Better lens for 20D, anyone?

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

Horace wrote:
> I took the plunge and bought a 20D with the kit lens (18-55mm). It's
> a very solid camera, but the lens is another matter. The kit lens is
> OK for family shapshots, but I plan to do some commercial work, and I
> don't think it's up to the task. Frankly, I'm disappointed with its
> build quality. (I have an old EF 35-85mm zoom which seems to perform
> a little better.) I can't afford an L-series lens (yet), but can
> spend up to US$500 for a better lens.

Is it the apparent build quality that bothers you or results?

>
> I plan to shoot portraits

I suggest a 50 or 55 mm 1.8 or 1.4 lens over any zoom. They are
available very cheap and do a great job in a situation that zoon is not
needed.

> and (eventually) weddings.

For weddings, it has been many years since I did one, I would suggest
two lenses. One normal range zoom like the kit lens and one super wide.
You will find many good uses for the superwide.

> The Canon
> 17-85mm IS zoom has gotten good reviews, but I wonder if there are
> alternates just as good. I'm ambivalent about IS at this point. Has
> anyone found a comparable (quality-wise) Sigma or Tamron lens? Any
> info is much appreciated. I'll probably save up for the Canon, but I
> would like to know if there are alternatives.
>
> Sonrise

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

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

[BnH] wrote:
> You are using a consumer lens for a commercial work .. hmm

Exactly what is the difference between a "consumer" and a "professional"
lens that commercial work demands one over the other.

>
> Although the 18-55 looks cheap .. that lens has survived a few
> torturing that my friend gives.
> If you are happy with the result .. just use it. Till you can afford
> a 24-70 L ... that lens is still great.
>
> btw ... a Tokina 28-70 Pro SV has got good reviews. I use a 28-80 ATX
> Pro also on my Nikon body.
>
> =bob=
>
>
>
> "Horace" <noSpambeas5963@noSpamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:k4pce.1214$pe3.966@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> I plan to shoot portraits and (eventually) weddings. The Canon
>> 17-85mm IS zoom has gotten good reviews, but I wonder if there are
>> alternates just as good. I'm ambivalent about IS at this point. Has
>> anyone found a comparable (quality-wise) Sigma or Tamron lens? Any
>> info is much appreciated. I'll probably save up for the Canon, but I
>> would like to know if there are alternatives.
>>
>> Sonrise

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

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

"[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote in message
news:42722a34$0$8316$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> You are using a consumer lens for a commercial work .. hmm
>
Actually I just wanted the camera. I was able to get a kit that included
this lens. It will probably be awhile before I do any serious commercial
work, but I get your point. I had no information on this lens prior to the
purchase.

Thanks for the comments.


> Although the 18-55 looks cheap .. that lens has survived a few torturing
> that my friend gives.
> If you are happy with the result .. just use it. Till you can afford a
> 24-70 L ... that lens is still great.
>
> btw ... a Tokina 28-70 Pro SV has got good reviews. I use a 28-80 ATX Pro
> also on my Nikon body.
>
> =bob=
>
>
>
> "Horace" <noSpambeas5963@noSpamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:k4pce.1214$pe3.966@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> I plan to shoot portraits and (eventually) weddings. The Canon 17-85mm IS
>> zoom has gotten good reviews, but I wonder if there are alternates just
>> as good. I'm ambivalent about IS at this point. Has anyone found a
>> comparable (quality-wise) Sigma or Tamron lens? Any info is much
>> appreciated. I'll probably save up for the Canon, but I would like to
>> know if there are alternatives.
>>
>> Sonrise
>>
>
>

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

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ufpce.15179$dh.3529@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Horace wrote:
>> I took the plunge and bought a 20D with the kit lens (18-55mm). It's
>> a very solid camera, but the lens is another matter. The kit lens is
>> OK for family shapshots, but I plan to do some commercial work, and I
>> don't think it's up to the task. Frankly, I'm disappointed with its
>> build quality. (I have an old EF 35-85mm zoom which seems to perform
>> a little better.) I can't afford an L-series lens (yet), but can
>> spend up to US$500 for a better lens.
>
> Is it the apparent build quality that bothers you or results?
>

So far it's just the build quality. The lens extension can be wobbled easily
at the 85mm point. My really really old kit lens (from a 1st generation
Rebel film camera) has less play in it. I've only had the camera three days,
so have not had time to do any comparisons between the two lenses, but I
plan to do that this weekend.

Thanks for your input! This is the kind of info I really need.

>>
>> I plan to shoot portraits
>
> I suggest a 50 or 55 mm 1.8 or 1.4 lens over any zoom. They are
> available very cheap and do a great job in a situation that zoon is not
> needed.
>

I'm in agreement about the primes, but I was leaning toward something in the
85mm range. Is that too long with the 1.6 crop factor?

>> and (eventually) weddings.
>
> For weddings, it has been many years since I did one, I would suggest
> two lenses. One normal range zoom like the kit lens and one super wide.
> You will find many good uses for the superwide.
>
>> The Canon
>> 17-85mm IS zoom has gotten good reviews, but I wonder if there are
>> alternates just as good. I'm ambivalent about IS at this point. Has
>> anyone found a comparable (quality-wise) Sigma or Tamron lens? Any
>> info is much appreciated. I'll probably save up for the Canon, but I
>> would like to know if there are alternatives.
>>
>> Sonrise
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit
>

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

In article <N9tce.1285$pe3.904@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Sonrise <noSpambeas5963@noSpamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>"[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote in message
>news:42722a34$0$8316$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> You are using a consumer lens for a commercial work .. hmm
>>
>Actually I just wanted the camera. I was able to get a kit that included
>this lens. It will probably be awhile before I do any serious commercial
>work, but I get your point. I had no information on this lens prior to the
>purchase.

The 18-55 feels crummy; very crummy to anyone who knows when something
has been built to high tolerances. But the image quality that results
from this lens is pretty damn good. Check it for barrel distortion and
CA. Do some macro exposures and notice that you can see the cell
structure in plants.

I complain about this lens because I'm an equipment freak and I want
something more gratifying, but I can't fault the lens for not getting
the job done!