:::Canon EOS 20D::: Official Press Release

[Sketcher]

Personally,

that is per MY shooting preferences I'd buy the body only and then the 17-40 f/4L as you mentioned. I'm always for buying better quality glass and I love the build quality, color, bokeh, fast AF and sharpness of my 17-40 f/4L. The EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is an intruiging lense because of the image stabilization; the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is worth looking at because it's currently as wide as you can go in a Canon Lens but they're both fairly expensive as 'consumer' lenses and actual images and reviews on them aren't due out until next week. *Edit* - some are posted

I'll leave the EF-S lens and APS-C sensor discussion to those who know something about it. The only thing I know is that it was designed to provide 'affordable' wide angle capability to consumer digital cameras. Current EF wide angle lenses are built in reference to 35mm frame size so they won't give true wide angle on the smaller sensor sized consumer DSLR's. If you want true or ultra-wide angle on a Canon non_1 Series body then you have to go with an EF-S lens.

*A friend of mine has a 300D and the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. He thought it was great 'till I borrowed him my 17-40 f/4L. He noted slightly more of a wide angle with my "L" compared to his EF-S but he determined that although image quality and increased FOV were important to him, he couldn't justify the cost. Sometimes it just doesn't matter how nice any one lens is; it's just not a justifiable expense. The 18-55 kit lens is certainly a good buy for the money, but the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM IMO is the better lens on all accounts even in light of the additional cost. The IS gives you up to two stops of correction and if it performs as well as the 28-135mm IS it'll be good glass to have.

So, as you can see I really don't have equittable knowledge regarding the EF-S lenses. I'm glad the 20D can use them if needed and it'll be interesting to see how they perform. Comparing the EF-S lenses to "L" quality isn't really fair nor is it supposed to be but seeing as how you can't get wide enough on a Canon consumer (for some tastes) w/out an EF-S lens it really comes down to personal preference.

Good hunting!

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Sketcher


A friend of mine has a 300D and the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. He thought it was great 'till I borrowed him my 17-40 f/4L. He noted slightly less of a wide angle with my "L" compared to his EF-S but he determined that image quality was more important to him than the slight difference in FOV.

Why would there be Less FOV with the 17-40 compared to the 18-55? The 17-40 is the wider lens. It's a small difference but is noticeable.

 

[Sketcher]

DBL,

LOL, thanks for pointing that out. I re-read what I wrote and realized I meant the opposite. Just posting too much info to quickly

*Edited Version*
A friend of mine has a 300D and the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. He thought it was great 'till I borrowed him my 17-40 f/4L. He noted slightly more of a wide angle with my "L" compared to his EF-S but he determined that although image quality and increased FOV were important to him, he couldn't justify the cost.

There, that's better. See, I'll leave the EF-S talk to those who know .

 

[Sketcher]

Regarding how good the 17-85 IS lens is as an all around lens (all around meaning the main if not only lens to cover the bulk of your photography) you really have to determine if WA (wide angle) or telephoto is more important to you. If you're interest is in the wide end than it's a good option. If you're more interested in a good all around lens with longer reach than the 28-135 IS is a better consideration. There are other options in the nose bleed section such as the 35-350mm f/3.4-5.6L or the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS. Yes, they're both $1,300.00+ lenses but consider the range, build quality and how much it would cost you to cover that range in multiple less expensive but good quality lenses. BTW, that 70-300 DO is in some cases your only option for a super-telelphoto where some venues consider lens length to be a determining factor in whether or not you can bring a camera into the event. (it extends quite far for telephoto but collapsed it looks quite harmless).

My kit currently includes:

10D
50 f/1.8 II
17-40 f/4L
28-135 IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS
1.4x II
500D

I prefer Pro Zooms to cover a range vs a whole buncha Primes though I recognize a few areas where a Prime lens just can't be beat (especially in really low light). It's the whole shooting style vs needs/wants vs perceived value frenzy. Some people buy only primes and consider even the Pro Zooms an unacceptable option. Some have bought the 1DMKII and can only afford consumer lenses to put on it. But more often than not, people buy the wrong lens starting out and replace it later when they know how they want to shoot and how they'd rather spend their money.

.

 

[Eug]

Yeah, the 17-40 f/4L seems like a nice lens but it's really missing much of the range I like to use. It's equivalent to 27-64 mm on the 20D, which is too limiting as a walk-around lens at the telephoto end. The price is OK though, for an L lens.

The 28-135 IS (equiv. to 45-216) also seems very interesting, but it's too limiting at the wide end.

The 24-70 f/2.8L (equiv to 38-112) seems like a reasonable compromise for an L lens in terms of range, but I don't really want a 2 lb lens (for $$$$) for every day use.

The 17-85 IS (equiv. to 27-136) has more of a mainstream all-purpose zoom range for the 20D, while not going overboard in terms of weight and cost. Hopefully it doesn't suck, cuz I've already ordered it. BTW, this is what Luminous Landscape (link) has to say:

I was unable to complete a DxO Analyzer test of the new Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/5.6 IS lens in the time that was available to me. My field testing showed though that it appears to be a very fine lens. I have one on order for my own use and will publish a full test report once I have had an opportunity, likely before the end of September. The new EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 will also be tested once a sample becomes available later in the year.

BTW, I think I'd eventually get myself an EF 70-200 f/4L to cover the telephoto end, but it's too much coin to get everything right now. Too bad the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS costs so damn much.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Eug
Yeah, the 17-40 f/4L seems like a nice lens but it's really missing much of the range I like to use.

The 28-135 IS (equiv. to 45-216) also seems very interesting, but it's too limiting at the wide end.

The 17-85 IS (equiv. to 27-136) has more of a mainstream all-purpose zoom range for the 20D, while not going overboard in terms of weight and cost.

BTW, I think I'd eventually get myself an EF 70-200 f/4L to cover the telephoto end, but it's too much coin to get everything right now. Too bad the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS costs so damn much.

Good assessments. I tend to shoot more telephoto than wide so the 1.6x factor is a bonus for me. The 17-40 f/4L was my most recent purchase because I've just now started to do more WA. But you're right, the 17-40L isn't a good general purpose lens especially for the cost if you're still needing some telephoto and dont want to supplement.

I sold my 70-200 f/4 (really liked that lens) to buy the f/2.8L IS version. A Dell/Canon snafu made the IS version available for the price of the non-IS version so I had to jump on it; otherwise it'd be a lense I'd not likely own in the forseable near future.

I haven't read of anyone regretting a 70-200 f/4 purchase unless that is they needed to shoot more in lower light. It's a sweet lens at a great price for an "L" and the image quality is equal to the f/2.8 versions. Unfortunately, it doesn't come w/the tripod mount ring; that's an additional purchase. I didn't find the f/4 to be that heavy though and think the camera tripod mount holds up just fine.

.

 

[Eug]

Any guesses how the 1.4X will work with the 17-85 lens?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Eug
Any guesses how the 1.4X will work with the 17-85 lens?

Eh? You referring to crop factor? I thought it was 1.6X?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Eug
Any guesses how the 1.4X will work with the 17-85 lens?

Eh? You referring to crop factor? I thought it was 1.6X?

He refers to the 1.4X teleconverter, I think.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Eug
Any guesses how the 1.4X will work with the 17-85 lens?

Eh? You referring to crop factor? I thought it was 1.6X?

He refers to the 1.4X teleconverter, I think.

Yes, that was what I was talking about.

I found out it won't work. While the teleconverter will work with the 20D body, the 17-85 IS lens won't fit on the teleconverter. Oh well, not a big deal.

 

[Sketcher]

Copy/Pasted from FM:

The 1.4x II
This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses. Superb optically, it preserves the image quality of the lens it's mounted to and multiplies its focal length 1.4x. Effective aperture is reduced by one f-stop; autofocus is possible on any EOS camera when combined with a lens having an f/4 or faster maximum aperture. The new version II maintains the outstanding optics of the previous version, and adds enhanced weather- resistant construction, and improved anti-reflective surfaces in the barrel.

I believe Sigma, Tokina and Tamron among others make EF mount Teleconverters that are usable on all EF lenses. I don't know which brand or model are the photog favorites though.

.

 

[Eug]

Thanks sketcher, but it seems that the EF-S lenses aren't compatible with the various teleconverters. I was wondering specifically about the 1.4X with the 17-85, which is an EF-S lens.

 

[Eug]

The 20D is damn fast! (Video)

 

[Sketcher]

Eug,

My bad. I should have realized EF-S was the main consideration. You're right, EF-S lenses aren't compatible with existing TC's. The EF-S mount is designed to be more closely positioned to the sensor. My first guess is that a TC defeats the purpose of the EF-S lens positioning. Canon USA Sale's Dept (was on the phone w/them when read your post) say's there isn't a TC being designed for the EF-S lenses. But that was 1st level phone support; do they ever really know anything that's not in front of them on a product brochure?

.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Eug
The 20D is damn fast!

Great find! That 9pt AF looks cool. I'm reading up more on those EF-S lenses. Might have to get me one of those...