System Based Around Canon EOS 20D Body Kit

[sentinel_au]

Canon EOS 20D Body Kit
-
with the following glass:
-
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

To give you a bit of background:
I will be using this for shooting Real Estate properties as my father owns a company that sells real estate so I will be helping him with Marketing etc to get some experience in photography. I also will be using this for portrait shots / action shots of people playing games etc in a Youth Group that I run. I will also be using it for sport action shots, waterskiing, snowboarding, etc. And then also some artsi stuff, hence the macro lens.

Any thoughts, or preferred options that I should choose over these, obviously noting the costs of these lenses etc, because I have chosen according to budget (if I had the money I would get the best of everything obviously).

Thanks in advance.

[timmciglobal]

Ditch the 17>85 IS lens, I've heard nothing good about it.

Get a 17>40 L for your close up stuff. It's got amazing optics.

As far as a zoom lens, figure out what your shooting, the 70>300 IS USM is a fantastic deal for a long range zoom lens depending what you're going to do with it.

Buy a 50 MM F 1.8 it's too cheap not to own one.


Tim

[ktixx]

Ditch the 17>85 IS lens, I've heard nothing good about it.

Get a 17>40 L for your close up stuff. It's got amazing optics.

As far as a zoom lens, figure out what your shooting, the 70>300 IS USM is a fantastic deal for a long range zoom lens depending what you're going to do with it.

Buy a 50 MM F 1.8 it's too cheap not to own one.


Tim

While I definitely agree with the above (the lens solution and ditching the kit lens), another option would be to purchase the Sigma 18-125 DC Lens and the Canon 75-300 USM IS lens. This will be a complete solution that will cover almost all situations. With this soluction you are covered from 28-480mm. I also agree purchase the 50mm prime. While the 17-40 USM IS canon is probably a better lens than the sigma, you may also want to consider this alternative. Also, if you haven't purchased your 20D check out www.digital1234.com I bought mine from there, cheap and honest (NO sales calls and quick product shipment)
Good luck
Ken

[ReF]

in the end, having used the 17-85 for two weeks, i settled with the canon 17-40L and the 28-135 IS (yes, i like and use IS that much). the 17-40L is very resistant to flare and is cheaper than the 17-85 IS after rebates if you buy it with the Rebel. it covers 70% of my landscape shooting range plus i look forward to better contrast and sharpness. the 28-135 IS covers my telephoto end since the 70-200 f4 L doesn't have IS and i don't need anything more than 200mm after the crop factor anyways. it also covers a nice range for "walking around," but i know this lens doesn't suit everyone's style.

the 17-85mm isn't all bad like everyone has said (some haven't even tried it). i really think that the major weakness of the 17-85mm lens is it's price; it should cost less, between $400-$500. i did a quite a few test shots against the 50mm f1.8 prime and though the prime beat it in all catagories, it came pretty close. i tried to post some 100% crops of the comparison shots but nobody responded as to how to post at 100% - so now i say forget it, it's definately not my loss. i believe there to be quite a bit of sample variation among this lens, in other words there are quite a few bad ones out there, maybe from earlier shipments when canon was trying to keep up with demand. the samples at the retailers are most likely the earliest samples around. i certainly did not encounter CA, even when i tried blowing out the highlights against a pale sky. i also believe it's performance is may be quite lacking for certain purposes, like those which would require a larger aperture. i shoot landscapes and related subjects (like slow moving bulls) so i almost always stay between f 8-16, where the lens performs well. there is also much to be said about the excellent range, not having to switch lenses (slow + dust) and the IS functions, which can save you from having to increase the ISO (a real plus, IMO). My two real complaints about this lens are: PRICE and flare (i shoot a lot of sunsets). it's not L glass so I think people should stop expecting it to perform like one. still if i could only buy one lens, it would be the 17-85 IS. it should compare well with other lenses in it's catagory. it's also great on those occasions when you really only want to bring one lens with you, and it sound like it would be ideal for shooting the in's and out's for real estate as well. i really think reviews/user opinions will get more positive when it's price goes down.

getting to other parts of your question, a fast focusing large aperture telephoto lens, whether zoom or prime would probably be better suited for action than IS. many have said that the 75-300 IS can be slow focusing but at great price. there are also macro-telephoto lenses by sigma and tamron that are supposed to be pretty darn good, and at a lower cost. you can read a lot of user reviews at fredmiranda.com and you can find a semi-out of date lens testing site at photodo.com

[timmciglobal]

Let me agree with above poster in that if the 17>85 IS was oh, 400 instead of 580 I would think "not bad". The lens however being EF-S (which should in theory make it cheaper to produce) plus being pretty darn poor wide open makes me dislike it. It's too slow to shoot at F/8 unless you're doing still life which defeats the point to having IS because you can tripod.

I personally think it would of been smarter for them to make a 24>135 V 2.0 and upgrade the IS function to the 3 stop rather then produce the EF-S version. I think the 17>85 was made purly to get the prosummer market who knows what Is is but wants the "one lens solution."

The 18>125 I've heard good things about though I BELIVE it still has crop factor . Just like the 17>85 isn't 17 MM wide, its actually 27.2 on the rebel/20d the 18 should be same thing. The only reason it's "Digital" is it ONLY works on APS-C sensors because the glass itself isn't wide enough to support 35mm, hence its cheaper to produce.

I might be wrong, I really don't know but I don't belive it's a true 18 or everyone under the sun would buy one to have a true 18 on a rebel/20d.

Tim

[jamison55]

For about the same money as the lenses you chose, check out these:

Sigma 18mm - 50mm f/2.8 (https://www.adorama.com/SG1850EOS.html)

Sigma 70mm - 200mm f2.8 (https://www.adorama.com/SG70200HEOS.html)

Both are a little faster, and the 70-200 is very favorably compared with the Canon 70-200 f2.8L.

On the other hand, given your real estate work, I might choose this kit:

Sigma 14 f2.8

Sigma 28-75 f2.8

Sigma 70-200 f2.8

The extra wide angle will come in handy for big yards and interiors, and the fast apertures will help with those indoor shots with no flash. Check out lens ratings at: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

[ReF]

in addition to the kit listed above, you might also consider a zoom on the wide end. i'm not sure if you guys need large prints for your real estate stuff but a wide zoom will really help you frame your shots better which leads to less cropping, which = bigger maximum print sizes. being someone who uses the wide end quite a bit, it'll be very convenient because on the wide end, 2mm = a pretty big differece. the sigma 18-125 is a good, super-low priced choice for this purpose. i haven't tried it since i already have this range covered, but i've also heard good things about it, especially with performance-to-cost ratio.
while 18mm outdoors is REALLY wide, indoors it just isn't quite wide enough. i've got a 17mm here with me and i'll tell you that it just doesn't seem quite wide enough for interiors. i'll second jamison's recommendation for the sigma 14mm as it is quite a good performer on non-full frame D-slrs. the outer 1/3rds of the lens is distorted and soft but on a 20D sized sensor that outer 1/3 isn't even in the shot!