Canon EOS 20D Lens -- Help!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hey everyone,

I just picked up a Canon EOS 20D the other day.. So far, I'm pretty
happy with it, but I'm really not sure what lens to settle on.. I'll
mostly be doing general photography, with the possibility of moderate
wildlife in the spring.

The store people did not recommend getting the Canon 18-55 Lens with
the kit, but instead sold me a Sigma 18-50 Lens.. So far, the lens
seams decent, but I havne't used the Canon, so I'm not sure how it
compares.

My question is: what lens should I get? I don't want to spend more
that $500 on it if I can help it..

Any advice would be appreciated!

Thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Canon lenses that get good comments / reviews are 28-135, 17-40, 85
f1.8 & 50 f1.8,

"Duane Storey" <duanestorey@excite.com> wrote in message
news:7d873ede.0412192344.77ac5ac2@posting.google.com...
> Hey everyone,
>
> I just picked up a Canon EOS 20D the other day.. So far, I'm pretty
> happy with it, but I'm really not sure what lens to settle on.. I'll
> mostly be doing general photography, with the possibility of moderate
> wildlife in the spring.
>
> The store people did not recommend getting the Canon 18-55 Lens with
> the kit, but instead sold me a Sigma 18-50 Lens.. So far, the lens
> seams decent, but I havne't used the Canon, so I'm not sure how it
> compares.
>
> My question is: what lens should I get? I don't want to spend more
> that $500 on it if I can help it..
>
> Any advice would be appreciated!
>
> Thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <cq68vq$690$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, dylan <spam@none.com>
wrote:
> >The Canon lenses that get good comments / reviews are 28-135,
17-40, 85
> >f1.8 & 50 f1.8,
>
> If you're looking at the 50mm f/1.8, it might be worth looking at
paying a
> bit extra for the 50mm f/1.4, which is a really, really nice lens.

The 28-135mm IS lens is a great all around lens and on the 20D is
46-212mm. I have one and it takes images that fit in with the images
from the L lens I have. It also sold me on IS. So much so that I sold
my 300 f4 L lens without IS and I bought the version with IS of that
lens.

Art

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in
news:201220040558219578%rag@nospam.techline.com:

> In article <7d873ede.0412192344.77ac5ac2@posting.google.com>, Duane
> Storey <duanestorey@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> The store people did not recommend getting the Canon 18-55 Lens with
>> the kit, but instead sold me a Sigma 18-50 Lens.. So far, the lens
>> seams decent, but I havne't used the Canon, so I'm not sure how it
>> compares.
>
> You're never ahead if it says Sigma on it.

<shrug> Unless, of course, you are. Some of Sigma's lenses are excellent,
and some of Canon's are mediocre.

Not having the information neccesary to compare these two particular lenses
makes it impossible to determine.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Duane Storey" <duanestorey@excite.com> wrote in message
news:7d873ede.0412192344.77ac5ac2@posting.google.com...
> Hey everyone,
>
> I just picked up a Canon EOS 20D the other day.. So far, I'm pretty
> happy with it, but I'm really not sure what lens to settle on.. I'll
> mostly be doing general photography, with the possibility of moderate
> wildlife in the spring.
>
> The store people did not recommend getting the Canon 18-55 Lens with
> the kit, but instead sold me a Sigma 18-50 Lens..

That's interesting. Which Sigma 18-50? The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is faster
than the Canon kit lens but it's $500. If you got the slower Sigma 8-50 I
think you may have been just as happy with the Canon 18-55.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <201220040558219578%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <7d873ede.0412192344.77ac5ac2@posting.google.com>, Duane
>> Storey <duanestorey@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The store people did not recommend getting the Canon 18-55 Lens with
>>> the kit, but instead sold me a Sigma 18-50 Lens.. So far, the lens
>>> seams decent, but I havne't used the Canon, so I'm not sure how it
>>> compares.
>>
>> You're never ahead if it says Sigma on it.
>
> The Canon 18-55mm is about as bad as they come. Its only two good
> points are that it's dirt cheap and light as a feather.
>
> I have a Canon 24-85mm. It's very sharp, lightweight, and not too
> expensive. It's a good general purpose lens.

Here's a site that will let you decide if there might be a third or
subsequent point or two:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photograp [...] 8-55b.html


--
Frank ess