| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2004 10:56:17 PM · #1 |
I just bought the Canon 20D and really love the image quality its AMAZING. I bought the 70-300 NON IS USM LENS. It is OK but i was looking at purchasing either the 70-300 DO or the 70-200 IS 2.8 L . The main things I want to shoots is Portraits and Family pictures. And some scenic wide angle shots. I am looking for good glass at a reasonable price since i am not PRO yet. I live in Orange County And was curious if someone could point me in the right direction of takign pics short class etc? Maybe they have photo get togethers here? I want to explore this amazing world and capture moments that can be talked about for generations to come. I dont want to go to overboard yet spending money but i woudl liek the best bang for the buck so to speak in the world of lenses. Please let me know what you all have found usefull. here are the main things I do
Products Shots : Macro
Scenic: wide angle shots
Family pics Groups Nice framing shots
Portrait shots....
Is there a good all around lens for this? I am a NEWBY at all this but would love to learn more. THANKS ALOT in advance...
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 11:04:49 PM · #2 |
if you want bang for buck dont get the IS version of the 70-200
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 11:08:48 PM · #3 |
I would guess that the best (without going overboard in spending) "all around lens" for this is the new Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens. And I would also take Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for $70 with it, it's very good for portraits and more.
Otherwise of my lenses I use Canon's 17-40mm f/4.0 L most and then the 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. But I would like to have a bright 70 or 75mm lens to go with it, but it's not available.
Message edited by author 2004-10-23 23:10:46. |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 11:09:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Amason:
I would guess that the best "all around lens" for this is the new Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens. And I would also take Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for $70 with it, it's very good for portraits and more.
Otherwise of my lenses I use Canon's 17-40mm f/4.0 L most and then the 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. But I would like to have a bright 70 or 75mm lens to go with it, but it's not available. |
75ish= 85 1.8?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 11:16:55 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
Originally posted by Amason:
Otherwise of my lenses I use Canon's 17-40mm f/4.0 L most and then the 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. But I would like to have a bright 70 or 75mm lens to go with it, but it's not available. |
75ish= 85 1.8? |
Yes, I have been looking into that one and also the 85 f/1.2 L ($$$!), but I would like to have a 70mm or not more than 75mm. I'll guess my next lens will be the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro. |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 11:21:35 PM · #6 |
I've bought good lenses and I've bought OK lenses. The order I got them in are as such:
50 1.4
70-200 F4L
28 2.8
28-105 3.5-4.5 II
17-40 F4L
I'm selling the 28-105 and the 28 2.8 and am going to buy a 100 macro with what I can get from the two lenses. I've come to the personal conclusion that for a camera I want a wide-normal zoom, a telephoto zoom, a really low-light prime lens, and a macro lens. That's the minimum functional requirement for an SLR system.
I use the 17-40 as my everyday, walkaround zoom because it is roughly the traditional wide angle to short telephoto of a 35mm normal zoom on a 10D, and the image quality is excellent. The 50 is my low-light and portrait lens, the 70-200 for sports mostly, and the macro for macro and portraits. They key here is that they're all high-quality, keeper lenses that will still be useful when I go to 1.3x or full frame cameras. If I had a 20D and wanted to go to a 1D in the future, I'd think long and hard about getting a 10-22 over a Sigma 12-24 (despite the fact that it looks kickass) for instance, as you can't use that 10-22 with anything but an EF-S mount. Of course you can usually sell lenses for an OK return, but that's another argument. Building your system usually requires one lens choice to be dependent on others which you already have.
Additionally you could throw in a few primes within the zoom lenses, like a 35 1.4L and a 135 2L, so with enough of an aperture difference for them to be really useful. The trap is to buy lenses that are too close in function to one another, and you never use the one that is just slightly disadvantaged. The 28 2.8 for the 10D almost never gets used now that I have the 17-40.
If I had a 20D and didn't plan to upgrade, the two EF-S lenses would be interesting to explore. Otherwise, I think a lot of people would agree with me that 17-40, 50, 70-200 and some macro lens is always going to be a reasonable setup for these cameras, and you won't regret any of the purchases despite spending a little more.
Message edited by author 2004-10-23 23:31:04.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2004 12:45:37 AM · #7 |
what is a good macro lens for a canon body? What does 1:1 ratio mean when buying lens? Could the 70-200 L IS be used for macro shots? I am trying to find a good all around lens :) Thanks for all the responses :)
Message edited by author 2004-10-24 00:46:34. |
|
|
|
10/24/2004 01:07:25 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by RandomAct:
what is a good macro lens for a canon body? What does 1:1 ratio mean when buying lens? Could the 70-200 L IS be used for macro shots? I am trying to find a good all around lens :) Thanks for all the responses :) |
Sigma 105mm Macro Lens
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 10:44:32 PM EDT.
