Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 29, 2005, 5:46 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Default

The 20D can be bought with a Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens as a package. It seems okay based on the specs. But I feel the maximum aperture at f/4 is limiting.While I certainly like the image stabilization feature in theory, surely this can be compensated with a faster shutter speed coupled with a larger aperture, or higher ISO settings?

A Sigma lens 18-200mm f/3.5 can bebought for $100 less than the Canon lens. I guess my questions are: Did anyone bought the 20D with the kit lens? How do you like it? Am I better off getting the kit lens or just buy the body and get a third party lens like the Sigma 18-200 mentioned above?
ianlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 29, 2005, 10:08 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Lanlin,

Thats a tough question, generally.

Here's a little food for thought:

- A kit lens is okay until you can figure out what you really need.The kit lensusually works out to about a $100 additional cost over the price of a body alone.

- The Canon 17-85 is a nice lens, but your absolutely correct that F4 is somewhat slow.

- Low light can be compensated many ways, but if you've already cranked your ISO to the max, opened the shutter to the max, and still have to use 1/30th or 1/15th of a second shutter speed handheld, then the IS will help you to get a usable shot.

- Lenses that try to handle a really wide zoom range usually perform the task at a compromise in image quality. An 18-200 is certainly handy, but don't expect it to get as sharp a shot as a more purpose built, limited range zoom.

- I personally really try to avoid lenses slower than F2.8.

-- Terry






terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2005, 12:51 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Default

Terry:

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply. One of the factors I am considering is cost. Buying the kit lens adds a whopping $600+ versus buying the body alone. I also think the 17-85mm is nice lens, despite the aperture limitation. I am uncertain that it is worth $600+, even with IS and ring type USM. The Sigma 18-200mm can be had for $350-400.

I wish I can get a chance to test them myself. My local Ritz Camera does not carry either one. What reviews I can find on the net tend to mixed for both lenses.
ianlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2005, 1:55 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Default

One additional note. Canon says the EF-S 17-85mm is equivalent to 28-135mm. I am not sure what that means. Canonsells an EF 28-135mm IS USM lens for less $ and is currently offering double rebate if purchased with 20D.

Are EF and EF-S lenese interchangable? If so, will an EF 28-135mm work just as well as an EF-S 17-85mm with a 20D?
ianlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2005, 2:17 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

When using an EF lens on a 20D you need to multiply the focal length of the lens by 1.6 to give the equivalent Effective Focal Length.

So that 28-135 lens has an EFL of 45-216mm.

The 17-85 has an EFL of 28-135mm.

Different ranges.

The 17-85 compared to the 18-200? Well at the wide end they appear to be quite similar, at the 85mm end the Canon is very good, probably a lot better than the Sigma.

You have to decide whether the extra focal length balances out the IS and USM. Everything is a compromise. I personally will never buy another lens that doesn't have a fast focus motor -> USM (Canon) or HSM (Sigma). That is because of my shooting style and personal preference. Slow focus motors drive me nuts. I also think every lens should have IS - actually Canon should put IS into the camera body!

I can highly recommend the 17-85 + 20D combination - to my mind it's certainly the best walkaround lens for the 20D/XT.

Is it worth the extra money? Well that unfortunately is an impossible question to answer. It's just not how supply and demand work. A lens has no intrinsic monetary worth, it's worth what people are willing to pay for it, and the combination of features that it has mean that yes, in the marketplace it's worth that much to a great many people. How much is the extra $ worth to you? What would you do with that money otherwise? Will you be taking a lot of pictures @ 200mm? Do you mind carrying a tripod? Too many variables to say.

I'm sure Terry will recommend a nice Tamron to consider too. :blah:

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2005, 9:45 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Default

Thank you, peripatetic, for your reply. I don't think I will be taking too many pics at 200mm. I would certainly prefer not to carry a tripod. I guess the 17-85mm IS USM does seem more appealing now, (except the $600 price tag).

What do think of the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM lens? It's fixed focal length. But the 1.6 conversion factor would make it a 45mm lens. It would make an exceptionally fast normalprime lensat f/1.8.
ianlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 1:24 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
JohnReid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 734
Default

Hi Ianlin, I have the 20D with the 17-85 and its a great lens, however, if I had to choose again, I might have been tempted to give the Sigma(24-60mm 2.8) a really good look. I have another Sigma lens which I am very happy with.

From what I have read, Sigma reverse engineer Canon lenses, to create something very similar. In some cases the Sigma lens has an even higher rating than the Canon equivalent. The problem is that Canon could change their mounts, as they have been known to do, making Sigma lenses incompatible.

But that has never stopped me getting a Sigma:|
JohnReid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 4:18 AM   #8
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

ianlin wrote:

Quote:
What do think of the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM lens? It's fixed focal length. But the 1.6 conversion factor would make it a 45mm lens. It would make an exceptionally fast normal prime lens at f/1.8.
Love it for exactly that purpose.

See my reply to Dustin's "Primes" thread - about 5 below this one...



peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 5:59 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

ianlin wrote:
Quote:
What do think of the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM lens? It's fixed focal length. But the 1.6 conversion factor would make it a 45mm lens. It would make an exceptionally fast normalprime lensat f/1.8.

that's why i am getting that lens next... picked up the 50 1.4 today for a nice used price!
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2005, 7:39 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Default

Hards80, the lowest price I can find for the Canon 28 f/1.8 is at Abes of Maine. Where do you plan to make your purchase?
ianlin is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:46 PM.