Originally Posted by Kewl X5

Gresch,

Thanks for all your knowledge and advice on Canon EF Lens!

I'll definitely check out what Canon has and may break down and get two lenses instead. I'll also check out Sigma as well.

Thanks for the camera lens lesson. :thumbup:

Originally Posted by gresch

Tamron lenses are *generally* very soft at the extremes and slow focusing. I don't have first hand knowledge because I stick to Canon lenses, but i have a pretty good group of friends with DSLR's and no one uses Tamron, they go for Canon first and then Sigma.

For Japan, and considering the focal length you're trying to cover, you might want to consider 3 lenses, and i'm making some pretty broad assumptions here:
1) Canon 17-40L - great wide angle lens, photos are tack sharp, one of canon's best. This will cover your low end and is a great walking around lens.

2) Canon 24mm 2.8 for low light and low weight. this is about equivalent to a 50mm on a film camera. I have this lens and it's awesome, it's on my 10 and 20D 90% of the time when i'm just carrying the camera around. It's a fast focuser and never soft.

3) I would highly recommend that you not get a 300mm lens. Canon doesn't make a high end version that isn't heavy and bulky (the 100-400 is over $1000!) (the 100-300 is slow and more of a beginner film lens). To cover 300, you would have to look at a 100-400 and that sucker is big and not something you'ld want to carry around with you. So I would recommend getting the 70-200F4L, it's light, it's not expensive and it's tack sharp throughout almost the entire focal range. It's also F4 throughout the entire range, i.e., some lower end zoom lenses slow down to F5.6 at the long end, which unless you've got some good light, you're going to have to push the ISO to get the shutter speed up, and we all know how digital pics get noisy when you shoot high ISO's (Image stabilized lenses are the exception to the "push the iso" rule, see below)

so, all in all, if you don't want to drop the $$$ on 3, get the 24 and the 70-200 and you'll be covered from 24 to 200 and you can zoom a bit in PS to get the extra 100mm if you want. (shoot jpeg large to make sure you get enough pixels in the shot to allow for some good photoshopping). this setup will also be light and easy to carry and you'll get some nice sharp pics.

The only other lens i would recommend if you don't want to get 2 :), is the canon 28-135IS. It's a bit slow, but it has image stabilization built in which will let's you get some good still pics in low light with a slow shutter speed and you won't need to push the ISO and wind up with noisy pics. It's inexpensive and sharp and gives you some zoom too. It's the first lens i bought and i still use it on occasion when the 24mm isn't long enough and i need some low light zoom.

If you have any more questions let me know.

DISCLAIMER! - there are a lot of different lenses out there, this is just my opinion on a couple of setups that i like and work for me.

Originally Posted by rangerfan

:iagree: Great info, thanks.

That 24mm--am I able to zoon in at all with it? I'm a photo novice, and I don't want to deal with my brother in law, who is an ex-photojournalist. I have another friend who is a famous photojournalist, but she's a bit of a camera snob and isn't very helpful to a plebe like me. :thumbup:

Originally Posted by BlueX5guy

Great info gresch :thumbup: I agree with your observations.

I have the 70-200 f4L and it is great. You can use the 1.4X extender on this lens to get it up to a 280 reach with only one stop loss to 5.6 ($250.00 for the extender).

I am looking to replace the kit lens with either the 17-40L or the 24-70 f2.8L. Right now I am leaning toward the 24-70 as it gives me a fast lens and the range is where I am taking most of my photos. The 24-70 is a bit pricey at $1150.00 and a little on the heavy side but I have heard nothing but good things about this lens.

I have heard of a lot more focusing problems with non-canon lenses when using the 20D but dont have any such lenses so i cannot verify.

Dennis

Originally Posted by BlueX5guy

Great info gresch :thumbup: I agree with your observations.

I have the 70-200 f4L and it is great. You can use the 1.4X extender on this lens to get it up to a 280 reach with only one stop loss to 5.6 ($250.00 for the extender).

I am looking to replace the kit lens with either the 17-40L or the 24-70 f2.8L. Right now I am leaning toward the 24-70 as it gives me a fast lens and the range is where I am taking most of my photos. The 24-70 is a bit pricey at $1150.00 and a little on the heavy side but I have heard nothing but good things about this lens.

I have heard of a lot more focusing problems with non-canon lenses when using the 20D but dont have any such lenses so i cannot verify.

Dennis

Originally Posted by gresch

the only problems i have with the extender is that it only gives you another 80mm for $250 and i think i can use photoshop to get that extra zoom if needed, and it slows the focusing a bit on an already average focusing speed lens. But that's a personal choice...


I got VERY VERY lucky about a year ago and picked up the 70-200 2.8L IS from dell for $1100, they had it mispriced on their web site but honored it, albeit with much difficulty and a long wait, but I got it regardless. It's a great lens.