New 20D needs lenses

Thanks to all for a lively reply. I have some good direction to follow-up
with.


"Dale" wrote in message
...
Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is what
lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and this
years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so enjoy
Yosemite type scenery.

Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.

"MarkH" wrote in message
...

I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the

See? What did I tell you?
Always a deciple of EOS prepared to sacrifice their credibility and jump to
Canon's defence.
I never even mentioned that lens but he sure as hell knew which one I
included in my assessment!

Good onya,
Mark

"Musty" wrote in message
...

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:UFEzd.4415$yW5.499@fed1read02...
Thanks!
I figured him for a basher, but wanted to set the record straight for the
OP.

I am fairly new to the DSLR and DigiCam newsgroups, but I am appalled at
the
amount of bashers especially in regard to the 20D. The funny thing is that
when you hear from actual owners, they are very happy. Having said that,
there are also some very knowledgable posters, so overall it is a positive
experience.

BTW, that was a Maserati, right?



Yep, the trident is a dead giveaway. A6GC, I believe.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Ryadia" wrote in message
...

"MarkH" wrote in message
...

I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the

See? What did I tell you?
Always a deciple of EOS prepared to sacrifice their credibility and jump
to
Canon's defence.
I never even mentioned that lens but he sure as hell knew which one I
included in my assessment!

Good onya,
Mark



Doug, you said "stay away from an IS lens," which would imply any IS lens,
since you didn't mention a particular one. The 28-135 that I have focuses
fast, as fast as the 18-55 kit lens or the 100-300 that my wife has. Yes,
the 75-300 is slow, and so is the 100-400 IS, if you don't use the focus
limiter, but the latter is moving a lot of mass, internally.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Ryadia" wrote in
:


"MarkH" wrote in message
...

I am sorry but you don't know what you are talking about! I use the

See? What did I tell you?
Always a deciple of EOS prepared to sacrifice their credibility and
jump to Canon's defence.

I was not jumping to Canon's defence, I was defending a lens that I like
and use that definitely does not behave in the way you suggested. Just
because you bought a lens with some weird slow focus problem does not mean
that everyone should avoid that lens.

I never even mentioned that lens but he sure as hell knew which one I
included in my assessment!

You never mentioned that lens? You replied to someone mentioning that lens
to say that people should avoid Canon's sub-$1000 lenses. If you were not
referring to that lens then why did you throw your opinion in reply to
someone recommending the 28-135 IS?

I find it interesting that you only quoted my tongue in cheek statement
(you said that when criticizing Canon people would reply saying you don't
know what you are talking about, so I opened with that statement), but you
snipped out the part of my post where I gave my opinion based on my real-
world experience with this particular lens.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

In article , Ryadia
wrote:

See? What did I tell you?
Always a deciple of EOS prepared to sacrifice their credibility and jump to
Canon's defence.
I never even mentioned that lens but he sure as hell knew which one I
included in my assessment!

Shut up and go play with your Sigmas.

At least I own the 17-85mm lens and think it is excellent. both the 17-85
and the 17-40 suffer from CA wide open at 17mm but the 17-85mm is sharp,
focuses fast, even in dim light, and the IS works brilliantly. What I also
like is that it is a great walkaround lens -- nice and compact.

Larry


"Chuck" wrote in message
...

Have you considered the EF-S IS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 ?

anothier piece of crap... avoid that lens at all cost !

Get the 17-40 L or the 24-70 L instead of the toy above

Before you go Sigma
http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm





"Ryadia" wrote in message
...

"Bill P" wrote in message
...
Dale wrote:
Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is
what
lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and
this
years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so
enjoy
Yosemite type scenery.

Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.

An interesting observation I'll share with you is the way this group is
fanatically Canon biased. Canon make some pretty awful lenses. They make a
lot of pretty good ones too but when someone tells you about one of the
awful lenses, everyone seems to give out a flood of "you don't know what
you
are talking about" disciple jargon.

Sigma make a lot of bloody awful lenses but they make some pretty good
ones
too. Whenever someone recommends one of the better Sigma lenses which
incidentally are as good optically as the corresponding Canon lens, the
disciples start with their flood of "you don't know what you are talking
about" posts.

So let me give you some 'good' advise. Unless you intend to spend big
bucks,
stay away from an "IS" lens. The cheaper ones from Canon are so slow that
to
focus on a scratching dog, he will have time to get up and leave the room
before the lenses can go from 300 mm infinity to their close range!

If price is a prime consideration you will go a long way before faulting
the
Sigma EX, DG range of lenses with Canon mounts. One in particular that
stands out is the 24~70 f2.8 DG, DF lens. This is 1/3 rd the price of the
Canon version and apart from a slower focus motor and the occasional
inability to grab focus on low contrast, low light subjects, is optically
close to equal to the Canon lens.

The Canon 17~55 plastic lens which comes with the 20D kit is a pretty good
all-round lens for most people. It is sharp and relatively free of flair.
At
the price it is a rare bargain. Pity it only fits a D300 or D20 but I
guess
that's the price of digital only lenses. This would suit your scenery
photography in all but the most demanding situations. Use it between 20mm
and 45mm and never stop down past f11 for the best results.

If you need reach (and you will for football games) you really have no
alternative but to spend money. The 100~300 f4 Sigma is no match for
Canon's
lens. Pity about the cost but sometimes you have to cough up or go
without.
Stay right away from monster range zoom lenses. Lenses like 28~300 are no
value at all when at some point of their range they are poor... That'll be
the range you need!

Good luck,
Doug

"Ryadia" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Bill P" wrote in message
...
Dale wrote:
Santa was very good and brought a 20D. Now the next challenge is
what
lenses to buy? My subjects will be the family holiday pictures and
this
years Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game (50 yard line seats!). I am so
enjoy
Yosemite type scenery.

Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.

An interesting observation I'll share with you is the way this group is
fanatically Canon biased. Canon make some pretty awful lenses. They make a
lot of pretty good ones too but when someone tells you about one of the
awful lenses, everyone seems to give out a flood of "you don't know what
you
are talking about" disciple jargon.

Sigma make a lot of bloody awful lenses but they make some pretty good
ones
too. Whenever someone recommends one of the better Sigma lenses which
incidentally are as good optically as the corresponding Canon lens, the
disciples start with their flood of "you don't know what you are talking
about" posts.

In french we say "Chat échaudé craint l'eau froide" loosely translated to
"scalded cat fears cold water" Many of us have tried Sigma lenses and from
most of the post I have read, many were dissapointed with their purchase, I
was too and would not buy another one, ever! Even after reading glowing
reviews from any site on the web, I would not take the time and the
aggravation to buy, try and possibly having to return one again. I never
had this problem with a Canon lens as of yet and with 6 different ones I did
not have a bad lens so MY confidence in Canon products is still very high.

So let me give you some 'good' advise. Unless you intend to spend big
bucks,
stay away from an "IS" lens. The cheaper ones from Canon are so slow that
to
focus on a scratching dog, he will have time to get up and leave the room
before the lenses can go from 300 mm infinity to their close range!

IS lenses, especially longer focal lenghts are the way to go, plain and
simple it works! As for focussing speed, the 75-300 (IS or not) is indeed
slow but that is not due to the IS but to a slow focussing motor. My 70-300
DO IS focusses very fast and the second generation IS is even better than my
old 75-300 IS.

If price is a prime consideration you will go a long way before faulting
the
Sigma EX, DG range of lenses with Canon mounts. One in particular that
stands out is the 24~70 f2.8 DG, DF lens. This is 1/3 rd the price of the
Canon version and apart from a slower focus motor and the occasional
inability to grab focus on low contrast, low light subjects, is optically
close to equal to the Canon lens.

Slow focussing is very very annoying, noisy focussing motors are very very
annoying, try 'em before you buy 'em!

The Canon 17~55 plastic lens which comes with the 20D kit is a pretty good
all-round lens for most people. It is sharp and relatively free of flair.
At
the price it is a rare bargain. Pity it only fits a D300 or D20 but I
guess
that's the price of digital only lenses. This would suit your scenery
photography in all but the most demanding situations. Use it between 20mm
and 45mm and never stop down past f11 for the best results.

If you need reach (and you will for football games) you really have no
alternative but to spend money. The 100~300 f4 Sigma is no match for
Canon's
lens. Pity about the cost but sometimes you have to cough up or go
without.
Stay right away from monster range zoom lenses. Lenses like 28~300 are no
value at all when at some point of their range they are poor... That'll be
the range you need!

A 70-200 f4 is a good buy, I have the f2,8 variant but it is too heavy to
carry around all the time, for increased range, a 1.4X teleconverter with
the 70-200 f4 would be OK to carry around.

Jean

"Steve" wrote in message
news:6aZzd.268721$V41.39599@attbi_s52...
Before you go Sigma
http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm


The only problem with ad-hoc tests like this is that there is no mention of
a mechanical check of the lenses before photographs. It is quite possible
that the Sigma lens has a back focus issue and the Tokina in the test does
not. My own personal tests proved exactly the opposite to the results in
this test. Otherwise I would be using Tokina instead of Sigma. The
difference is I had the 20D camera calibrated for back focus when I bought
it.

I had the Sigma lens calibrated to suit the camera when I bought it. The
Tokina? I just opend the box and shot 20 frames. All of them out of focus.
Same deal with a Canon 50mm f1.8. Just put 'em back on the shelf and don't
buy. The interesting part of this is that the camera was forward focusing
with a 50mm f1.4 lens and that is the one it was calibrated for so the
camera, was correctly focusing before I put any other lenses on it.

Maybe ever 4th or 5th Sigam 'EX' series lens will not focus as well as a USM
Canon lens out of the box but for a small fee $75 or so, you can have the
lens calibrated to match the camera and get the same or better focus results
as with a Canon lens. Do the math and you'll see that (aussie dollars)
$942.08 plus $75 for calibration is a long way short of $2497.35 for a
Canon lens.

Tokina's will benefit from the same calibration too. In fact every camera
and lens (USM and L series included) should be calibrated after purchase or
you may be asking yourself for a long, long time, why your photos are not as
sharp as other people's.

Doug