Canon EOS 20D

[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

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