the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM I think is a good all around lens and I´d think that would be a better all around focal length than the 17-85mm
than you could always add some 300$ and get the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM?
kinda depends on what your "all around" focal lenght is?
Hi Håkon,
I guess your choice really depends on what you shoot most. The 17-85 is probably a good choice for a first lens, but bear in mind that it will not carry forward if later you upgrade to a camera with a larger sensor. It's also pretty slow at f/4-5.6, and you will want to supplement it with at least one faster lens. Remember to buy the lens hood, as it's not included :(
I'd recommend you look at the inexpensive (80 USD) 50/1.8. This lens will give you a reference point for the capability of the 20D in resolution and in low-light shooting. The two of these lenses come within your budget, and provide a good starting point.
If you can purcase easily from the US, the three sources I can fully recommend are:
I agree, the 28-135mm is a wonderful everyday lens, I use that lens about 90% of the time I take photos. Hell, I used it for my Holiday Decorations challenge and im sitting at 6.34 right now. And I was shooting at about 1/6 shutter speed. The IS is great, the optics are great, just a great lens for a great price. Then you can spend the other money on a 580EX flash
If you shoot more wide angles than telephoto I'd recommend the Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens. With the 1.6x crop factor of the 20D it becomes a 27-64mm (35mm equivalent)
If you shoot more wide angles than telephoto I'd recommend the Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens. With the 1.6x crop factor of the 20D it becomes a 27-64mm (35mm equivalent)
I would have to agree with Nick - I have been calling my 28-135mm my walkaround lens for ages, but I am rethinking that. I noticed that it is the 17-40mm that I nearly always want with me. 28mm with a 1.6 multiplier can be a lot, especially in a city environment.
The 28-135 is still my walkaround lens for my film camera though.
I have no experience with either 28-135 or 17-85 but for all around I would go for 17-85 if the sharpness and other quality factors are similar or better. 17mm is wide on 20D while 28mm is not.
Sounds like you are settled on the EF 28-135. You might consider //www.canogacamera.com also, they are an excellent photo supply store out of California. Be sure to check out any online store at //www.resellerratings.com as well. Good luck.
I use EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM most of the time. If you are only carrying one lens it's a good choice. I've had good experiences buying from B&H and Beach. Hope this helps.
I have the Sigma 24-135 2.8 4.5 and i love it. It is the lens that is always attached to my camera. It's a tad cheaper than the canon and i've heard that it's better but since i've never used the canon I really can;t tell you if its true or not.
It's worth looking at the Sigma 18-125, F3.5/5.6. More reach and a very sharp lens. Not USM (not quiet), but a very good lens. There's lots of reports from it on the web. Good colors and sharpness, not far from what I get on my 70-200F4L out of the box. Focuses close too (not quite macro).
The main subjective difference between them is that my L lens seems to me to have a "cakey" look (a bit more artistic). (See my Autumn impressions shot for an example of my L lens, but I don't use it as much anymore, unless I really need to get close. For the overlap focal length regions of my two lenses, the Sigma is usually on my camera and more convenient).
Taken with the Sigma, closeup, reduced and slight USM:
Sigma 51mm, F5, JPEG:
Sigma 125mm (the length it claims to be macro), F5.6 (wide open), 1/125:
Sigma at 125mm, F10, 1/125, RAW:
Sigma at 51mm, F9, 1/60, RAW:
Edit: corrected grammar, and forgot to mention the best part. This lens cost only $250 and includes a petal style lens hood.
I have the Canon 28-135 and love it. It spends more time on my camera than any other lens. I do sometimes wish I could pull back farther than 28mm, so you might consider the Sigma 18-135 if the reviews and the examples that Neil posted seem good enough for you, and you don't need IS.
You might also consider the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di for a good all-around lens (very highly rated on Fred Miranda), or possibly the Tamron 17-35 as a supplement if you decide to go with the Canon 28-135. Happy shopping!
Definately pick-up the 50mm/1.8 Canon Lense. I picked one up recently and have been extremely happy with the lower light capability of that lense. I have taken shots that simply weren't possible with the kit lense that came with my Digital Rebel(300D).
If you are looking to stay within a certain budget, here are a few other 'fast' lenses that could round out your equipment a bit. I am far from an expert, so I would read up a bit about these lenses before going out and buying them.
Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DF Lense
I own the 70-300mm Sigma Lense listed above and have taken a number of decent shots, several of which are located in my portfolio, the macro shots and a few of the longer range shots, if you go and check it out.
Before deciding on your all around lens, consider the TTL range of your flash. What has become my all-around lens is a Nikkor 24-85 f 2.8-4 mainly because it exactly marries to my SB600 speedlight. Meaning that as I adjust zoom the speedlight adjusts as well giving me just the light I need as I need it.
Not sure how Canon speedlights work, but would at least give this some thought before your final decision.
Which of these there lenses do you all think i should go for:
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Autofocus Lens
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Autofocus Lens
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
My big question is:
Is the quality on the 17-40 so much better compared to the 17-85,
17-85 is cheaper and got the hole zoom range as the 17-40. With 17-85 i
also get the IS.
Other lenses i already got:
Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro
Sigma 15mm F/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 18-55 (Kit lens)
The 17-85mm sort of "replaces" the 28-135mm for the digital cameras like 20D and 300D. These cameras have a 1.6x sensor size factor, and if you apply this to the 17-85mm range, you get exactly the 28-135mm range. This was done because of the fact that the 28-135mm range is so nice for a walk-around lens. So to get this same range as the "old" 28-135mm on the new cameras, use the "new" 17-85mm.
I have the 17-40L and the 28-135mm IS. If I had to choose now, I would probably go for the 17-85mm EF-S IS lens, and look at buying the 10-22mm later for your wide-angle.
The 10-22mm effectively becomes a 16-35mm lens because of the 1.6x sensor size factor. Guess what? This is very similar to the 17-40mm. :-)
With this buy you will probably not use the kit lens that much any more...
The 550EX and 580EX flashes also cover the full range of 17-85mm.
I'd go for the 17-40mm f/4L, best value for money and incredibly sharp lens. A bargain for an "L" quality lens. Also remember that if you upgrade your camera one day to a larger sensor you woun't be able to use the EF-S 17-85.
I'd go for the 17-40mm f/4L, best value for money and incredibly sharp lens. A bargain for an "L" quality lens. Also remember that if you upgrade your camera one day to a larger sensor you woun't be able to use the EF-S 17-85.
agree! that is if you are certain on this focal length!
The 17-40 lens seems nice. My biggest consern is the zoom range is to little to use for a allround lens. I will browse around and see some sample photos for both lenses.If any of you have som good sample sites please let me know :)
