera ordered... the 20D. Also ordered the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as it is light, small, and will give me a slightly wider wide end than the 28-105mm, and it also got better reveiws with respect to image quality than the 28-105. I also ordered the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I love macro shots and I figure this would be a good lighter weight tele lens. It gets rave reviews for its sharpness and will reproduce up to 1:1 in macro shots. That's cool... When the funds will allow, I plan on ordering the 70-200mm f/2.8L and maybe even the 16-35mm L. Can't wait to get the new camera! note that the 100mm macro will not produce a 1:1 ratio on a 20d because of the 1.6x crop, you should have went with the new 60mm ef-S macro for that. It will however be great for shooting bugs and flowers and will help get you a little farther away. Fix that up with the canon MR-14EX macro ring lite and you will produce some awsome shots with even light. Otherwise, id get the 70-200 f2.8L first and then the 16-35. thats the route i am taking. have a good one! andrew
The 1.6 FOVCF should not effect reproduction ratio. All it does is limit the area of coverage you'll get out of the lens at a 1:1 reproduction ratio onto the sensor. Because the sensor is smaller, less of that image will actually be captured, but the image projected onto the sensor is still the same size as the actual object on the other side of the lens.
I did end up getting the 100mm/2.8 macro and the 24-85mm zoom. The 100mm is amazing. It's incredibly crisp, focuses relatively quickly, and has excellent bokeh. The 24-85mm isn't nearly as sharp, but still is a good all-around lens. I didn't order the 70-200mm/2.8, and I'm thinking the 70-300mm DO IS USM may serve me better. It's much smaller, lighter, and has a greater focal length range. Image quality isn't as good, but I'm willing to sacrifice a little to get a lens that is much smaller and lighter and more likely to end up in my camera bag.
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
kaller
Jun 14, 2005, 9:51 PM
Post #16 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2005
Posts: 3
|
I have the 16-35 and the 70-200L f4; for my 20D. The 16-35 is great! I lug that stuff up climbs and find the 70-200 a little long, physically. I would love to have a couple inches shaved. Do you find you get what you want with the 100mm lens (macro)?
-Kalle
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Jun 14, 2005, 10:36 PM
Post #17 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: I have the 16-35 and the 70-200L f4; for my 20D. The 16-35 is great! I lug that stuff up climbs and find the 70-200 a little long, physically. I would love to have a couple inches shaved. Do you find you get what you want with the 100mm lens (macro)? -Kalle
Kalle,
I'm especially pleased with the 100mm macro lens. I purchased a 50mm f/1.4 today on E-bay and look forward to that as well. I must say, that 100mm macro got me hooked on the sharpness of primes. I may add a 24mm to the collection if I'm as pleased with the 50mm as the 100mm.
With the 1.6 crop factor, the 100mm acts like a 160mm and the 50mm will act like an 80mm. The 100mm is a tad long in some climbing situations, and leaves me wanting a zoom sometimes. The 100mm really shines elsewhere though - with portraits (rather than full-body stuff) and macros (big surprise, huh?).
Check these out:
Full frame
http://www.tradmonkey.com/photos/bug/bug.jpg
and a 100% crop
http://www.tradmonkey.com/...bug/bug_100_crop.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
kaller
Jun 14, 2005, 10:43 PM
Post #18 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2005
Posts: 3
|
Insane - looks fantastic. Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 16, 2005, 3:56 AM
Post #20 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Picked up the canon 70-200 f2.8 L (non-is) a couple months ago. So sharp! Better then my tamron 28-75 2.8, which is very good. It is kinda long for climbing shots sometimes, but if you get creative with positioning, it opens up a lot of new angles. It is kinda heavy, but compared with all the other rigging crap that I carry when shooting, it really isn't all that bad.
Fast glass and high ISO are really helpful sometimes. I have ended up with some OK shots where I would have been unable to shoot a few times now.
Now just need a wide angle and to upgrade the 20D to the D1m2n...
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Sep 16, 2005, 4:14 AM
Post #21 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
In reply to: Wider is better! 35mm equivilent dream list: 24mm, 20-21mm if good rectilinear results can be obtained. Skip the 50mm Personal preference, but I don't like "normal" 35mm is as close to "normal" as I like. 85-105mm Prime in that range somewhere. 200mm 2x adapter to bring 200mm to 400mm The bigest drawback to digital is that there are no really good true wide angle lenses due to the conversion factors and the mechanical limitations of 35mm mirror/mount configurations.
Hey tradster,
the "no really good true wides" isn't quite true. Look at nikon and some of their DX lenses (i don't know a tonne about canon but know some of the wide glass - primes and the 16-??? L lenses are similar). 10mm fisheye lenses, the 12-24. I think that can be considered truly wide! Even aftermarked lenses are wide (sigma and or tokina both have 12-24 lenses).
I'm not trying to flame you, just thought I'd point these things out!
Best
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
joeho
Sep 17, 2005, 3:08 AM
Post #22 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Posts: 61
|
If you're going to get a telephoto... go for the 70-200/2.8 IS. Don't skimp out, this is an awesome lens. The aperture is enormous. This is one of the best lenses for a canon camera.
Don't get the 70-200/4, save your money and get the 2.8, it's worth it.
put a 2x extender on it and you're good to go.
|
|
|
|
|
joeho
Sep 17, 2005, 3:11 AM
Post #23 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Posts: 61
|
There's also a new canon EF-S macro lens that came out earlier this year (i think it's 65mm f/2.8, don't quote me on that). It's a standard lens, but it's priced pretty decently for the type of performace it can put out. Much cheaper than the 100mm L macro lens =P. if i was rich i'd get the L one... but i'm not =P
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Oct 27, 2005, 9:08 PM
Post #24 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
I just wanted to revive this thread and get some input on the three best lenses for the 20D. What is the list?
I will have an 18-55 kit lens already.
|
|
|
|
|
maracas
Oct 27, 2005, 9:54 PM
Post #25 of 38
(10452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 114
|
Good question gray, as I will be getting my wife an XT for christmas and do not have a clue what lenses to buy her, I was thinking of only the kit lens, but maybe she will also get an aditional lens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
