|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Jan 3, 2005, 8:36 PM
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 164
|
I am about to buy a 20D ,and i don't know what i should do for lens?
I am coming from a Sony dsc-f828 it had a good 7x zoom. So i don't know if i should get a 15- 55mm, 75-300mm combo ,or a inbetweener like a 17-85mm w/stabilizer? im not sure what i need ,but i do know i want good quality! help |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2005, 11:07 PM
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
7x is a ratio so a 28-200mm would give you the same ratio... and so is an 18-125mm (which is effectively more like your F828 )
 FYI - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/143791 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2005, 5:27 PM
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
|
NHL is right, of course, regarding the "x factor" as it applied to your Sony. But for anyone to tell you what lens to get, we need to know what you plan to do with the camera primarily. Sports? Outdoor? Indoor? Portraits? Candids? Macro? Nature? Landscapes? Low light? Action? They would affect anyone's recommendation.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2005, 5:28 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
|
r00022 wrote:
Quote:
If by "good quality" you mean you want high quality lenses and do not need to worry about price, I think most people would recommend at least Canon 17-40 L Canon 50mm f/1.8 (orf/1.4) Canon 70-200mm f/4L (or f/2.8L or f/2.8L IS) |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2005, 8:54 AM
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
|
Strongly reccomend the Canon 28-135 IS for an "all-around" lens.
It will give good quality shots consistantly Not too large physically Not overly expensive Very good range of focal length Accurate and fairly fast AF Great as a "walk-around" lens. Pop on over to www.pbase.com/jpferguson and see a few dozen shots. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2005, 12:46 PM
|
#6 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
I'd like to also recommend the 28-135. When I got back into SLR photography (with a digital rebel last year) I bought this lense as my first walk around. Since then I have gotten the Canon 17-40 and Sigma 70-200 and both are great lenses - absolutely wonderful. But neither one was a good walk around for me - the 17-40 being too short and the 70-200 to large and not wide enough. The 28-135 is the perfect all around lense. It produces good, clear shots and at around $400 won't break the bank. Also working with that lense for several months allowed me to identify what I needed in my next lense. It's still the lense which is attached to my camera 75% of the time unless I'm working on a specific project that calls for one of my other lenses. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2005, 5:45 PM
|
#7 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 164
|
Really I shoot alittle of everything! I am cosidering either a:
EF-S 18-55mm and Canon 75 - 300mm or canon EFS 17-85& Canon 75 - 300mm or Sigma 70-300mm and Sigma 28-80mm and how is sigma compared to canon lens |
|
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2005, 11:29 AM
|
#8 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 20
|
This is a great thread as I was just about to ask this question myself!
Anyone else have any more recommendations? I will be shooting primarily fast moving subjects i.e dogs and kids. Thanks! Erin |
|
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2005, 3:50 PM
|
#9 |
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
|
consider this...
Canon 28-135 IS USM + Sigma 100-300 IF HSM constant F 4.0 or Sigma 80-400 Optical Stab will cost you a little more (1300 - 1500).. but will be worth it... Cheers |
|
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2005, 4:58 PM
|
#10 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
|
You might want to consider non-zoom (ie prime) lenses as well. The Canon 85mm 1.8 USM is an excellent lens, for example. In general, a prime lens will be sharper than a zoom at a given focal length.
|
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 AM.
