Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 1:26:12 AM

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

If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will
be) your next lens purchase?

Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?

Just picking the collective brain...

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ

More about : wider longer 55mm 20d

Anonymous
February 7, 2005 4:28:08 AM

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

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01...
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or
> will be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
> Just picking the collective brain...


First, I have a 300D but it came with the same kit lens. I found the 18-55
a bit too short for my liking. Luckily for me, my wife shoots film and has
a couple of lenses I use from time to time. One is a 28-90 and the other
75-300. The 75-300 is way too long for an everyday lens. I found the 28-90
much more to my liking but alas my wife uses it as her primary so I couldn't
use it all the time.

After doing some research and reading peoples post I settled on this lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

What you should buy all depends on what you want to shoot. I like to shoot
buildings, some landscapes, and the also be able to get in close on objects
or someone face. The 28-135 provides enough range for me to do exactly
that. It's been on my 300D since I received it and suites me well. It has
become my primary walk around lens.

Here are some samples using the 28-135
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855150
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855144
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855143
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855360
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856234
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856232
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856209
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856240
along with this shot http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/39421357
and this shot http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/39421360

Keep in mind I'm just a rookie hobbyist. I'm sure there are more informed
opinions already posted in this NG. Do as I did and search for post
regarding lenses and read everyone's opinions. You can go to www.pbase.com
and find pictures shot with specific lenses. Pay attention to the Focal
Length in the EXIF data and see if those pics are like the ones you think
you'll be taking. Noting the focal length should help you pin down the
right range, then look for a lens with in that range and of course your
price range.

One other thing to note: My next lens will be much the longer 100-400 USM IS
lens. I'm planning to shoot auto racing and crew events with this lens.
I've thought about just a 400mm lens but I think I'd like the zoom
flexibility.

I'm sure before I take the plunge I'll be back here looking for other
opinions. ;-)

HTH

--

Rob
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 4:28:09 AM

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

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6Kdnae8ovrll5rfRVn-3g@giganews.com...
>
> "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01...
>> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or
>> will be) your next lens purchase?
>>
>> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>>
>> Just picking the collective brain...
>
>
> First, I have a 300D but it came with the same kit lens. I found the
> 18-55 a bit too short for my liking. Luckily for me, my wife shoots film
> and has a couple of lenses I use from time to time. One is a 28-90 and
> the other 75-300. The 75-300 is way too long for an everyday lens. I
> found the 28-90 much more to my liking but alas my wife uses it as her
> primary so I couldn't use it all the time.

Rob,

Thanks for taking the time to reply both in word and exapmple images.

Nice shots, btw.

Jay
Related resources
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 8:46:25 AM

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

Jay Beckman wrote:
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was
(or will
> be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?

I just bought a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 because the kit lens is
proving to be a bit short for a walkaround lens. Haven't received it
yet but held a copy at a Photo equipment exhibition. Seems decent for
its price. Maybe I will post some pics when I get mine.

If I could afford any price, I would still not be sure of which
walk-around lens to go for. The Canon 28-135mm USM IS is nice because
of "IS" but then 28mm with a crop-factor of 1.6x might not be wide
enough. The other faster "L" series like Canon 17-40mm or similar ones
from Sigma/Tamron that are wide enough (17/18/19mm) but aren't long
enough. The Canon 17-85mm has USM & IS and has a decent focal length
range to qualify for a walk-around lens but the f/4-5.6 isn't so
encouraging.

So, to me, two compromises are the Canon 28-135mm and Sigma 18-125mm.
The former being better in quality, has USM and IS and the latter is
16mm wider than the Canon for 1.6x crop-factor dSLRs.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 10:28:07 AM

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

Everyone's lens need vary based on what type of photography they
generally do. I think the 28-135mm IS lens is a great choice for
general photography because on the 20D it is a 46 -216mm and covers
most normal shooting except wide angle. The lens is excellent in terms
of image quality and the IS lets you shoot a few stops less in low
light and still get good results. That plus it's not as expensive as an
L lens.

Art Salmons
Fleeting Images Photography
February 7, 2005 2:45:50 PM

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

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01...
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or
> will be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
> Just picking the collective brain...
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ
>

Depends if you have any preference on what you like to photograph ie
landscapes, portraits, wildlife etc etc .

Your 18-55 is a good compromise for general photography, at the wide end you
may find something a little wider if you like that kind of landscape photo,
and the top end it's reasonable for semi-tele or even portraits etc but the
depth of field is a too large to isolate the background.

I have the 20-35, hopefully to be replaced with a 17-40 for landscapes /
panoramas, 85 f1.8 for general semi-tele (or portraits on the EOS3), 400
f5.6 + 1.4x convertor for wildlife and fancy the 200 f2.8 to allow me have
approx 300 with the 1.4x. Another good buy is also the 50mm f1.8.

If you don't like carrying too many lenses how about the 28-135 IS ?.

It's not an easy choice and depends a lot on personal preference.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 2:45:51 PM

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

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01...
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was
> (or
> will be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
> Just picking the collective brain...
>

What my small section of the collected brain knows is:
Your next lens purchase will not be your last; relax and enjoy the hunt.
Your compromises will not match others'.
If you don't mind swapping lenses for various requirements, single F/L
lenses usually are faster and sharper for a given F/L.
If covering an extensive range of F/Ls without swapping is more
important to you, you will likely sacrifice image quality and "speed".
If I could afford them (and was strong enough to carry them) I'd have
one each of my favorite single F/L lenses with a camera attached. As it
is, my bag is bordering on impossible (keep in mind, I'll always have
the 20D and one lens in hand, so subtract one from this array):
10-22, 18-55, 50 1.8, 24-70 L, 70-300. Aha! you say, why carry the
18-55? Because it is so light and compact, and in ordinary circumstances
makes people's faces look very nice, and in extraordinary situations
(sand, salt spray, dust storms, _etc._) is a smaller potential loss.
The order in which I would I sacrifice the lenses may give you another
way to view your question (this is *hard*):
Good-bye 18-55, then 50 1.8, I've got you covered, mostly;
Adiós 70-300, I may have to move quite a bit, but one way or another I
should be able to get closer;
Do svedanya, 24-70—wait! Not really. Do I have to? No!
If I get to keep two lenses (that's where we are now, right?) for my
daily sustenance, there they are:
10-22 and 24-70. If the 24-70 happens to be an 18-55 for the present, so
be it.
Certain weekends and challenges will be even more challenging without
the long lens, maybe not even worthwhile (I like auto racing
photography, but I'm learning that I do the close-in things better, even
though I desperately _want_ to be good at the high-speed distant stuff).
Plus which, I'm a bit of a cheater: I have Mr Nikon's CP8700 and
teleconvertor (~420mm) in the bag, too.


--
Frank ess
"There are some aspects of existence that simply do not yield to
thinking, plain or fancy."
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:46:13 PM

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

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01...
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or
> will be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
> Just picking the collective brain...
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ

Thanks to all who took the time to reply.

I decided to get the 10-22mm EF-S first as I expect to be in close working
quarters more frequently than in places where I'll need a big reach.

However, I think the next lens will be the other extreme with a 100-400 IS.

Regards,

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:48:10 PM

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

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0700, Jay Beckman <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote:
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will
> be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?

Neither -- faster. I like to shoot in low light, so I purchased the
Canon 28mm 1.8. (I currently eschew zoom just as an exercise, and
to be contrary.)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 9:10:04 PM

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

I really like the kit lens that comes with the Nikon D70 (18-70). It's wide
enough so you can shoot anything that won't move back, or that you can't
back away from, like interiors, homes, or groups. Really takes in a
landscape, unless a telephoto would work better. The other end gives you a
long enough lens to draw in your subject, and works well for portraits. The
downside is the f stop is just a bit too small to get a really shallow depth
of field, so you keep yearning for a 1.8 or 1.4.

For my needs, going wider makes no sense, so I can turn to my trusty non
automatic 80-200 zoom, and if I need a wide aperture I can use my 85 1.8. I
also have a 55 micro that will really magnify an image. Using these non
automatic lenses requires me to use a meter, but the "kit" zoom lens really
covers a lot of territory, and it's fully automatic. If I was shooting
sports or nature a lot, the kit lens would be too short for me.


"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01...
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or
> will be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
> Just picking the collective brain...
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ
>
February 8, 2005 9:34:30 PM

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

go for the Sigma 18-125.
February 9, 2005 12:15:24 AM

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

I love super wides, considering a sigma 12-24, and I have a full frame 35mm
so I'd get the full 12mm....


"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01...
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or
will
> be) your next lens purchase?
>
> Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
> Just picking the collective brain...
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ
>
>
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:36:28 AM

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

Jay Beckman wrote:
> I decided to get the 10-22mm EF-S first as I expect to be in close
working
> quarters more frequently than in places where I'll need a big reach.
>

I hope you are aware that the 10-22 is an EF-S lens so will only work
on 300D and 20D. Should you upgrade to a 35mm full-frame sensor based
Canon dSLR in the future, your investment in the 10-22mm will go down
the drain.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:49:33 PM

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

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
wrote:

>If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will
>be) your next lens purchase?
>
>Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
>Just picking the collective brain...
>
>Jay Beckman
>Chandler, AZ
>

I recently got a 20d with kit 18-55. My next lens was the canon 70-300
EF IS DSM and then I got the EF-s 10-22 wide angle.

I like the telephoto for its IS. Works pretty good - for on the fly.
The wide angle is really nice for the landscapes and indoor
shots..different.


Fair gamut for a hobbyist.

No real macro capability though. Macro lens might be a better choice
depending on preference.

cheers

Ken
February 11, 2005 2:18:51 PM

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

>
> I hope you are aware that the 10-22 is an EF-S lens so will only work
> on 300D and 20D.

Or probably any next Canon with a 1.6 sensor
February 14, 2005 8:21:59 AM

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

Jay (my apologies - I missed your original post as I've only just discovered
this newsgroup)

First question would be - what sort of photography do you do?
Next - what budget do you have?

I have recently switched to a Canon 20D (having been a previous 10D owner -
which I've kept as a spare body) so already had a set of lenses I acquired
with the 10D. For what it's worth here are some real life comments...

Currently the best lens for all round flexibility and quality would have to
be the Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM (equivalent to 112-320mm with the 20D's
1.6 multiplier). This is a truly superb lens & would be my first choice no
matter what camera body. Having had the previous non-IS version the IS has
been a revelation allowing one to capture shots previously impossible
without resorting to a tripod - brilliant! The lens has hardly ever been off
my camera body. I have used it in combination with both the 1.4x II & 2x II
Extenders and have found the former utterly brilliant and the latter
excellent.

I also have the 24-70 2.8L USM (= 38-112mm) which is a beautiful - if
heavy - piece of kit. If it was possible to get this same lens in an IS
version it would really be the basic 'all purpose lens'.

To get down to the old 35mm wide angle equivalents I found it necessary to
go for the 17-40 4.0L USM (= 27-64mm) - I was sorely tempted by the 16-35
2.8L USM (being an addict of extra light) but was somewhat underwhelmed by
the reviews of the lens when fully open (which let's face it - if you're
going for f2.8 you obviously want to be able to use it fully open!).

These 3 lenses replaced my previous set-up of 28 (2.8), 35-105 (3.5-4.5),
50 (1.8) & 80-200 (2.8L) lenses.

I can safely say that the most worthwhile quality are the Canon L lenses -
the quality difference is immense - especially when wide open - (& well
worth the money if you can stretch to them). The second as mentioned
previously, is the new second generation IS function (when available). I
would not swap L quality for IS but would always go for it (if available in
an L lens).


"Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lrlm01l6t6qk6ng1bp1g1le1880ue6pie4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or
>>will
>>be) your next lens purchase?
>>
>>Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>>
>>Just picking the collective brain...
>>
>>Jay Beckman
>>Chandler, AZ
>>
>
> I recently got a 20d with kit 18-55. My next lens was the canon 70-300
> EF IS DSM and then I got the EF-s 10-22 wide angle.
>
> I like the telephoto for its IS. Works pretty good - for on the fly.
> The wide angle is really nice for the landscapes and indoor
> shots..different.
>
>
> Fair gamut for a hobbyist.
>
> No real macro capability though. Macro lens might be a better choice
> depending on preference.
>
> cheers
>
> Ken
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 2:00:31 AM

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

Jay Beckman wrote:
> If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was
(or will be) your next lens purchase?

50/1.8
200/2.8
2x
20/2.8
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:18:31 AM

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

<bj286@scn.org> wrote in message
news:1108710031.857285.188420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
> > If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was
> (or will be) your next lens purchase?
>
> 50/1.8
> 200/2.8
> 2x
> 20/2.8
>

I bought in this order:

EF 55-200mm (sold, not a great lens)
EF-S 10-22mm
EF 100mm 2.8 Macro
EF 35 2.0 (use this a lot for mtn bike rides, but may switch it
with the EF 50 1.8 because it's much lighter)
EF 70-200L 4.0
Tamron 24-135 (this is the lens that I leave on the camera, much nicer
than the 18-55 kit lens which I still keep for hiking because the Tamron is
big and heavy)

GT
--
"destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll" - the mekons
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:49:53 AM

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

Has anyone considered the Canon 17-85 IS??


On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
wrote:

>If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will
>be) your next lens purchase?
>
>Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
>Just picking the collective brain...
>
>Jay Beckman
>Chandler, AZ
>
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 7:25:19 AM

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

Helen Edith Stephenson notes:
>>Right now if I want to go wider than the 18-55 on the *ist DS, I have

recourse to an 18-28 on a full-frame 35mm film camera:-) To date, since

getting the *ist DS, I haven't actually used a film SLR, though.<<

Funny how that works. I sold my 35mm gear not too long after I got my
*istD. I've got a friend who is now looking into digital, and he's
really affronted by the prices he will get for his very heavy
collection of very good Nikon bodies and other gear, but he knows film
gear is not going to rise in price. I got my *istD with the 16-45, and
have added a 100mm macro and a 24-70. The 16 is wide enough, I guess,
at an equivalent 24mm, though I'd kind of like to be able to afford a
12-24 or something similar for tight shots inside vehicles, and similar
things. Later for that. Right now, I'm thinking of the Pentax 100-300
cheap version to try some bird photography. Maybe the next check that
isn't needed elsewhere.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 2:22:08 PM

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

In article <NZCNd.26279$Yu.10848@fed1read01>, Jay Beckman
<jnsbeckman@cox.net> writes
>If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will
>be) your next lens purchase?
>
>Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
>Just picking the collective brain...
>
>Jay Beckman
>Chandler, AZ

I started out with the 18-55 attached to the Pentax *ist DS, rather than
to the 20D, and I already have a bag full of compatible lenses.

The one I find I'm getting the most use out of is an old Tamron 85-210.

This lens is actually the first "extra" lens I bought for my first film
SLR over 25 years ago, so it might just say that I'm the sort of
photographer who likes a telephoto lens more than a wide angle lens.

Right now if I want to go wider than the 18-55 on the *ist DS, I have
recourse to an 18-28 on a full-frame 35mm film camera:-) To date, since
getting the *ist DS, I haven't actually used a film SLR, though.

Helen

Helen Edith Stephenson <helen at baronmoss dot demon dot co dot uk>
--
(I'm sure you can figure out what I mean!)
http://www.baronmoss.demon.co.uk
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:45:22 AM

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

Has anyone considered the Canon 17-85 IS??


On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
wrote:

>If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will
>be) your next lens purchase?
>
>Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?
>
>Just picking the collective brain...
>
>Jay Beckman
>Chandler, AZ
>
!