Decision made, now lenses..

[cirks]

Ok, sorry to you Nikon guys but I'm almost certain to go for the Canon 20D. However, having now played with it, I'm trying to decide on lens combinations. I'm not that keen on carrying around too many lenses and ideally, I'm going to go for just one then add to it if I get back in to photography in a big way.

I was impressed with the 17-85 IS USM lens (one of the two possible kit lenses) when I tried out the camera and it's a better range than the 18-55 std one and has a (supposedly good) macro. I've tried to find a professional review of the lens but what I've read so far seems to say it is good but possibly not brilliant at 17mm. The Sigma's seem to be good but is there a better one that gives me a real 'one lens only' solution. I know if I start doing proper wide angle again or more sports stuff I'll have to get a 10-20 and 70-200/100-400 etc but that's in the future.

Comments/Recommendations gratefully received.

[F1sh]

A good place to got for reviews on lenses is www.fredmiranda.com/forum

Not just professional users on there.

Fish

[Andy M]

There will be numberous lenses/combintations that are suited to your needs, so I would think it will fall down to what you're willing to pay.

What's your budget?

Good choice with the 20D by the way

[simpo two]

There's a new 18-200mm lens with silent-wave focusing and image stabilisation.










Oh sorry, it's a Nikkor!

(Evil ain't I?)

[Andy M]

The following was advice given on another forum:

"This might not be *that* popular a reply but it seems to me that a lot of the problems people appear to have with focus accuracy and lock ups on the 20D are those using sigma lenses.

Bear in mind that Canon does not licence its technology to anyone and sigmas and others for Canon cameras are reverse engineered.

Having said all that, the Tokina 12-24 (35mm equivalent is 20 to 38mm) lens has received very good reviews and may well be the best of all the wideangles including canon's own ultra wide EFS lens.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Canon 70-200 L Lenses are the very best telephoto Zooms out there, and the longer L's are unsurpassed (although at a price)

I've got a 70-200F4 L which is a stunning lens and around your price bracket. But its not that fast, and not great in low light handheld (although cranking up the iso helps enormously)

You can add a 1.4X teleconverter for extra reach, although you are then looking at F5.6 as your max aperture.

If you are not too concerned with the frint element extending and moving, have a look at the NEW 70-300 IS lens, also coming in around the £400 mark. All the information suggests it is very good optically and has the benefit of the Image Stabilisation.

For a cheap (£180), cheerful and extremely underrated but excellent lens have a look at Canons 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. (Not the crappy plastic cheapo ones).

If you can stretch to the L lenses, they are simply the best there is.

Lenses to look for that are not stupidly expensive are:-

The Tonica mentioned above or Canons 10-22 EFS
Canon 17-40 F4L
Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II
Canon 17-85 EFS IS
Canon 70-200 F4 L
Canon 70-300 IS (New one)

Ones to look for if you have more money to burn

Canon 16-35 F2.8L
Canon 24-70 F2.8L
Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS
canon 100-400 F4.505.6 IS L

In giving the selection above, I've included all Zooms for practicality. For ultimate picture quality you want fixed focal length primes which will be sharper, but less practical. They are also cheaper.

For some added extras, if you are happy with the EFS format, the 60mm F2.8 EFS macro is a cracking lens, great for macro and portrait pictures."

Good advice IMO

[poah]

cirks said:

Ok, sorry to you Nikon guys but I'm almost certain to go for the Canon 20D. However, having now played with it, I'm trying to decide on lens combinations. I'm not that keen on carrying around too many lenses and ideally, I'm going to go for just one then add to it if I get back in to photography in a big way. I was impressed with the 17-85 IS USM lens (one of the two possible kit lenses) when I tried out the camera and it's a better range than the 18-55 std one and has a (supposedly good) macro. I've tried to find a professional review of the lens but what I've read so far seems to say it is good but possibly not brilliant at 17mm. The Sigma's seem to be good but is there a better one that gives me a real 'one lens only' solution. I know if I start doing proper wide angle again or more sports stuff I'll have to get a 10-20 and 70-200/100-400 etc but that's in the future. Comments/Recommendations gratefully received.

I'm selling my 17-85 with hood and poloiser for £365 + P+P if your interested. selling because I've invested in the 10-22 and the new 24-105 L. IMHO the 17-85 is a good lens and the only was I was going to sell it was for another IS lens but it's quite pricey brand new

[cirks]

simpo two said:

(Evil ain't I?)

Too evil for words...therefore I won't use any

Other than the Nikkor, any specific 3rd party lens you would recommend as a 'one lens solution'?

[cirks]

poah said:

I'm selling my 17-85 with hood and poloiser for £365 + P+P if your interested.

Thanks - but although the lens separately is between 420 and 500 new, it 'only' works out at £370 if bought with the Camera.

[poah]

cirks said:

poah said: I'm selling my 17-85 with hood and poloiser for £365 + P+P if your interested. Thanks - but although the lens separately is between 420 and 500 new, it 'only' works out at £370 if bought with the Camera.

ah thought you had bought the camera already. personally I would go for the 18-55 kit lens and buy somthing else. my 240-105L cost £549, 70-200 F4 can be had cheaply particularly when you get cash back.


p.s the hood is £25, and a poloriser is about £23 which you don;t get with the lens

>> Edited by poah on Sunday 13th November 12:09

[cirks]

poah said:

my 240-105L cost £549

Is that a lens you mount back to front to get the right zoom range

Although tempted by something like the 24-105 it means I'd miss out on the 35mm equivalent wide angles of 25-30mm odd which I would like or even wider if poss. That means I'd have to cover the range with another lens from the word go - say the 10-22.

Interestingly, on WarehouseExpress's website at the moment, they've got a comment next to the 24-105L stating "Due to a technical issue with the above lens Canon are unable to supply at present. We expect further details shortly and will keep you informed". Do you know anything about this?



>> Edited by cirks on Sunday 13th November 13:36

[stuh]

cirks said:

poah said: my 240-105L cost £549 Is that a lens you mount back to front to get the right zoom range Although tempted by something like the 24-105 it means I'd miss out on the 35mm equivalent wide angles of 25-30mm odd which I would like or even wider if poss. That means I'd have to cover the range with another lens from the word go - say the 10-22. Interestingly, on WarehouseExpress's website at the moment, they've got a comment next to the 24-105L stating "Due to a technical issue with the above lens Canon are unable to supply at present. We expect further details shortly and will keep you informed". Do you know anything about this? >> Edited by cirks on Sunday 13th November 13:36

Presumably the lens flare issue?

Poah - How have you found the 24-105L? I'm sorely tempted as a replacement for the 28-135...