Not another 350vs20D Thread

HoboSyke

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
7
Location
Sydney - Australia
Website
www.flickr.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
HI all.

Given the chance would you shoot with a 20D with the 17-85mm f/4.5.6 lens.

Or the 350D with the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS :thumbup:
 
I was thinking about ditching my 20D body and 17-85mm lens and getting the 350D body with the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. I could do it with about $400 ontop of what I would get for my 20D.
Have thought about it and just going to save for the 24-70L and keep the 20D body.
 
how do you justify the 70-200 2.8L IS though? that's like another $1800 slapped on.

here's a suggestion. that 24-70L is a great lens, but not super great (doesnt quite justify that ~ $1200 price tag). Just sell your 17-85 and buy something else, or maybe with a little more money also. That isnt really that useful of a zoom range, but if you're stuck on it, this might interest you: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/269696


but yeah, i would go with the 350d for sure if you're going to slap L glass on it. I'd take a 300d with L glass over a 1dMkII with a much lesser quality lens. otherwise definitely the 20d. It's a no brainer.


edit: sorry didnt realize you had decided. good choice though! :D
 
The 70-200mm would come later.
What L series lens you recommend for a good walk around lens. ?
 
Hi,

A good walk around lens L series is the 17-40L. However, Canon are just about to release a 24-105L which sounds pretty good too.
 
Hades said:
Hi,

A good walk around lens L series is the 17-40L. However, Canon are just about to release a 24-105L which sounds pretty good too.


What about the 24-70L ? This would give more range with nearly as much wide angle. :meh:
 
The 24-70L is f/2.8 USM too - doh, forgot about that little tinker :D

Mind you, the 24-105L (f/4) is going to be lighter apparently.
 
Hades said:
The 24-70L is f/2.8 USM too - doh, forgot about that little tinker :D

Mind you, the 24-105L (f/4) is going to be lighter apparently.

Shouldnt the f/2.8 always be heavier seeing as it has wider glass (bigger aperture) ? Obvisouly not if your comparing say the 24-70L to a 70-200 f/4.

Will they make that 24-105L in an f/2.8 ?

IM probably going to get the 24-70L and 70-200L f/2.8
These 2 lenses will give me decent coverage for now.
 
Yes, the f/2.8 will be heavier. But the F/4 will not be much lighter because it also has IS included.
 
my question is this...why would you EVER want to downgrade bodies? the 20d body is built like a brick ****house, and the 350d is more or less a step or three down from that.

just food for thought.
 
MDowdey said:
my question is this...why would you EVER want to downgrade bodies? the 20d body is built like a brick ****house, and the 350d is more or less a step or three down from that.

just food for thought.


That thought has already passed. Im sticking with the 20D body.
Only thought of down grading to help me buy some better glass for it.
But i will just have to save up extra now.:greenpbl:
 
Buy some cheap primes. They whoop up on any zoom, including the "L" glass lenses.

By the way, does anyone know what the "L" stands for? Luxury.
 
What do you mean whoop up? Yeah I will get a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. The 1.8 is about a 1/3 of the price of the 1.4 Is it worth it ?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top