# I see a D20 coming my way soon....(lenses?)



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

Well, my work has landed me a nice little bonus, so I'll be getting the Canon D20 soon. Nikon etc is not an option since my inlaws all shoot cannon and if I need a lens, I could get it from them.

..however, I'd like to not mooch when I don't have to.

That said, I was thinking of just just getting the following:
1) EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM (walkaround...and "my" only lense for a year or so till I can get $ for another..I do have "access" to plenty of others though)
2) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Of course, there is the stock EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, but I thought that if I am going to do it, that I'll do it right the first time.


Any comments, suggestions, recommendations etc etc?


----------



## scitz (Mar 16, 2004)

Do you're in-laws shoot digital? I have read several places that seem to indicated shooting with non-digital optimized lenses can degrade image quality, or lead to optical distortions. Has something to do with the size of the sensor compared to a 35mm film 'frame'. As I recall, when looking at the specs, there is a multiplier (1.5x or there abouts) related to the CCD (or CMOS in your case). My knowledge of this stuff is flakey at best, but I'd cruise around www.dpreview.com for clairification on this. I'm trying to decide on what to ask for Christmas, a Canon 350D Digital Rebel XT or a Nikon D70 (maybe a D50, can't really figure out if the features that have been dropped from the D70 are things I would ever use).

My workhorse nikon 950 just can't focus fast enough and 2 megapixels barely prints at 3x5 w/o pixelating.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

> As I recall, when looking at the specs, there is a multiplier (1.5x or there abouts) related to the CCD (or CMOS in your case).


Because the sensor of the digital is smaller than the size of 35mm film, which is what the lens sizes are based on, there is a multiplier factor to obtain a true focal length of the lens. You can bypass this by buying the top of the line 16MP Canon for around $8K :!: which has a 35mm sized sensor. That's why they made the 18-55mm to roughly replace the popular 28-70mm range zooms. The flip side to the smaller sensor is that a typical 100-300mm zoom becomes a 160-480mm which allows you to do a lot more telephoto capture - important if you like to shoot wildlife, for example.

Gomer, I do a lot of photography, all film, so far. But the D20 is on my shopping list for Christmas. Actually will be spending some time with a friend next wkd who's a digital wiz to learn the work flow involved with digital capture. All my equipment now is Canon, so I would only need to get the wide 'digital' wide angle lens. I already have the 28-70mm and 100-300mm lenses.


----------



## glenhead (Jan 29, 2005)

"Just" getting those two lenses? Geez, I'd give my eyeteeth for those two lenses with a 20D. Here's a link to a forum that'll tell you danged near everything you can imagine finding out about Canon digital cameras and all the various lenses:

Photography-on-the.net, the Canon digital photography forum

I have some unexpected money coming in, as well, though only enough for either a 20D body, an L-series lens, or a 350D and midrange lens (though I'm pondering going with a 10D and a not-quite-so-cheap lens - dunno...)

The 17-85 with the digital sensor crop factor will give you a rough equivalent to the field of view range of a 28-135mm zoom with a 35mm film camera. The image stabilization will buy you a stop or two handheld. At smaller apertures (f/8 and higher), the lens compares very well to the whoopie lenses.

The 70-200 f/2.8L? It's a big, heavy lens, but the performance is pretty much unbeatable.

If you have a few hours, you might spend some time on POTN (as it's known) and see what others have to say about the combo. Sounds like a superior set of gear!


----------

