I have a quick question that I needed some help. I have a Cannon 20D and I'm very happy with it. I currently have two lens I had from my ElanII, a EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 V USM, and a EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III. I'm looking for another lens. It feels like I'm not getting enough crisp on my photos using the current lens. I used a friend’s newer lens and noticed a big difference. I'm really on a budget, wanted to get an opinion on what should I get. Should I go with the EF-S series designed for the 20D or go with something else? I have done some reading, but figured there is nothing like hearing from people’s experience.
My budget at the moment is about $800.00. I do like to shoot everything :-). For now I would like wide angle and macro. As far as Telephoto and sports, may need a different lens for that later on. Especially considering the budget.
For wider you could get the 10-22 EF-S which is getting good reviews as well. I know the 17-40 is within your budget. The 10-22 might be slightly over.
If that's your budget and your needs, I'd say the Canon 17-85 IS is the lens for you. Throw in a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for low light and portraits and a Kenko extension tube for macro, and you're still well under budget.
I agree with scalvert's recommendation, the 17-85 should be a big step up from your current wider lens, both in image quality and zoom range. It's still slow @ f/4-5.6, but for static subjects, IS will compensate somewhat (not for subject motion).
The 50/1.8 is a must-have fast lens for the budget-conscious buyer. An alternative that provides closer to a "normal lens" perspective on 1.6-crop cameras is the Canon 35mm f/2 @ about $229. It's better built than the 50/1.8 and optically it's about as good.
The 17-85 is nice, but i don't see much value in IS at less than 50mm. And at $600 it is not an inexpensive lens, but still not a 'fast' lens.
I went with a Tamron 24-135 SP. Still not 'fast, but at $400 it is 2/3 the price and covers a lot larger range so it makes for a great walkaround lens, and it has macro. It is brutally sharp - you can cut yourself on the images LOL. 24 is wide enough 90% of the time. 18 is still better, but perhaps youwill get a 10-22 or 12-24 lens in the future?
if you want a more limited range but still wide lens that is fast have a look at Sigma's 18-50 2.8 EX DC for $500. No macro though...Samples
There is a big difference between 18 and 28. 24 splits the diff an dworks outdoors very well. Indoors 18 is still better at times. remember, at 18 you can haldhold 1/15 to 1/30 without much difficulty so that is ay i feel IS is just more cost/weight/complexity than you need at that focal length. Some sigma shots of mine
If you like wide and macro and your budget is about $800, then I'd recommend considering the following
Wide:
Canon EF-S 10-22 $700
Sigma 10-20 $470ish
Tokina 12-24 $500
For macro I's strongly reccomend the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro for $450 at B&H. Sharp, fast focus, Great lens!
That leaves you with about $350 for a wide angle, which won't get you much though. For wide, the 17-40L is great, and I hear a lot about the 10-22mm EF-S.
