Canon EOS 20D

[Patrick Kerrin]

Another step forward on the DSLR front that will make many chasers drool. From the Digital Photography Review Website:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081909...anon_eos20d.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081909canon_eos20d.asp)

DR Review states: "Canon has today revealed the EOS 20D, the eight megapixel successor to the EOS 10D. The new sensor is however only half the story the EOS 20D has a slightly smaller and lighter body, a brand new 9-point AF system, near instant power on time, 5 frames per second continuous shooting, support for EF-S digital lenses, true RAW+JPEG, a B&W mode and USB 2.0. In total we've counted approximately 30 noteworthy improvements on the EOS 20D. Naturally we have a detailed eleven page hands-on preview of the EOS 20D and will have sample images available in a few days time. Price on the street around US$1,500."

Extensive preview at:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/

[Aaron Kennedy]

Yummy. Gotta scrounge up some funds for this camera. Dang house downpayment ;p

Aaron

[Jeff Snyder]

Also a nice, detailed review at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...20d-part1.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part1.shtml)

It looks like it provides rather significants improvements on the EOS-10D, at with the same or lower starting MSRP. Sample / Actual pictures taken with the 20D cannot be released until 8/23/04, I presume because of the non-disclosure agreement. Whatever the case, I'm hoping to have one by next chase season... Glad I waited a little on the EOS10D, since it sounds like it's a signficant advancement from the 10D (some have said it's closer to the EOS "1" line rather than the pre-existing 10D).

[fplowman]

i was thinking wow! now i can get a real nice price on a 10D. But now i start reading and the 20D is hard to not pass up..

[Aaron Kennedy]

Try here for a few sample images. Looks darn good to me. And why shouldn't they? Since the D30 Canon has pretty much been 1-up on everyone else in the industry for consumer DSLRs.

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos2...d_sample-e.html (http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos20d_sample-e.html)


Jeff: the time between now and when it comes out is a good period to brush up on your photoshop skills. You really need to be either fluent in photoshop, or be able to shell out the $$ for Capture 1 ( http://www.phaseone.com )raw converter to get the most out of these cameras.

Aaron

[Mike Peregrine]

If I have to save money for the next year, I want this camera. It looks absolutely amazing ... those samples are terrific.

[Jeff Wells]

Wow. I've used the Digital Rebel since it debuted last year. I will definitely sell it in favor of the Canon D20.

More previews:
Review list: http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.ph...id=3479_0_1_0_C (http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.php?id=3479_0_1_0_C)
Lots of comments: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/20D/
Official site: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/index.html

I'm also excited about the EF-S 17-85 f4/5.6 IS USM lens Canon announced. I considered buying the 28-135 EF version of this lens so this is a no-brainer. I don't expect the IS feature will be useful for weather photography because most of it is done from a tripod (except for those ill-advised 70 mph shots). But I'll have plenty of other opportunities to enjoy freedom that IS supposedly brings.

I plan on using the new camera with a Bogen / Manfrotto 3292 Car Window Pod with 390RC2 JR 3-Way Pan/Tilt Head with Quick Release next spring.

[Jeff Snyder]

I'm still not entirely convinced of the EF-S system that Canon is pushing... I mean, I don't know if I want to plunk down my dinero for a lens that won't fit other Canon models. It does appear that Canon is putting quite a bit of effort in making the EF-S lens system work, but since lenses can last a good 10-25 years, I'm not sure if the EF-S system will be around in 10-15 years. However, I'm pretty confident that the EF 'regular-mount' system, will stand the test of time since it's a more 'normal' lens system ... Of course we'll see if Canon goes EF-S with their next "1" series iteration..

[Glen Romine]

There is another new lens proposed beside the IS model, however, at 10-20 mm, which would give back the wide angle shot with DSLR, and then some. Street prices are expected to be around $700 - so you'll have to want it bad - and I totally agree - that is a lot of money for a short fix lens. One would tend to think the trend will be toward larger image sensors in time - but with these new lenses emerging - one can't be so sure that they aren't looking to just make sensors progressively finer grained and keep the smaller size to cut down on other problems. The introduction of the lenses I think suggests they will be keeping them viable for some time into the future - not like the patchwork 18-55 mm lens.

Glen

[Aaron Kennedy]

I'd rather buy the 17-40mm lens and then stitch the rare shot that needs something wider than 17mm.

Aaron

[Glen Romine]

I'd rather buy the 17-40mm lens and then stitch the rare shot that needs something wider than 17mm.

Aaron

Yeah, the projected cost is about the same for both, and then you get the 'L' glass with greater functionality.

Glen

[B Ozanne]

Looks like a great camera. Looks like it has some real improvements over the 10D, but for those of you with a 10D don't feel like you are being left in the dust.

The 10D still captures images with amazing quality. I have a 10D and the 20D doesn't offer enough of a change to justify buying a new camera. Especially considering what I use it for. My next camera investment won't by until full-frames got a lot cheaper

[fplowman]

Can anyone tell me.

Im confused. My background is videography.. Im somewhat new to photography.. Silly huh? anyways...

I invested in a small Sony W1 point and shoot.. It has a BIG LCD screen and other nice features. Thing is.. It just wont cut it for the caliber of photography Im looking for.

Im interested in the 20D and I am starting from scratch.. Can anyone tell me if starting new.. What lenses would you buy? I know you guys talk alot about the 17 -40mm... thats a wide angle? What others would i need?

What is the differences in the lenses you talk about EF glass or L glass? If starting new as an investment what would be the pros and cons? Can i get some educated input please?

Thanks in advance :)

[Jeff Snyder]

Fplowman,
When looking at the focal lengths for lenses, remember that the 20D has a 1.6x multiplier. This makes a 17-40 lens EFFECTIVELY (not physically of course) 17*1.6 - 40*1.6 or 27-64. This is very important to remember, especially as you get into the telephoto range.

Canon's "L" glass is their premiere line. Essentially, it uses the best glass, the best construction, the best everything. Of course, for all of this, you have to pay a relatively hefty price. However, for the best pictures possible, it's vital to have good glass. Their non-L lens line is essenttially the EF-series. Now, Canon does have an EF-S line of lenses, which are smaller and are designed to take advantage of the 1.6x multiplier.

For the money, the 20D is the best DSLR you can buy. Now, if you own Nikon lenses, which I don't think you do, I'd wait a while to see what they come out with. Nikon will undoubtedly come out with a new dSLR to compete with the 20D. However, currently, there is no better dSLR for the money.

[fplowman]

Thanks Jeff

Originally posted by Jeff Snyder
Fplowman,
When looking at the focal lengths for lenses, remember that the 20D has a 1.6x multiplier. This makes a 17-40 lens EFFECTIVELY (not physically of course) 17*1.6 - 40*1.6 or 27-64. This is very important to remember, especially as you get into the telephoto range.

Im stupid! lol Can you tell me what all them numbers was?? Seriously though are you saying that this 1.6x multiplier somehow digitally converts this EF-S lense into a wide and telephoto?? Dual purpose? Am I correct here?? Also I assume 17 - 40 lense is for wide angle use?? Right?

Im a layman.. Without irritating anyone can someone give me a short course here??


Fred

[Jeff Snyder]

Some folks more versed than myself in photography (e.g. Aaron Kennedy) can surely give better advice than I can, so hopefully you can get more advice...

The 1.6x multiplier doesn't actually change the focal length of the lens, as the camera doesn't have an affect on the physical properties of the drive. That said, it does effectively change it. Now, the effective 27-64 wouldn't really be a full wide angle to telephoto lens. It's more like a weak wide-angle to slightly telephoto, but not much. The 17-40L is one of the more popular lenses, so that alone tells you something about the construction, quality, and utility of the lens. I'm a couple of months away from getting the EOS-20D myself, so I'm also in the process of finding good lenses...

[Greg Campbell]

Originally posted by fplowman


Im stupid!



Can I quote you the next time we wallow into a political flame fest? ;)


lol Can you tell me what all them numbers was?? Seriously though are you saying that this 1.6x multiplier somehow digitally converts this EF-S lense into a wide and telephoto?? Dual purpose? Am I correct here?? Also I assume 17 - 40 lense is for wide angle use?? Right?

Im a layman.. Without irritating anyone can someone give me a short course here??

Fred

OK. It's late, but I'll give it a go.... :cyclopsani:

Ignore the sensor and just imagine a lens focusing an image onto a flat surface. Depending on the diameter and design of the lens, the image will be fully illuminated and reasonably sharp over a limited area. At the edges, light loss will occur because some of the light entering the lens will be unable to make it to the focal plane. Also, the edges will get softer as various abberations become more apparent as you move away from the central axis of the lens.

So, this leaves you with a 'sweet spot' in which the formed image will be bright and sharp. With lenses designed for 'old' 35mm film, this 'circle of goodness' (TM by Greg) comfortably covered a 35x24mm piece of film. If you placed a somethat larger format film at the focal plane, you'd get a soda-straw effect, and the outside coners would be nearly dark, and very blurry.

With a smaller sensor (one of them digital thangies), the lens' image is identical, but the sensor, being smaller than 35x24mm, intercepts a smaller section of it. That section of the image that does fall on the sensor is all the camera can see. Since the section is smaller, it represents a 'cropped' version of the image 35mm film would see if used with the same lens. You can see that this 'cropped' image is a 'zoom' of the film image and represents a greater magnification of the oriinal scene. Thus, a sensor that is 1.6 times smaller than a 35x24mm chunk of film will produce 1.6 times the magnification when used with the same lens.

The (Canon) EF-S lenses are designed to be smaller (and, much more to the point, cheaper) than the 'standard' EF lenses that film based cameras established. These smaller lenses are disigned to produce a smaller 'circle of goodness' and cannot fully illuminate a 35x24 format sensor, be it film or silicon based. This may or may not be a problem in the future. Sensor sizes are creeping up for a number of technical reasons and many people think that they will wind up at 35x24, or maybe 32x24 - very close to the 35mm film format. Your $500 EF-S lens just won't work with that 2006 Canon model that features a full-frame sensor. (Even today, Canon, Nikon, Kodak, and others(?) produce pro-level DSLR cameras with 35x24mm sensors. 'Fortunately' you don't need to wory about them unless you want to take out a second mortgage on your house.)

To counteract the 1.6 magnification factor, and give digicam shooter a 'proper' wide angle option, camera manufacurers are producing EF-S (Nikon has a similar line, AFAIK) like lenses with very short focal lengths, like 10~40 zooms. These when used with a 1.6 scale digital sensor, this would provide the same image FOV as a 16~64mm lens on a film camera. Building such a lens (10~40mm) to cover the film format would require a large, very spendy, design. However, with the reduced COG requirement, an EF-S lens system can be build much smaller and at a semi-affordable price.

-Greg (Reveling in the price CRASH of manual focus Canon gear as the thundering herds 'go digital' and sell solidly built (ohhh, metal!), perfectly functional equipment for next to nothing! :) )

[B Ozanne]

RE: 1.6x crop factor

Greg, nice explanation. Here is another one, hope it doesn't out-do you, but a picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial.../dslr-mag.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml)

[fplowman]

lol.. thanks guys

So I know its hard to give you my money and say shop for me.. But starting new.. New EF-s glass will give me a possible one lense solution.. or should i get the L glass? I understand somewhat your above posts.. But it still leaves me indecisive..

Thank you again for your help

[Greg Campbell]

Originally posted by B Ozanne
RE: 1.6x crop factor

Gerg, nice explanation. Here is another one, hope it doesn't out-do you, but a picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial.../dslr-mag.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml)

Gerg? ;)

No worries! :thumbright:
I had a diagram like that in mind, but got lost in trying to describe it, rather than just hunt down a pic. :confused4:

-Greg

[Glen Romine]

Originally posted by fplowman
lol.. thanks guys

So I know its hard to give you my money and say shop for me.. But starting new.. New EF-s glass will give me a possible one lense solution.. or should i get the L glass? I understand somewhat your above posts.. But it still leaves me indecisive..

Thank you again for your help

Don't know how much help this will be - but I'm probably going to get a 20d myself. I already own several lenses - all EF (haven't stepped up to L glass). I think the EF glass is pretty good - as long as you don't shoot wide open. If you plan to use the camera for low light handheld shots - then you might be better off getting the better glass if money is no object.

I really haven't seen a good demonstration of the value of the L glass for digital applications. The image resolution even with 8.25 MP is still far from that of 50 speed film grain - so I don't really know if the difference in glass is really distinguishable from the digital noise.

Wide angle shots are nice for storm pics - but if you plan on using photoshop for image editing - then the stitching algorithms are good enough compensate assuming you have time to take a few shots before the scene has changed too much. I've never tried this with a rapidly changing storm environment - but maybe someone else here has. The new EFS 10-22 mm lens allows you to recapture rectilinear wide angle with the smaller sensor - but they are expensive. For the money, you could get a 17-40 mm L glass lens. So, the end question is whether this new smaller chip size is something that will be staying around for the long haul - or is it just a substitute until the bigger chips get easier to pack with sensors. If a sub - you'll be stuck with useless lenses from the EFS line - but the fact they even came out with these new quality lenses (not the crap 18-55 they try to package with the camera) to me suggests they plan to keep the smaller sensor cameras around for a while.

Glen

[Greg Campbell]

Originally posted by fplowman
lol.. thanks guys

So I know its hard to give you my money and say shop for me...

I'll e-mail you my address. $16,000 should make for a good start. Furthermore, I'll only charge a 5% commision. That'll buy me 4~5 more lenses for my ancient FD system. ;)


But starting new.. New EF-s glass will give me a possible one lense solution.. or should i get the L glass? I understand somewhat your above posts.. But it still leaves me indecisive..

Thank you again for your help

Yea, the EF-S 17~85 would cover 90% to what you'd want to shoot. IMO, that would make a good 'first and only' EF-S lens. Buy it with the camera and consider it disposable. If/when Canon decides to move to a larger sensor standard, the lens will not work with the your future camera.

The L series lenses are Canon's fastest, sharpest, most snooty, primo lineup and you'll pay big bux for the red ring. Standard EF glass will work fine.

If you want a 'proper' wide angle FOV, you'll almost certainly need one of those 10~40mm EF-S zooms. You could buy an EF ~15mm or 16~35 zoom, but you'd only get a ~28mm equivalent: wide-ish, but not really making it for scenic use. Check the first sections of http://canonfd.com/lenswork.htm for a good rundown on lens theory.

Here's the FOV (with 35mm film) vs. focal length page.
http://canonfd.com/lenswork/LensWork014E.jpg

-Greg

[fplowman]

Thanks again guys... I want to take pics like I see that Mike Hollingshead and of course others have taken.. He in particular though has some awesome storm photography..

so.. EF S 17 -85 and a 10 -40 would cover most my needs for this camera?

Im not really sure i am worried about the better camera coming along and having to buy new glass.. Basically making the glass I buy proprietary for this camera.. If I sell the camera Ill sell the lenses.. might take it in the pants though.

What does a 17 -40 L glass cost?? curious?

Im not likely to want to spend any more than 2500 or so on my setup/...

Wow now i need to think about media to save it on.. Its not cheap either.

Fred

[Greg Campbell]

Originally posted by fplowman
Thanks again guys... I want to take pics like I see that Mike Hollingshead and of course others have taken.. He in particular though has some awesome storm photography..

so.. EF S 17 -85 and a 10 -40 would cover most my needs for this camera?



I don't see the need for overlapping FL ranges. Without knowing anything about these specific lenses (or their prices), I'd get the EF-S 10~22 and an EF 24~85 or 28~135 (slight cringe at the zoom range) zoom and call it done. Throw in a 200 f2.8 and possible tele-multiplier if you feel the need.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controlle...fcategoryid=111 (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111)

IMO, I'd steer clear of the 28~200 type stuff on general principle - to a degree, the greater the zoom range, the lower the image quality. (This is open to great debate, I'd imagine.)

If you're feeling rich, and absolute image quality matters, get the EF-s 10~22 zoom (for wide angle) and a stepped set of fixed focal length EF lenses: 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, and a 1.4 or 2x tele extender. All this is dependent on the sort of shooting you'll be doing. I usualy shoot fairly static subjects and have time to swap lenses (no zooms in my FD set) and can "zoom with my feet" to meet intermediate needs. If you're into action, or just want to avoid carying a bunch of extra glass, a zoom or three is the way to go.

-Greg


What does a 17 -40 L glass cost?? curious?


Dunnow. Cruise over to http://www.bhphotovideo.com (one of the the more reliable mail order house) and have a look. Adorama is also a good option. Http://www.newegg.com (http://Http://www.newegg.com) is also very well thought of and has bodies, but apparently no lenses. You can find cheaper, but only by dealing with shady operators. You could mail order the body and then pay your local camera store a visit. Play with their stuff, see what you like, and, if the prices aren't totaly outrageous, buy a lens or two as a 'thanks.'


Wow now i need to think about media to save it on.. Its not cheap either.


There are a number of 'extra' expenses lurking in the grass. A SOLID tripod ( > $120$) is essential for any sort of macro or low light shooting.

-Greg

[Glen Romine]

Originally posted by fplowman


so.. EF S 17 -85 and a 10 -40 would cover most my needs for this camera?


It is an 18-55 that they throw in for $100 bucks. Mike H. posted elsewhere he uses this lens with his digital Rebel, and I think he's relatively happy with it overall.

The 17-40 mm L lens runs about $700.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...u=279582&is=USA (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=279582&is=USA)

This overlaps with the other's range - so don't by both - one or the other.

Canon EF-S lens 10-22 mm is a bit more:

http://www.adorama.com/CA1022AFSU.html

This lens will be good for wide angle - but not much else.

The "good" midrange (17-85 mm) zoom in the EFS series (excluding the cheapie above) is $600.

A media card in the 2 Gb range, which is probably adequate, runs in the $200 range.

So, with $2500 you can't get everything - but you might just want the body ($1500) with the good midrange zoom ($600) with a media card ($200) which keeps you in your price range.

Glen

[Aaron Kennedy]

If I had an infinite amount of $$$ here is how my lens situation would play out:

Mucho $$$
---------------
14mm f/2.8 L $1700
16-35mm f/2.8 L $1400~
24-70mm f/2.8 L $1200
50mm f/1.4 $370~
70-200mm f/2.8L IS $1700~
500mm f/4 L IS $5200~


Not quite strapped for cash but still need to watch it...
-----------------------------------
17-40mm f/4 $700
50mm f/1.4 $370~
24-70mm f/2.8 L $1200
70-200mm f/2.8L $1000
400m f/5.6 L $1000

Strapped for cash!
----------------------------
17-40mm f/4 $700
50mm f/1.8 $60 (EXCELLENT BARGAIN!)
70-200mm f/4 $550

This is still alot... but it should be expected that for the money you put into the body you should equal in lenses. The nice thing about lenses is that they don't lose money nearly as quickly as bodies.... if you shop right, you can make money.

So where am I at? I have little $$$ so I have bought lenses used or focused on primes which are cheaper than L zooms. I sadly made the discovery that cheap glass sucks, and I can immedietly tell the difference even on my ancient D30. This leaves me with several buying options: Non L primes, L primes, L zooms, and some of the assosorted zooms that have the gold ring on the tip that say USM which are typically better than the cheap stuff.

So here is what I have currently with how much I spent:
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 prime $360 new (sells for same now)
Canon 50mm f/1.4 $290 used (sells for 350 new)
Canon 100mm f/2 $370 new (sells for same now)
Canon 200mm f/2.8 $400 used (sells for $600+ new)
Canon 300mm f/4 $500 used (sells for $600-800 used on ebay)


While this setup is great for quaility and low light, lack of zooms can be troublesome at times. The 20mm is typically on my camera the most. This Christmas, I hope to sell the 20mm and buy the 17-40mm.

Aaron

[Mike Hollingshead]

Thanks for the kind comment Fred. I'll share what little I know or just something real quick I guess. First off, I am more and more wanting to take my kit lens(efs 18-55mm) off and smash it with anything. I want to do this so I'll quit messing around, wasting my time and amazing sights with it. If it's broke I'll HAVE to get something, even if it means charging it. To me if it's not perfect(which it RARELY is/comes out) I hate it. Aaron is right...cheap glass is cheap glass..don't learn the hard way. The hard way comes in images you won't see again. I think any ol lense will work in bright day light. If you lose much of that at all I think your cheap glass will show itself more and more.

For one this lense is VERY soft wide open. That is sort of important as chasing doesn't always allow that much time to tripod and stop it down. Wide open has two meanings....focal length and your aperature. F8 is an all around good one to get the most out of the lense(or so I've read)...and yeah it will depend on the lense. That and simply having you lense at full wide angle doesn't help matters, but with the mentioned 1.6 magnification you pretty much have to if you want the whole storm. Mine is at 18mm 99% of the time. That is partly because it refuses to auto focus worth a darn in any light less then full daylight. It wasn't that bad when I first got it but it is now. If it's wide open at least I can manually focus the thing by spinning the ring all the way to the one side. You won't want to try and manually focus a zoomed in landscape. It can be done but it's really hard to tell if you are in focus in the lower light and the touchy ring(with the efs 18-55mm).

By far the biggest annoyance with this lense is it's color and contrast detail in lower light(pretty much any storm shot...sun doesn't have to be set to be called low light). I've shot some pretty cool sunsets and numerous storms at sunset that left me wanting to puke violently after seeing the images. All the images I've shot with it on my site were pretty hard to bring out. Most I have to take and remove false colors with photoshop. Like this one.....
http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/04-7-12-16.jpg

The brighter white cloud along the bottom of the shelf was more yellow then anything! That is a common off color. This sick odd yellow. So I'd have to take it in PS and adjust saturation on that one shade of yellow, reducing it's saturation. That can be a real pain in the butt. But hey, the lense will get you better at PS. Maybe some of my lense hatred comes from the raw conversion ap being used basically just to get the image to TIFF. That is a whole nother story you'll love. The RAW conversion ap that comes with the canon sucks big time. It's a joke. It's not just one off color though, the whole shots often look off and it's really truly a pain to try and correct sometimes.

Check out Eric Nguyen's images to see what colors should look like. He's using the 17-40mm L. http://www.mesoscale.ws/04~documents/ I should just close my eyes and order that damn thing now. I just hate seeing off goofy colors and I see them all the time in my images. I just really enjoy his images. The clouds look the right colors! The contrast seems right!

If you want to muck up your thoughts about just going out and plopping down $700 and getting the "great" 17-40mm L.....even at that league not all is peachy! Check this out.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...ses/16-35.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml)

The 16-35mm L is the new version of the 17-40mm L. It's a minute $600 EXTRA at around $1300. Go down to the bottom 3 tree images and just look at that. The 17-40 is MUCH MUCH softer wide open(where you'll likely use that lense the most). I don't know about anyone else, but if I spent $700 on a lense and in the center of the image it was THAT soft wide open I'd feel as if I screwed up. So for me, that lense, even if I felt I could afford it right now, is sort of not too desired. Then again, I look at Eric's with it and I rethink THAT thought. Sigh. I hate photography. But, stopped down it looks plenty close to sharp. I'd think in storm chasing that 16-35mm L would be a dream on a DSLR. Not so sure they 17-40 is worth it unless you feel you can always shoot your storms at around F8. Now that I think about it, that shouldn't be that hard and I should try it more often with a mounted cam. But, aside from this little sharpness thing, color and contrast is so much more important to me, and the non-L glass I'm not sure cuts it for the picky ones of us. Good luck! Oh yes, I think the Digital Rebel uses the same sensor as the 10D and matches that cam in many ways. And now there are even firmware cracks out there that open up nearly all the funcionality the 10D had over the digital rebel....even mirror lockup! That blows my mind that all that would of took for the rebel to have mirror lock up was something in the software???

[Aaron Kennedy]

With the Canon 20D having much better noise characteristics... I think the 17-40mm lens will work out ok. Shooting at ISO-400 and at least f/5.6 or so should suffice. I need to bug Eric and try his 17-40mm lens out next to my Sigma 20mm prime. See just how big of a difference there is.

Mike: The review you posted is for the OLD 17-35 f/2.8 lens. Quite different than the 17-40mm lens.

Aaron

[Mike Hollingshead]

Thanks Aaron. I never even noticed it said 35 and not 40(all this time!). I also then never realized there was a 17-35 L and a 17-40 L. So the 17-35 L is older then the 17-40....and the 16-35 is newest of them all? Why then would he/they compare the newest 16-35 to the 17-35 and not the 17-40? Well heck that is GREAT to know. That is how much attention I pay to detail. I wonder which ones B&H had cause it always seemed like there were only two of them in that focal length area that were Ls. Nice to know, very nice. Thanks again.

[Aaron Kennedy]

Actually it went 17-35mm then 16-35.... then everyone whined that there wasn't a decent cheap wide angle lens for DSLRs... so they came out with the 17-40mm L : )

Aaron

[Jeff Snyder]

Just a quick comment...

Many people will spend much more on lenses than on the camera. Why, you may ask? Because, given the pace of digital photography advancement, chances are you will want another, better, faster camera in 3-4 years. Lenses, on the other hand, can last a long time and can provide just as much difference as actual cameras. For example, a 10D with a nice L lens may take sharper, nicer shots than a 20D (or 1Ds) with a bad lens. If you invest in lenses now, it'll probably last you longer than the same investment (in terms of $) in a camera.

EDITED to clear up some possible confusion as addressed in Mike H's post below...

[Mike Hollingshead]

Many people will spend much more on lenses than on the camera. Why?

If you invest in lenses now, it'll probably last you longer than the same investment (in terms of $) in a camera.

Are you sure you asked this right? Anyway...yeah there will always be more and more megapixels for your lense to take advantage of down the road. If you have a decent cam and no nice glass for it I'd surely be more concerned about the glass before worrying about the cam.

[Patrick Kerrin]

For one this lense is VERY soft wide open. That is sort of important as chasing doesn't always allow that much time to tripod and stop it down. Wide open has two meanings....focal length and your aperature. F8 is an all around good one to get the most out of the lense(or so I've read)...and yeah it will depend on the lense. That and simply having you lense at full wide angle doesn't help matters, but with the mentioned 1.6 magnification you pretty much have to if you want the whole storm. Mine is at 18mm 99% of the time.

As I can't even afford the Dreble right now, I am a bit distressed to hear of your difficulties with the kit lens. I am aware of the limitations of the kit lens, and would be interested to know if, for low light shots, you have tried raising the ISO (even up to 1600 if needed), shooting near F8 in RAW, and removing the (already low) noise/tweaking the white balance later? That should maximize your sharpness at 18mm.

To me, the notion of leveraging the ISO seems appealing (in theory).

[Greg Campbell]

FYI, here's a short EF-S article I stumbled upon.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs/e...efs_lenses.html (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs/efs_lenses.html)

-Greg

[David Wolfson]

I'm still learning to use the 10D to its full potential. It's a heck of a camera! I shoot Canon EOS and have enough invested in glass to not want rush to stock up on a new lens design that is specific to 1.6x factor digital. I'm glad they've changed the lens design because I can put aside any desire I might have for the latest-and-greatest 20D.

The 100mm 1:1 macro for example is a fantastic lens. Maybe Canon will come out with a similar S macro someday, but then again maybe not.

[Steve Burre]

Originally posted by Aaron Kennedy


Strapped for cash!
----------------------------
17-40mm f/4 $700
50mm f/1.8 $60 (EXCELLENT BARGAIN!)
70-200mm f/4 $550


Aaron
That's the exact setup I have for my 10D (except I have the 50mm 1.4). The L glass is great...won't be considering the 20D anytime soon given the investment I put in this past year.

[Andrew Pastore]

I will always be a film fan. You cannot beat the saturation of slide films!!
Still, The 20 promises to be a great camera. One thing that I don't like about digital is the 1.6 magnifacation factor. Maybe someday I can afford the 1D with a 1.3 factor!!!

[Greg Campbell]

Canon is offering some serious rebates on the Drebel, and many lenses.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/rebates/

-Greg

[Chris Gullikson]

Still, The 20 promises to be a great camera. One thing that I don't like about digital is the 1.6 magnifacation factor. Maybe someday I can afford the 1D with a 1.3 factor!!!

My big hangup before I bought a Digital Rebel was the 1.6 zoom factor. The 18-55 kit lens was not wide enough for my liking so I picked up a 15mm 2.8 Sigma fisheye after seeing promising reviews about it. This is now on of my favorite lenes for storm stucture. It is very easy to defish, but not absolutley required since the 1.6 zoom takes away much of the fisheye look. Price is not too bad either.

Defished:
http://www.f5hunter.com/6-10-04/redcloud.jpg

Not defished:
http://www.f5hunter.com/5-24-04/slides/IMG_3536.html
(good example of horizon curvature that can easily be fixed by defishing)

[Aaron Kennedy]

What defishing software do you use?

Aaron

[Chris Gullikson]

What defishing software do you use?



I use The Panorama Tools plug-in with Adobe PS.
Learn all about it hear:
http://www.razziphoto.com/archives/000023.php

[fplowman]

got a settlement buying the 20d.. ok so I tool back through these old posts. I find the info here .. I wanted to re clarify.. 17 - 40 or 16 - 35 lense for the 20d??

Aaron?? Mike?? Greg?? Anyone?

Also I guess i need the 70 - 200mm

and the 50mm??? For what?

Please help.. Im trying to figure out wht the hell i need..

More money than experience or sense.. lol

[Aaron Kennedy]

What do you want to shoot? Only you can answer the what lenses do I need question.

Aaron

[fplowman]

Im just looking for a nice lense package..

Just chatted with Mark grant.. he gave me some insight..

Im wanting to shoot some storm bases etc.. I know there was soem speculation rather the 17-40 and 16-35 which one was best for the 20d.

Im pretty sure the 70 - 200 is one i need for tighter work..

What would I use the 50mm for in your other post for lenses Aaron?

[Greg Campbell]

Hi, Fred How much $$$ do you have to blow? ;)

Apart from the one on my P/S digicam, I don't own a single AF lens; I'd feel silly making a specific reccomendation.

Just for grins, let me offer an alternative to B&H.

Head down to the local mom-n-pop camera store. Forget Ritz, Best Buy, and the other chains - the help is clueless and interested only in shovelling merchandise and extended 'service' contracts. Try a number of their lenses. Look at (IMO) the Canon, Tokina AT-X line, and maybe some of the high end Tamron glass. Put the camea on a tripod and take pictures, then go back home and compare the results. Return and buy at least one lens from these peeps. Negotiate a bit, but don't grind them into the dirt. Yea, you'll spend a few $ more, but isn't several hours of their time worth it?

As I understand it, the Canon 16~35L is somewhat sharper (and a stop faster, if that's going to matter) than the 17~40L. It also costs twice as much. "How much $$ do ya got?" :)

Another thought - you might not need that spendy superwide zoom, at least not immediately. You've probably seen the sweet stitched pano shots posted recently. If you have a few extra seconds, locking the exposure and firing off a string of overlapping shots isn't difficult. A more modest zoom, or even a fixed 17/20mm should work well.

Probably a repeat, but here's a fairly reliable lens performance survey page. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Good luck!

[fplowman]

thanks for the input greg.. i think I can buy one nice lense.. the wider angle.. 17-40 or 16-35.. i can save and buy the 70-200 for next year..

i feel dumb becasue my knowledge is so limited.. i know the only way to get more is in the field using the equipment.

Fred

[Aaron Kennedy]

The 50mm is simply one sharp lens that is great for a variety of targets. On top of that, it opens up to 1.8/1.4 (depending on the version). Trust me... you'll want lenses that perform well in low light.

To put it in perspective, the 50mm and 70-200mm I own blow my 17-40mm away in almost every category. The 17-40mm is a nice lens no doubt, but barrel distortion at the wide end can be fairly severe. A good review between the 16-35 and 17-40 is at:

I'd get the 16-35 if I had the $$$.... I'd want the f/2.8 for chasing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...non-17-40.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml)

Aaron

[fplowman]

Thanks Aaron,

i looked at the link you gave me. i think the 17-40mm is a nice lense considering the money aspect. Im unsure the 16-35mm lense is a justifiable expense. I can appreciate however the ability to take more pics in lower light. That i understand. Im unsure rather the canon L 17-40mm is rendered useless in low light though.

These are just rambling thoughts of someone who has no experience with either lense or the camera..

Thanks for the input guys.. anymore is appreciated

Fred