Professional Web Applications Themes

Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D) - Photography

If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will be) your next lens purchase? Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach? Just picking the collective brain... Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ...

  1. #1

    Default Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    If you also started with the 20D and the 18-55mm kit lens, what was (or will
    be) your next lens purchase?

    Did you (will you) go for something wider or with more reach?

    Just picking the collective brain...

    Jay Beckman
    Chandler, AZ


    Jay Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)


    "Jay Beckman" <net> wrote in message
    news:NZCNd.26279$.. 


    First, I have a 300D but it came with the same kit lens. I found the 18-55
    a bit too short for my liking. Luckily for me, my wife shoots film and has
    a couple of lenses I use from time to time. One is a 28-90 and the other
    75-300. The 75-300 is way too long for an everyday lens. I found the 28-90
    much more to my liking but alas my wife uses it as her primary so I couldn't
    use it all the time.

    After doing some research and reading peoples post I settled on this lens:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=149629&is=GREY

    What you should buy all depends on what you want to shoot. I like to shoot
    buildings, some landscapes, and the also be able to get in close on objects
    or someone face. The 28-135 provides enough range for me to do exactly
    that. It's been on my 300D since I received it and suites me well. It has
    become my primary walk around lens.

    Here are some samples using the 28-135
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855150
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855144
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855143
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38855360
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856234
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856232
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856209
    http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/38856240
    along with this shot http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/39421357
    and this shot http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/image/39421360

    Keep in mind I'm just a rookie hobbyist. I'm sure there are more informed
    opinions already posted in this NG. Do as I did and search for post
    regarding lenses and read everyone's opinions. You can go to www.pbase.com
    and find pictures shot with specific lenses. Pay attention to the Focal
    Length in the EXIF data and see if those pics are like the ones you think
    you'll be taking. Noting the focal length should help you pin down the
    right range, then look for a lens with in that range and of course your
    price range.

    One other thing to note: My next lens will be much the longer 100-400 USM IS
    lens. I'm planning to shoot auto racing and crew events with this lens.
    I've thought about just a 400mm lens but I think I'd like the zoom
    flexibility.

    I'm sure before I take the plunge I'll be back here looking for other
    opinions. ;-)

    HTH

    --

    Rob


    Robert Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    >
    > First, I have a 300D but it came with the same kit lens. I found the
    > 18-55 a bit too short for my liking. Luckily for me, my wife shoots film
    > and has a couple of lenses I use from time to time. One is a 28-90 and
    > the other 75-300. The 75-300 is way too long for an everyday lens. I
    > found the 28-90 much more to my liking but alas my wife uses it as her
    > primary so I couldn't use it all the time.[/ref]

    Rob,

    Thanks for taking the time to reply both in word and exapmple images.

    Nice shots, btw.

    Jay


    Jay Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)


    "Jay Beckman" <net> wrote in message
    news:NZCNd.26279$.. 

    Depends if you have any preference on what you like to photograph ie
    landscapes, portraits, wildlife etc etc .

    Your 18-55 is a good compromise for general photography, at the wide end you
    may find something a little wider if you like that kind of landscape photo,
    and the top end it's reasonable for semi-tele or even portraits etc but the
    depth of field is a too large to isolate the background.

    I have the 20-35, hopefully to be replaced with a 17-40 for landscapes /
    panoramas, 85 f1.8 for general semi-tele (or portraits on the EOS3), 400
    f5.6 + 1.4x convertor for wildlife and fancy the 200 f2.8 to allow me have
    approx 300 with the 1.4x. Another good buy is also the 50mm f1.8.

    If you don't like carrying too many lenses how about the 28-135 IS ?.

    It's not an easy choice and depends a lot on personal preference.



    dylan Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    Jay Beckman wrote: 
    (or will 

    I just bought a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 because the kit lens is
    proving to be a bit short for a walkaround lens. Haven't received it
    yet but held a copy at a Photo equipment exhibition. Seems decent for
    its price. Maybe I will post some pics when I get mine.

    If I could afford any price, I would still not be sure of which
    walk-around lens to go for. The Canon 28-135mm USM IS is nice because
    of "IS" but then 28mm with a crop-factor of 1.6x might not be wide
    enough. The other faster "L" series like Canon 17-40mm or similar ones
    from Sigma/Tamron that are wide enough (17/18/19mm) but aren't long
    enough. The Canon 17-85mm has USM & IS and has a decent focal length
    range to qualify for a walk-around lens but the f/4-5.6 isn't so
    encouraging.

    So, to me, two compromises are the Canon 28-135mm and Sigma 18-125mm.
    The former being better in quality, has USM and IS and the latter is
    16mm wider than the Canon for 1.6x crop-factor dSLRs.

    - Siddhartha

    Siddhartha Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0700, Jay Beckman <net> wrote: 

    Neither -- faster. I like to shoot in low light, so I purchased the
    Canon 28mm 1.8. (I currently eschew zoom just as an exercise, and
    to be contrary.)

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    Everyone's lens need vary based on what type of photography they
    generally do. I think the 28-135mm IS lens is a great choice for
    general photography because on the 20D it is a 46 -216mm and covers
    most normal shooting except wide angle. The lens is excellent in terms
    of image quality and the IS lets you shoot a few stops less in low
    light and still get good results. That plus it's not as expensive as an
    L lens.

    Art Salmons
    Fleeting Images Photography

    Fyimo Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    "Jay Beckman" <net> wrote in message
    news:NZCNd.26279$.. 

    What my small section of the collected brain knows is:
    Your next lens purchase will not be your last; relax and enjoy the hunt.
    Your compromises will not match others'.
    If you don't mind swapping lenses for various requirements, single F/L
    lenses usually are faster and sharper for a given F/L.
    If covering an extensive range of F/Ls without swapping is more
    important to you, you will likely sacrifice image quality and "speed".
    If I could afford them (and was strong enough to carry them) I'd have
    one each of my favorite single F/L lenses with a camera attached. As it
    is, my bag is bordering on impossible (keep in mind, I'll always have
    the 20D and one lens in hand, so subtract one from this array):
    10-22, 18-55, 50 1.8, 24-70 L, 70-300. Aha! you say, why carry the
    18-55? Because it is so light and compact, and in ordinary cirstances
    makes people's faces look very nice, and in extraordinary situations
    (sand, salt spray, dust storms, _etc._) is a smaller potential loss.
    The order in which I would I sacrifice the lenses may give you another
    way to view your question (this is *hard*):
    Good-bye 18-55, then 50 1.8, I've got you covered, mostly;
    Adiós 70-300, I may have to move quite a bit, but one way or another I
    should be able to get closer;
    Do svedanya, 24-70—wait! Not really. Do I have to? No!
    If I get to keep two lenses (that's where we are now, right?) for my
    daily sustenance, there they are:
    10-22 and 24-70. If the 24-70 happens to be an 18-55 for the present, so
    be it.
    Certain weekends and challenges will be even more challenging without
    the long lens, maybe not even worthwhile (I like auto racing
    photography, but I'm learning that I do the close-in things better, even
    though I desperately _want_ to be good at the high-speed distant stuff).
    Plus which, I'm a bit of a cheater: I have Mr Nikon's CP8700 and
    teleconvertor (~420mm) in the bag, too.


    --
    Frank ess
    "There are some aspects of existence that simply do not yield to
    thinking, plain or fancy."


    Frank Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    "Jay Beckman" <net> wrote in message
    news:NZCNd.26279$.. 

    Thanks to all who took the time to reply.

    I decided to get the 10-22mm EF-S first as I expect to be in close working
    quarters more frequently than in places where I'll need a big reach.

    However, I think the next lens will be the other extreme with a 100-400 IS.

    Regards,

    Jay Beckman
    Chandler, AZ


    Jay Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    I really like the kit lens that comes with the Nikon D70 (18-70). It's wide
    enough so you can shoot anything that won't move back, or that you can't
    back away from, like interiors, homes, or groups. Really takes in a
    landscape, unless a telephoto would work better. The other end gives you a
    long enough lens to draw in your subject, and works well for portraits. The
    downside is the f stop is just a bit too small to get a really shallow depth
    of field, so you keep yearning for a 1.8 or 1.4.

    For my needs, going wider makes no sense, so I can turn to my trusty non
    automatic 80-200 zoom, and if I need a wide aperture I can use my 85 1.8. I
    also have a 55 micro that will really magnify an image. Using these non
    automatic lenses requires me to use a meter, but the "kit" zoom lens really
    covers a lot of territory, and it's fully automatic. If I was shooting
    sports or nature a lot, the kit lens would be too short for me.


    "Jay Beckman" <net> wrote in message
    news:NZCNd.26279$.. 


    Sheldon Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    go for the Sigma 18-125.


    Chuck Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    I love super wides, considering a sigma 12-24, and I have a full frame 35mm
    so I'd get the full 12mm....


    "Jay Beckman" <net> wrote in message
    news:NZCNd.26279$.. 
    will 


    zeitgeist Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    Jay Beckman wrote: 
    working 

    I hope you are aware that the 10-22 is an EF-S lens so will only work
    on 300D and 20D. Should you upgrade to a 35mm full-frame sensor based
    Canon dSLR in the future, your investment in the 10-22mm will go down
    the drain.

    - Siddhartha

    Siddhartha Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <net>
    wrote:
     

    I recently got a 20d with kit 18-55. My next lens was the canon 70-300
    EF IS DSM and then I got the EF-s 10-22 wide angle.

    I like the telephoto for its IS. Works pretty good - for on the fly.
    The wide angle is really nice for the landscapes and indoor
    shots..different.


    Fair gamut for a hobbyist.

    No real macro capability though. Macro lens might be a better choice
    depending on preference.

    cheers

    Ken
    Ken Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)



    Or probably any next Canon with a 1.6 sensor


    Chuck Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    Jay (my apologies - I missed your original post as I've only just discovered
    this newsgroup)

    First question would be - what sort of photography do you do?
    Next - what budget do you have?

    I have recently switched to a Canon 20D (having been a previous 10D owner -
    which I've kept as a spare body) so already had a set of lenses I acquired
    with the 10D. For what it's worth here are some real life comments...

    Currently the best lens for all round flexibility and quality would have to
    be the Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM (equivalent to 112-320mm with the 20D's
    1.6 multiplier). This is a truly superb lens & would be my first choice no
    matter what camera body. Having had the previous non-IS version the IS has
    been a revelation allowing one to capture shots previously impossible
    without resorting to a tripod - brilliant! The lens has hardly ever been off
    my camera body. I have used it in combination with both the 1.4x II & 2x II
    Extenders and have found the former utterly brilliant and the latter
    excellent.

    I also have the 24-70 2.8L USM (= 38-112mm) which is a beautiful - if
    heavy - piece of kit. If it was possible to get this same lens in an IS
    version it would really be the basic 'all purpose lens'.

    To get down to the old 35mm wide angle equivalents I found it necessary to
    go for the 17-40 4.0L USM (= 27-64mm) - I was sorely tempted by the 16-35
    2.8L USM (being an addict of extra light) but was somewhat underwhelmed by
    the reviews of the lens when fully open (which let's face it - if you're
    going for f2.8 you obviously want to be able to use it fully open!).

    These 3 lenses replaced my previous set-up of 28 (2.8), 35-105 (3.5-4.5),
    50 (1.8) & 80-200 (2.8L) lenses.

    I can safely say that the most worthwhile quality are the Canon L lenses -
    the quality difference is immense - especially when wide open - (& well
    worth the money if you can stretch to them). The second as mentioned
    previously, is the new second generation IS function (when available). I
    would not swap L quality for IS but would always go for it (if available in
    an L lens).


    "Ken Ellis" <rr.com> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > I recently got a 20d with kit 18-55. My next lens was the canon 70-300
    > EF IS DSM and then I got the EF-s 10-22 wide angle.
    >
    > I like the telephoto for its IS. Works pretty good - for on the fly.
    > The wide angle is really nice for the landscapes and indoor
    > shots..different.
    >
    >
    > Fair gamut for a hobbyist.
    >
    > No real macro capability though. Macro lens might be a better choice
    > depending on preference.
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > Ken[/ref]


    DM Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)

    Jay Beckman wrote: 
    (or will be) your next lens purchase?

    50/1.8
    200/2.8
    2x
    20/2.8

    bj286@scn.org Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Go Wider Or Longer? (Beyond the 18-55mm For 20D)


    <org> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 
    > (or will be) your next lens purchase?
    >
    > 50/1.8
    > 200/2.8
    > 2x
    > 20/2.8
    >[/ref]

    I bought in this order:

    EF 55-200mm (sold, not a great lens)
    EF-S 10-22mm
    EF 100mm 2.8 Macro
    EF 35 2.0 (use this a lot for mtn bike rides, but may switch it
    with the EF 50 1.8 because it's much lighter)
    EF 70-200L 4.0
    Tamron 24-135 (this is the lens that I leave on the camera, much nicer
    than the 18-55 kit lens which I still keep for hiking because the Tamron is
    big and heavy)

    GT
    --
    "destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
    the battles we fought were long and hard,
    just not to be consumed by rock n' roll" - the mekons






    G.T. Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Integrating PendingCall result with wider application
    By Codlington in forum Macromedia Flash Data Integration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 15th, 03:58 AM
  2. nikon 55mm f/1.2 over various 50mm f/1.4
    By Bruce Murphy in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 29th, 06:36 PM
  3. 55mm lenses for Fuji Finepix S304
    By Tim in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 28th, 03:31 PM
  4. Fuji S2 pro & 55mm Micro Nikkor?
    By Cliff Spicer in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 24th, 12:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139