new Canon camera lens advice

[Robyn]

I've nearly made the decision to buy the 30D.
One Australian internet site is offering the body slightly cheaper than the 20D!! This site is offering a "package deal" with the 17-85 f4 5.6 IS USM lens. Is this a good lens to start out with or not? A friend of mine told me that although it's not a bad lens, it's not a particularly good one either. Comments??

[willpresley]

It will give you wider angle than some of the other lenses available. The IS part is good in that it helps with keeping your pictures sharper.

I don't mind the lens that came with my Rebel XT, but then I also bought the 28-135 mm IS USM lens.

[Carbone]

Robyn,

Check this website :

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

Ray

[w7vp]

Robyn
I suppose it depends partly on what you want to spend. I agree that a short focal length is needed. That is why I got the 18-55mm kit lens with the 20D. Remember that the lens factor is still 1.6 so that the 17-85 is a good choice. I chose the 24-105 lens which got great reviews and is also a 4.0 minimum lens but is more than twice as expensive. (Lowest price in US $ for the 17-85 about 460). With the lens factor you will be shooting about 28-135, which is a very good range.

Bill

[cpittmx]

I am looking into buying either a 20D or 30D very soon, and have also been trying to figure out what to go with in terms of lenses.

I am just a newbie, but here is what I am gathering what values you choose for the range of the lens largely depends on what you want to shoot. What makes the 17-85 lens an ok, but not great lens has nothing to do with 17-85mm part because this is just a matter of preference. It is not great because of the slow speed f4-5.6. If the lens were faster say the lens was 17-85 with a fixed f 2.8 that means the lens is faster (more light) so that you can use a faster shutter to capture moving objects without them blurring. The faster lens also would be an advantage in low light. Here is where you start getting major differences in money. This is why you see guys at sporting events with these huge zoom lenses that cost thousands of dollars and it still may only be a max 300 mm zoom. You can buy a sigma 70-300 zoom for under $200, but you are not going to get the same pics because of the speed.

My plan is to get the camera with the lens kit and then to buy this sigma lens.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-70-300mm-for-Canon-EOS-Digital-20D-300D-350D-NEW_W0QQitemZ7596485945QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQcmdZ ViewItem Then when I hit the lottery I will buy a fast lens!

Someone who knows more feel free to correct me or fill in the gaps. another thing to consider is that if you buy the EF-S lenses and decide to upgrade down the road to a camera with a larger sensor the lenses you have will not work they only work with the smaller sensors on the XT and 20D.

[w7vp]

Yes But. . .!
One thing to remember for what it is worth is that the IS lens will give you several stops of slower shutter speeds in hand held situations so that the fact that it is a f/4.0 lens is not as critical. Also the kit lens (18-55) is a f/3.5. That is why I chose the 24-105 IS lens even though it is f/4.0 rather than the venerable old 24-70 non-IS lens which is faster but not stabilized, particularly after I read the technical reviews:o .

Bill

[cpittmx]

interesting. I had not thought about the correlation between IS and shutter speeds. ok, so my vote for the sigma lens may be out the window.

[Robyn]

Robyn,

Check this website :

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

Ray

Now I'm totally confused. Please everybody bear in mind that all this is like a foreign language to me. You probably think I'm mad contemplating this sort of gear when I know nothing...........but I aim to learn.

So, bottom line is this lens good as a starter or should I consider 1 or 2 other lenses. A friend has offered to sell me a cheapie - his EF-S 18-55 f3.5 - 5.6 II USM (new - unused) for half price. Would this be an option - plus what other lens/es??

Also, I am interested in macro photography - do I need a specialist lens for this - or what??

I'm relying on your guidance - you can see I need help - and the guys in the camera shop sometimes realise that and zoom in on your ignorance, if you know what I mean!:D

[NMarti]

Robin
I just went through a search for a good macro lens and basically on the advice of forum members ended up with the 100mm 2.8 Canon lens. It is not IS but when doing macro you are not going to get a great shot without a tripod anyway (at least I'm not with my shaky hands) so the IS is probably not very important at that point anyway. I have the 50mm 1.8 Canon lens as well but I like being able to stay back from the image so as not to interfere or scare away whatever I'm trying to capture so the 100mm gives me that option. It is not a light-weight or cheap lens though - but the 50mm can be had for around $80 and takes great sharp shots.

[Carbone]

Robyn,

It all depends on how dedicated or involved you want to get into macro photography. I have a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX macro, it focusses at about 1/2 inch I think. Just checked, it's 0,62 inch. But it's not cheap (in US, probably around 350$, or more). I like it a lot for very little objects (beetle, small flowers, coins, etc.)

However, the IS will greatly help you by adding a few more stops (it usually brings about 2 more stops). A stop is a unit of exposure or aperture. Say your exposure is 1/125 at f/8, then two stop more is 1/125 at f/22 or 1/30 at f/8. Which means in low light, you'll be better. But it's not a miracle lens.

Ray

[Jeff2909]

Robyn I would get the kit lens. That lens is a very good all around lens, use it until you know what sort of photography you will be doing or interested in exploring further. I purchased my camera last year and I now have a 80 mm, 105mm,300mm,400mm, and a wide angle and I just purchased a 105mm macro. The 80 and 105 are for family shots the 300 and 400 for birds and deer and the macro for bugs and flowers. I have not spent alot for these lens except for the 400 and the macro, unless you talk to my wife:) . Just take your time see what you enjoy doing then get the lens. I am now a Jack of all trades and a master of none with a miffed wife. I hope this helps you it is very easy to get wraped up trying to do it all.

[w7vp]

Robyn
I agree that you should buy the 18-55 kit lens. I makes a great backup lens and the price is right. when I bought my 20D I bought it without the kit lens and sold my Rebel with the one that came with it. Then I bought the 24-105 IS lens for $1249. So I ended up going on e-bay and buying another kit lens.

Many lenses have the macro capability. My older 70-210 EF lens, for example has that capability. so does the 24-105 IS lens. But under ordinary circumstances you will want to get as low as the 18mm since with the 1.6 ens factor that ends up being effectively 28mm.

Does the original lens you were offered have macro capability? If it does it sounds like a good deal. If not ask your dealer for another recommendation.
Bill

[bwolford]

IS buys you stops assuming your subject is still. If your subject is moving, the F-stop is more important. Tripod mount a fast non-IS lens and take a picture of a moving object and hand hold a IS lens and take a picture of a moving object and the results will be very similar. Now, give me an IS lens at F2.0 or F2.8 and I have options. Unfortunately I can't take any more pictures because the lens cost me both arms and a leg, but if I could take pictures, I would have more options.

It's all about balancing budget with the conditions underwhich you take pictures. In a perfect world all of my lens would be F2.0 or below with IS.

Brice