Lenses for the Canon EOS 20D

[jamundj]

Just bought myself a canon eos 20d, and now the time has come for the lenses. I need to cover both wideangle and tele and got two lenses in mind. The first one is a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC and the second one is a Canon EF 70-200mm/4,0L USM. Does anyone have any experience with either, or have something better in just about the same price range i'dd like to hear about it.

Jonas

 

[Digital Matt]

I don't have experience with that Sigma lens, but the Canon 17-40 f/4 L is in that same category, and worth a look. I have the Canon 70-200 f/4 L, and it is a fantastic lens. The the only gripes are;

it's not a 2.8
it doesn't have IS
it doesn't come with the tripod collar

Now, if you have the extra money, and can afford the 2.8, I would go ahead and get it. You might think, "I don't need a 2.8", but inevitably, you will be in a lowlight situation at some point and wish you it, plus the combination of that and IS is very valuable. The 2.8 also comes WITH the tripod collar, no additional cost.

Both the f/4 and f/2.8 are fantastic lenses, in terms of optics and build.

 

[westman]

good start
sigma 18-50 is a good lens cover from wide to meduim, image quility is excllent
and 70-200 f4 also not bad , if u got more money and u really want to spend on your camera , buy 70-200 f2.8 IS

 

[spike000]

Gotta go with Matts advice - the 70-200 2.8 IS is a great lens. It is a bit heavier but mine has dealt with some huge knocks and travelled extensively and is still razor sharp. If I were you though I would avoid Sigma as the autofocus tends to be a lot slower - have a look at the Canon 24-70 2.8 if you can handle the price tag - again a workhorse. I have both these lense and they are really very good!!! For the Wide-Angle have a look at the 16-35 2.8 or the 17-40 4 - there was a 17-35 2.8 that you may be able to pick up cheap as well..

Spike

 

[Grim]

i heard this sigma is very comparable to the f/2.8L but slightly soft at 2.8

anyone got this lens? i'm glad this thread is here, i'm having this very same dilemma as we speak.

 

[usayit]

I personally would also check out the offerings from Tokina for wide angle lenses. They have three offerings that should interest you:

AT-X 124 AF PRO DX 12-24mm f/4 ( only if you plan on mounting to a digislr )
AT-X 235 AF PRO 20-24mm f/2.8
AF 193 19-35mm f/3.5 - f/4.5

For the price, I was not too impressed with the 17-40 f/4 L canon lens. Its a good lens, but quite expensive given some fo the cons mentioned. I just could not justify the cost. Canon has some other wide zooms with f/2.8 but they are quite expensive and thus I never tempted my self by looking into them. Never tried it but I heard good things with the AT-X 124 but I needed something that can mount on either my digi or film slr. I actually ended up going with the very cost effective AF 193 19-35mm lens. I've only had it for a short period of time but for under 200 bucks... I've been very happy with it. Its the second cheapest lens in my bag but the few pictures taken with it sure don't look like it. So far my only grip about the AF193.... lens hood was sold seperately ( why??? ).

As for your Canon choice for a telephoto zoom.... get the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS Its a tried a true lens that many love.

 

[ksmattfish]

anyone got this lens?

I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, but I haven't had it long enough, or really have much digital experience to make a judgement yet. It seems to work well, and I like it so far.

In the current Popular Photography mag (or one of the major mags) that old guy with the fishing hat (is his name Peterson?) does a review of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and a cheaper Sigma with a similar zoom (the f/4-f/5.6 model or something). I just skimmed the article, but in the performance chart the f/2.8 lens got "A+" at all apertures in print sizes up to 11"x14", where f/22 dropped to "A". I'm not sure what that really means, except that the old guy with the fishing hat liked it, and that's good enough for me.

I don't know if it was the same mag, but I saw a different article where they did a shootout between prime lenses and pro zooms with DSLRs. I would expect a prime lens to be somewhat better than a zoom, but with todays pro zooms that cost as much as used cars I didn't expect to see much difference. I was really surprised at how much better the prime lenses (and just the standard, affordable models) handled subtle detail.

 

[usayit]

Speaking of prime lenses.... Canon's 24mm f/1.4 L USM... i absolutely love it.. Hence why I chose to suppliment with the lighter ( and cheaper ) tokina instead of just another expensive zoom.

 

[Grim]

I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, but I haven't had it long enough, or really have much digital experience to make a judgement yet. It seems to work well, and I like it so far.

In the current Popular Photography mag (or one of the major mags) that old guy with the fishing hat (is his name Peterson?) does a review of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and a cheaper Sigma with a similar zoom (the f/4-f/5.6 model or something). I just skimmed the article, but in the performance chart the f/2.8 lens got "A+" at all apertures in print sizes up to 11"x14", where f/22 dropped to "A". I'm not sure what that really means, except that the old guy with the fishing hat liked it, and that's good enough for me.

I don't know if it was the same mag, but I saw a different article where they did a shootout between prime lenses and pro zooms with DSLRs. I would expect a prime lens to be somewhat better than a zoom, but with todays pro zooms that cost as much as used cars I didn't expect to see much difference. I was really surprised at how much better the prime lenses (and just the standard, affordable models) handled subtle detail.

there was supposed to be a link in my original post for the lens i was talking about. it's a f/2.8 70-200.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3238&navigator=3

sorry about that. i looked at the lens in the store and it felt pretty good in my hand, i just heard it was soft at f/2.8. *shrugs*

now has anyone tried THAT lens.

 

[ksmattfish]

Another thing about the Sigma f/2.8 18-50 is it has a very short minimum focus distance; it's just a few inches. I was surprised the other day photographing my mother's roses that I was able to fill the frame with a rose about as big around as the lens itself at 80mm. I'm used to min focus distances of a couple of feet for zooms.

 

[JohnMF]

what can anyone tell me about this lens, is it worth the money?

canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

 

[colintinto]

I bought one a week or so ago, so not had much of a chance to play with it. It's my first IS lens, and I was quite impressed with that feature. It certainly feels well made, and focusses very quickly, very quiet too.

I took a few shots of ducks on the canal yesterday but haven't taken them off the camera yet. Will probably do so this evening and see how they come out.

I did read a few good reviews of it when I was researching before buying it, but can't remember where I saw them now.

Colin

 

[Big Mike]

In the current Popular Photography mag (or one of the major mags) that old guy with the fishing hat (is his name Peterson?)

Herbert Keppler?

Considered by some to be an old koot but apparently he has been around so long that he has the ear of the major manufacturers in the photography industry.