Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EOS 20D inexpensive Lens recommendations

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 5:28:25 PM

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

I have an old Canon AE1 35mm that has served me well for many years.
After buying an inexpensive Canon A75 a few years back, I'm hooked on
digital.

After much consideration, I have decided to take the plunge and go for
the 20D. I'd like to buy an extra lens or two with the new camera, but
the list of available lenses is quite daunting. I already know that my
budget won't allow for any IS lenses. In fact the lenses I was looking
at are in the $100 - $200 range. I typically shoot a lot of nature
shots, close-ups of flowers / insects, and some candid family
pictures. I rarely do any sports shots.

I was thinking about buying the camera with the kit 18-50mm lens, and
also thought about adding the Canon 50mm 1.8 canon lens. I'd like to
add a macro zoom to the mix, and was thinking about the Canon 75-300mm
f/4.0-5.6. Does this sound like a reasonable set of lenses or is there
some other direction I should be looking. I'm not absolutely set on
having Canon lenses.

Thanks
DB
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 5:28:26 PM

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

Nunya Bidnis wrote:
> I have an old Canon AE1 35mm that has served me well for many years.
> After buying an inexpensive Canon A75 a few years back, I'm hooked on
> digital.
>
> After much consideration, I have decided to take the plunge and go
for
> the 20D. I'd like to buy an extra lens or two with the new camera,
but
> the list of available lenses is quite daunting. I already know that
my
> budget won't allow for any IS lenses. In fact the lenses I was
looking
> at are in the $100 - $200 range. I typically shoot a lot of nature
> shots, close-ups of flowers / insects, and some candid family
> pictures. I rarely do any sports shots.
>
> I was thinking about buying the camera with the kit 18-50mm lens, and
> also thought about adding the Canon 50mm 1.8 canon lens. I'd like to
> add a macro zoom to the mix, and was thinking about the Canon
75-300mm
> f/4.0-5.6. Does this sound like a reasonable set of lenses or is
there
> some other direction I should be looking. I'm not absolutely set on
> having Canon lenses.
>
> Thanks
> DB


I think you have a good set of lenses there. We have the kit, the Canon
50mm 1.8 and a Sigma 70-300. I went for the sigma because it has a
macro mode. I have a friend who just bought the Canon 10-22 and is
getting great photos from that, but that is an fairly expensive lens.

Scott
February 27, 2005 8:42:57 PM

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

Nunya Bidnis wrote:

>I have an old Canon AE1 35mm that has served me well for many years.
>After buying an inexpensive Canon A75 a few years back, I'm hooked on
>digital.

Addictive, isn't it? :) 

>After much consideration, I have decided to take the plunge and go for
>the 20D. I'd like to buy an extra lens or two with the new camera, but
>the list of available lenses is quite daunting. I already know that my
>budget won't allow for any IS lenses. In fact the lenses I was looking
>at are in the $100 - $200 range.

When it comes to SLR cameras, the glass on the front is of primary
concern since it does most of the work in getting a sharp and vibrant
photo.

Since your budget is limited, might I suggest waiting a couple of weeks
for Canon to release the highly anticipated Digital Rebel XT which has
most of the capability of the Canon 20D, but 50% cheaper. Put the extra
$500 you save on the body into better quality lenses and the net result
will be better photos.

If your heart is set on the 20D, then consider one good lense for now
and add more later.

> I typically shoot a lot of nature
>shots, close-ups of flowers / insects, and some candid family
>pictures. I rarely do any sports shots.
>
>I was thinking about buying the camera with the kit 18-50mm lens, and
>also thought about adding the Canon 50mm 1.8 canon lens. I'd like to
>add a macro zoom to the mix, and was thinking about the Canon 75-300mm
>f/4.0-5.6. Does this sound like a reasonable set of lenses or is there
>some other direction I should be looking. I'm not absolutely set on
>having Canon lenses.

If you do go with Canon, I have three suggestions:

I would suggest the kit lense for general family shots and wide angles,
and then get something like the 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM lense for the same
price as the 50 and 75-300. Forget about the 50 as it's not needed right
away, and the 75-300 is not that good. You can always add more lenses
like the 50 later.

Or if you don't need wide angle, forget the kit lense and get the very
popular 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM lense (note the aperture range). It has
great optics for the price and will give you most of the range you need.
You could then add the 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM lense and share filters
since they both use 58mm mountings.

Or another option is to forget all of those lenses, and start out with
one good lense, like the 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM. It's a bit pricey for
your budget, but well worth it. It would be a great "everyday" lense,
covering the most popular range, and it's affordable if you forego the
other lenses for now.

There are lots of choices, which makes SLR so diverse. But it also adds
confusion about what to get. That's why I often suggest getting a good
quality lense to start off, and then add more lenses as you go. The
worst thing to do is get a cheap lense "for now" because you won't want
to keep it once you get something good. :) 
Related resources
February 28, 2005 5:44:26 AM

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

Nunya Bidnis wrote:
> I was thinking about buying the camera with the kit 18-50mm lens, and
> also thought about adding the Canon 50mm 1.8 canon lens. I'd like to
> add a macro zoom to the mix, and was thinking about the Canon
75-300mm
> f/4.0-5.6. Does this sound like a reasonable set of lenses or is
there
> some other direction I should be looking. I'm not absolutely set on
> having Canon lenses.

Assuming you are dead-set on a super-expensive body and cheap lenses,
I'd recommend skipping the 50/1.8. For landscapes, the 18-50, when
stopped down, should give pretty decent performance. The 100-300 is
supposed to a smidgeon better than the 75-300, so unless you are
getting the IS version of the latter, get the 100-300 instead. Stopped
down and on a tripod, these should yield pretty damn good landscape
images.

Vandit
February 28, 2005 5:53:32 AM

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

Bill wrote:


>
> Since your budget is limited, might I suggest waiting a couple of weeks
> for Canon to release the highly anticipated Digital Rebel XT which has
> most of the capability of the Canon 20D, but 50% cheaper. Put the extra
> $500 you save on the body into better quality lenses and the net result
> will be better photos.

Exactly, using cheap lenses on an expencive body makes so sense. It's like
using cheap speakers on an expencive reciever.

>
> If your heart is set on the 20D, then consider one good lense for now
> and add more later.
>

Again, great advice.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 10:26:34 AM

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

You guys beat me to it. I was going to recommend the same.

So often people buy too much camera for their budget and forget a nice lens
selection. The lenses are what it all about!
bg

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38g0vtF5jbmqpU2@individual.net...
> Bill wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Since your budget is limited, might I suggest waiting a couple of weeks
> > for Canon to release the highly anticipated Digital Rebel XT which has
> > most of the capability of the Canon 20D, but 50% cheaper. Put the extra
> > $500 you save on the body into better quality lenses and the net result
> > will be better photos.
>
> Exactly, using cheap lenses on an expencive body makes so sense. It's like
> using cheap speakers on an expencive reciever.
>
> >
> > If your heart is set on the 20D, then consider one good lense for now
> > and add more later.
> >
>
> Again, great advice.
> --
>
> Stacey
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:23:14 PM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:tt2dnTNlMINv0b_fRVn-2Q@golden.net...

> Since your budget is limited, might I suggest waiting a couple of weeks
> for Canon to release the highly anticipated Digital Rebel XT which has
> most of the capability of the Canon 20D, but 50% cheaper. Put the extra
> $500 you save on the body into better quality lenses and the net result
> will be better photos.

Actually, the difference is closer to $300, since the 20D is already heavily
discounted, but the XT will probably be at the MAP for a few months.
February 28, 2005 6:23:15 PM

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

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:tt2dnTNlMINv0b_fRVn-2Q@golden.net...
>
>> Since your budget is limited, might I suggest waiting a couple of weeks
>> for Canon to release the highly anticipated Digital Rebel XT which has
>> most of the capability of the Canon 20D, but 50% cheaper. Put the extra
>> $500 you save on the body into better quality lenses and the net result
>> will be better photos.
>
>Actually, the difference is closer to $300, since the 20D is already heavily
>discounted, but the XT will probably be at the MAP for a few months.

I suppose price ranges are different in the US. Here in Canada, the
prices will be about $1200 CDN for the Rebel XT and $2000 for the 20D
bodies, an $800 difference.

The Rebel XT will be cheaper than I expected. I figured $1500 for it,
but I guess Canon doesn't want to dig into 20D sales and they're keeping
the price low.

Still, the price difference should be worth it in the US, and the extra
cash will get you better glass. :) 
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:50:07 PM

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

"VK" <vtb666@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109587466.784295.255070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Assuming you are dead-set on a super-expensive body and cheap lenses,
> I'd recommend skipping the 50/1.8. For landscapes, the 18-50, when
> stopped down, should give pretty decent performance. The 100-300 is
> supposed to a smidgeon better than the 75-300, so unless you are
> getting the IS version of the latter, get the 100-300 instead. Stopped
> down and on a tripod, these should yield pretty damn good landscape
> images.

I agree. Get the 18-55 kit lens, pretty good at $100 net cost, and the
100-300 USM..

In the future, look at the EF-S 10-22, and maybe a 28-105 USM. The EF-S
10-22 will likely come down in price after a while, right now it's in high
demand due to the popularity of the 20D.
March 1, 2005 9:14:46 AM

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

K S wrote:
> reading aswears under your post I found few people adviced you to
skip 50mm
> 1.8. Do not skip this len! This is optically the best one you can get
for a
> 100$ limit. And at the same time no other lens can give you 1.8
light. You
> will have no chace to play with a depth of field if you take
something with
> 3.5 or even 4.5 light at 50mm. On your 20D it will turn to 80mm lens
- and
> it works great for a portrait photography. Besides - zooms have
slower AF
> even if this 50mm in not USM - it will still be faster than kit lens
AF.

Krysztof has a good point - this is indeed a super-sharp lens.

However:
1/ I dont think the difference is all that big a deal when you stop
down to f8 for landscapes.
2/ For your stated needs, a zoom will work better than a prime (more
coverage for landscapes, etc). Zooming with the feet is great, but
doesnt yield the same perspective
3/ AF speed may be faster, but so what? USM on zooms is plenty fast -
I can do birds-in-flight with zooms, so I reckon you should be ok with
it, eh?

The 50/1.8 lens is, contrary to popular opinion, not a good purchase
for *everyone*. Some people have it and swear by it. Other people -
myself included - find primes far too limiting. I have a 50/1.8 and a
24/2.8 and hardly ever use them.

Cheers,
Vandit
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:19:01 PM

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

Thanks everybody for your suggestions.

I had thought about stepping down to the Rebel XT when it comes out,
but I have a few reservations about doing that. First of all the
savings will probably work out only about $300. I don't mind the
slight extra cost if the camera will be better. Also, the metal body
of the 20D is really attractive to me. I do a lot hiking and camping,
and it would seem to take a few more hits thatn the plastic body.
Seeing as how my last SLR has lasted me like 20 years, I plan to keep
this one for a while, and just wanted to get the best bang for my
buck.

I think I'll definitely go with the kit lens, just because it will get
me by for now, and for the $100, I haven't lost that much. I'll
probably just save up for some better lenses. It's just too bad that
there is such a gap between the prices of the entry level and the
better lenses.

Thanks again for all your input.

David
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:25:55 AM

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

Hi Nunya


reading aswears under your post I found few people adviced you to skip 50mm
1.8. Do not skip this len! This is optically the best one you can get for a
100$ limit. And at the same time no other lens can give you 1.8 light. You
will have no chace to play with a depth of field if you take something with
3.5 or even 4.5 light at 50mm. On your 20D it will turn to 80mm lens - and
it works great for a portrait photography. Besides - zooms have slower AF
even if this 50mm in not USM - it will still be faster than kit lens AF.

I have few lenses - that are: canon 20-35, canon 28-135, canon
80-200(almoust dont use),
canon 50 MK I, sigma 21-35, Jupiter 200 (soon changing to Sonnar 200 f2.8),
and two more which I dont use. The
canon 50 is the sharpes and has the higest resolution from all my
lenses - this is the only one that I actually consider as profesional level
lens.

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html - take a look at resolution tests
for canon 50.

http://plfoto.com/zdjecie.php?picture=576423 - here is a shot that I've made
with canon 50. Notice the depth of field and the lightning /This was only a
single 60W night lamp light source - bounced from a table/. This kind of
shot you
would not be able to take using any zoom lens with 4 or smaller aperachute.

The set of lenses you selected in my opinion is good. hoverer I think you
should get also some lens covering 28-105mm range later. But for the limits
you have for now this is a good set.

Im my opinion it is better to buy one beter lens at a time and buy another
later - than to buy a set of bad /vineting, barreling, low contrast and
res/ lenses at one time.

I would also consider taking cheap used 10D or waiting for new Rebel to save
some money for a better lens.

Keep in mind also - that if you take 18-55 you will be able to use it only
on your Digital Canon. It is merely useles on the analog cameras with no
crop factor. If one day you will get a full 1:1 no-crop factor digital
camera (in few years)- you will probably have to get rid of this lens for
almoust nothing - maybe consider getting something taht will work well on
both analog and digit camera - used canon 20-35 you can get for around $200
on ebay.

wisch you best
Krzysztof S,
March 2, 2005 1:25:56 AM

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

K S wrote:

>reading aswears under your post I found few people adviced you to skip 50mm
>1.8. Do not skip this len! This is optically the best one you can get for a
>100$ limit. And at the same time no other lens can give you 1.8 light. You
>will have no chace to play with a depth of field if you take something with
>3.5 or even 4.5 light at 50mm. On your 20D it will turn to 80mm lens - and
>it works great for a portrait photography.

I don't know why people continue to say the lense focal length will
change, when it does not. There is a slight COC and DOF change using a
smaller sensor, but it's not dramatic.

The 1.6x is a CROP FACTOR not a magnification. The 50mm does not become
an 80mm lense - the image is merely cropped to the equivalent field of
view that an 80mm would provide. As far as the image is concerned, it's
still a 50mm, just smaller image size.

Besides, the 50mm is not a great choice for portraits. It works, but
it's not really any better than a zoom at 100mm at 5.6 for blurring the
background. And no one in their right mind takes a low light portrait
photo, so a seriously slow f factor is not really a big issue until you
get into the good glass.

> Besides - zooms have slower AF
>even if this 50mm in not USM - it will still be faster than kit lens AF.

For portraits or almost any shot where a shallow DOF is wanted, AF speed
is typically not an issue.

>canon 50 is the sharpes and has the higest resolution from all my
>lenses - this is the only one that I actually consider as profesional level
>lens.

Of course it's the sharpest of your selection, no one would question
that. But to compare it to an 80mm is not correct.

>Keep in mind also - that if you take 18-55 you will be able to use it only
>on your Digital Canon. It is merely useles on the analog cameras with no
>crop factor. If one day you will get a full 1:1 no-crop factor digital
>camera (in few years)

This makes no sense. Since cost is a factor, obviously the OP is not
going to even consider getting a $5000 camera body. And in the off
chance the OP did want to upgrade, they could easily sell the XT with
the 18-55.

Besides, since cost is factor, the 18-55 is one of the better deals
available. It's actually a pretty decent lense for the price...Canon got
it right when they slapped it together. :) 
!