All around zoom lens options for 20D?

[10kman]

So, as a proud owner of a 20D, and an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM from the same company, I'm wondering about my future purchases, which I'm sure I'll have.......

My budget can go to whatever, I'm willing to save and wait and skimp on groceries if necessary to get L series lenses. I'm more of a "just do it right the first time" guy.

That aside, I'm torn between trying to get a more "universal" lens, covering many needs in one, or getting 2 lenses, each being a bit better on the extremes of the range.

Specifics:

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM is the option for the more universal

or:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (or the IS one, I'm torn)

My thoughts:

The one lens has very good range, but could be a hair too slow for indoor action/low light action shots, which is what makes me think I should go for 2 lenses and have better results. My current lens is pushing the limits for inside shots, I wish it was a bit faster, but the lens is great regardless.

My one concern is just lugging around multiple lenses if I just want to do something simple, like maybe take pics indoors of family/friends/pets, etc. Having one that could give me reach, as well as speed, would be great, almost like a fail-safe.

I'm rambling, and thinking outloud, my apologies.

Any thoughts on the issue?

-10k

[another view]

Good glass is worth going a little hungry over! Not being a Canon guy, the only question I can really ask is probably the most important one: What do you plan on doing with the lenses?

From what I know, all of those lenses are supposed to be very good. Any choice will result in compromises, period. What you want to photograph will determine the equipment that will work best for you (I didn't say "need", there's usually more than one way to handle a situation!).

[10kman]

I agree, going hungry for a few weeks is worth it......

My needs range, which is why I left that part out... I can go from indoor friends/family shooting, maybe pets doing stupid things (when do they NOT do this), same things outdoors, or sports inside/outside. I'm also known to go on walks and just find "whatever", as we all do.

The sports thing is the bugger here, as it'll range from inside shooting, to outside shooting, or outside at night, etc. Mainly, track and field activities. Indoor track shooting is rough, the lights are NEVER near what you really *need*, and outdoor NIGHT track meets are tough as well. Outdoor day is usually fine, except shadows/hot sun, but I can get around that easily enough.

Pretty much *anything*.......

How's that?? haha.....

10k

[Lionheart]

So, as a proud owner of a 20D, and an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM from the same company, I'm wondering about my future purchases, which I'm sure I'll have.......

My budget can go to whatever, I'm willing to save and wait and skimp on groceries if necessary to get L series lenses. I'm more of a "just do it right the first time" guy.

That aside, I'm torn between trying to get a more "universal" lens, covering many needs in one, or getting 2 lenses, each being a bit better on the extremes of the range.

Specifics:

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM is the option for the more universal

or:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (or the IS one, I'm torn)

My thoughts:

The one lens has very good range, but could be a hair too slow for indoor action/low light action shots, which is what makes me think I should go for 2 lenses and have better results. My current lens is pushing the limits for inside shots, I wish it was a bit faster, but the lens is great regardless.

My one concern is just lugging around multiple lenses if I just want to do something simple, like maybe take pics indoors of family/friends/pets, etc. Having one that could give me reach, as well as speed, would be great, almost like a fail-safe.

I'm rambling, and thinking outloud, my apologies.

Any thoughts on the issue?

-10k

The 28-300 looks good on paper, but the images I've seen on Luminous Landscape are soft. Plus, it's HEAVY, and it's a push/pull design (ugh!).
On the other hand, carrying two lenses is just as cumbersome, but the image quality is better, and you get about 1 stop of extra speed.
just my 2 pennies.

[Liz]

I have the Rebel 300D (and love it). I sold the 28-135 IS after purchasing the Canon 17-40mm/f4L lens because the 17-40 stayed on my camera. I agree that the "L" lenses are worth skimping for. I also have the 50mm/f1.4 and the 85mm/f1.8 because I can't carry a heavy lens due to a back problem. I would assume that the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM is at least as good as the 17-40, and would do better in low light.

My suggestion would be to get the 24-70 first as it will serve your immediate needs, not to mention the fact that you will be blown away with the color, sharpness, etc. of the "L" lenses.

Then you can take your time to decide on the 2nd lens. The 24-70 is a great basic all around lens. Don't rush into trying to cover all angles right away. You won't be sorry.

Liz

[Mando327]

I also have the 20D, and i have those two lenses you mentioned (24-70 and 70-200 2.8, non IS). I really like the setup 'cause i get pretty much everything (in terms of focal range). I would recommend going with the non-IS version and NOT go hungry (or in debt...lol). You can't really use IS for sports anyways, because IS only helps to stop the movement of your hand, and your hand only, not the motion of the players/runners, which means that you STILL need a fast shutter speed. I really don't believe you will need IS, but you be the judge. I would recommend instead is getting an external flash (i have the 580EX). It makes a WORLD of difference, especially when you do bounced flash for family pictures. I really dislike direct flash, as it's very harsh and ugly, but bounced flash is a godsend, something you can't get with the built in flash. You can see my personal family album online. Most of the pictures are with bounced flash (but not all). The site is http://photos.yahoo.com/mando327 under Thanksgiving (other albums are film). I still have to edit and post the christmas pics. You can also mail me if you want, and i can send you one picture with direct flash and one with bounced. Email me if you have more questions. mando327@yahoo.com

Mando

P.S. Be wary as some 24-70mm are lemons. I"m going to go to my local camera store and compare with other 24-70's to see, as i think mine is (some cyan and red fringing, and possibly soft pictures).

[10kman]

After getting home last night and cycling for 2 hours, and thus thinking things through, then sleeping on it, I think I'm going to go with 2 different lenses.

My main reason for doing this is that the 28-300 has the same f-stop range as my current lens, which won't buy me anything more than having a longer range.

I'd rather have the speed, over the same range.

First choice will be the 24-70 2.8L lens to get me started, then I'll keep my eyes open for the 70-200 2.8L. Then, I should be content.

Next time I'm grocery shopping, I'll get the "Captain's Treasure" rather than Cap 'N Crunch....... Let the skimping begin!

10k

[paulnj]

Good choice!

BTW, as a union grocery clerk I can assure you that you will be making a wise decision on the cereal purchase too ;) AND Shop Rite is starting CAN CAN as we speak....... STOCK UP on Spam

[another view]

the images I've seen on Luminous Landscape are soft

IMHO, it's hard to tell a lens's sharpness by looking at small images on the web. Post processing can easily affect what you see (to the credit or discredit of the lens - to a point). Short of seeing an original slide (remember those? ) it's probably best to see a good sized print - or even better - try it out for yourself.

If you get to try it out yourself, then you know how the originals look in comparison to the lenses you're used to working with. OTOH, Michael Reichman seems to know what he's talking about so I'd trust his verdict on it! I've got one of his prints - the quality is what you'd expect.

[straightarm]

You don't seem to be going very wide at the wide end. A 24mm on a 20d is the equivalent of a 38mm on a full frame 35mm camera; that's not wide at all.

Depending on how much you're willing to spend you should consider:

Canon 17-40mm L f4
Canon 16-35mm L f2.8
Canon EF-S 10-22mm

Sigma 12-24mm
Sigma 15-30mm
Sigma 17-35mm

Tamron 17-35mm

[SmartWombat]

Depends what you're doing.
I went the 2.8 L route straight off.
24-70 for indoor/pit lane shots.
70-200 for track side.
Plus a 2x converter (because at 2.8 it can take it) to get a telephoto for longer trackside shots.

For the creative shots, I chose the 10-22 which gets you in close to the subject.
Rather too close as I discovered photographing a friend juggling fire clubs !!

I'll see how good the 70-200 or the 24-70 are for general work next weekend at the Autosport show.
At which time I might break down and buy another body and flash if the lens change time is a problem.

[Lionheart]

IMHO, it's hard to tell a lens's sharpness by looking at small images on the web. Post processing can easily affect what you see (to the credit or discredit of the lens - to a point). Short of seeing an original slide (remember those? ) it's probably best to see a good sized print - or even better - try it out for yourself.

If you get to try it out yourself, then you know how the originals look in comparison to the lenses you're used to working with. OTOH, Michael Reichman seems to know what he's talking about so I'd trust his verdict on it! I've got one of his prints - the quality is what you'd expect.

I'm sure it's a better lens than I think, but the review Reichman gave wasn't exactly glowing, and neither were the pictures he posted. The article I mentioned is actually Reichman's field test review of the lens. The Reichman's own conclusions are that performance of this lens is "quite decent" in his own words when stopped down, but just "modest" wide open. My own observations of the photos were that they were decidedly unspectacular and soft. Here's the link.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...n-28-300.shtml