an "all-purpose" lens for the 20D...

[majena]

hi everyone -

I'm looking to buy the 20D for my experienced-amateur photographer husband, and have heard that the kit lenses that are offered with it (either the 18-55 or 17-85 IS) are really not that good, and that one should buy the body only and get lenses elsewhere. As an admitted camera-buying-neophyte, I've got two questions for ya...

1. Is this true? And by "not good", what does that really mean? Poor construction or faulty optics or something else?

2. If I were to buy him a single starter lens (good for portraits, some landscapes, and mainly pics of our 2-year-old and friends), are there ones that you could recommend that would be good? (this may be too broad/big of a question - feel free to tell me it's already been answered if i just poke around these boards a bit more!!)

thanks so much!
jena

[ktixx]

The 18-55 lens is considered the "cheap" lens... The "not good" means this lens is almost entirely made of plastic, has cheaper quality optics and is overall poorly constructed (all that negative does not mean it is an awful lens, there are quite a few people with nice imgaes from this lens). The 17-85 IS is an upgraded lens, with the addition of IS it will make a nice all purpose lens. I would not consider this a "cheap" lens and would say this is nice range for the shots you will be taking. When the kid grows up and starts playing sports, you will want to invest in a longer telephoto lens, but for now this lens should suite you well.
2 other lenses to consider are the sigma 18-200 or sigma 18-125, you should take a look at both those lenses.
Good Luck
Ken

[jnev]

just get the 17-85 with it. my friend has a 20D with the 17-85 lens, sure it's not as good as a combination of the 17-40L and 24-70L, but it's pretty close for 1/4 the price. the range is very useful and the optics are pretty good actually, though obviously not at the level of L lenses.

[coldrain]

You could also opt for the Canon EF 28-105mm USM II lens, it is much cheaper than that 17-85 (under $250), and it has better optics... it is a steal for the money. Just get the 18-55 kit lens too to extend the wide angle range, it is only about 100$ so that is well worth it.

[majena]

thanks, everyone, this is great advice! I'll look into all of these options. Much appreciated!!

-- jena

[mhutchinson]

The kit lens will never be as good as the L-series that will cost you almost as much as the camera body (if not more). But if you look at the kit lens as a starting point that comes with the camera as you are upgrading your camera from a point and shoot. Then this lens is not too bad, it has a great range for family outings, birthday parties, and holidays...plus it is not horribly slow. And although it will never give the quality of a professional level lens...it is a lot better than anything on a point and shoot with a 2X, 3X, or 4X zoom.

I am glad I got my 20D with the kit lens as it is a really good starter lens and will easily get make in to the SLR world. Mine only added about $60 to the cost at the time and does still get used...plus it does not add much weight to the camera. I do also like coldrain's suggested approach with the 28-105.

Mike

[cdifoto]

Neither of those kit lenses are horrible. They're just...limited. Best used somewhere in the middle rather than at their extremes, but can get you by just fine. I still have my 18-55mm kit lens and still use it on occasion, even though I have quite a few other better (and therefore much more expensive) lenses. The 18-55mm is the cheapest way to get really wide, and the 17-85 is the cheapest way to get really wide and decently long plus have IS (that I know of).

[danielg]

May I suggest the Sigma 18-200mm? It may not have IS but it has a fairly good optic system and a great focal range.