# Not another 350vs20D Thread



## HoboSyke (Sep 7, 2005)

HI all.

Given the chance would you shoot with a 20D with the 17-85mm f/4.5.6 lens.

Or the 350D with the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS :thumbup:


----------



## Marctwo (Sep 7, 2005)

10d with a 28-300mm. :meh:


----------



## Meysha (Sep 7, 2005)

Is this supposed to be a serious question???


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 7, 2005)

I was thinking about ditching my 20D body and 17-85mm lens and getting the 350D body with the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. I could do it with about $400 ontop of what I would get for my 20D.
Have thought about it and just going to save for the 24-70L and keep the 20D body.


----------



## thebeginning (Sep 7, 2005)

how do you justify the 70-200 2.8L IS though? that's like another $1800 slapped on. 

here's a suggestion. that 24-70L is a great lens, but not super great (doesnt quite justify that ~ $1200 price tag). Just sell your 17-85 and buy something else, or maybe with a little more money also. That isnt really that useful of a zoom range, but if you're stuck on it, this might interest you: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/269696


but yeah, i would go with the 350d for sure if you're going to slap L glass on it. I'd take a 300d with L glass over a 1dMkII with a much lesser quality lens. otherwise definitely the 20d. It's a no brainer.


edit: sorry didnt realize you had decided.  good choice though!


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 7, 2005)

The 70-200mm would come later.
What L series lens you recommend for a good walk around lens. ?


----------



## Hades (Sep 7, 2005)

Hi,

A good walk around lens L series is the 17-40L.  However, Canon are just about to release a 24-105L which sounds pretty good too.


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 7, 2005)

Hades said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> A good walk around lens L series is the 17-40L. However, Canon are just about to release a 24-105L which sounds pretty good too.


 

What about the 24-70L ? This would give more range with nearly as much wide angle.  :meh:


----------



## Hades (Sep 7, 2005)

The 24-70L is f/2.8 USM too - doh, forgot about that little tinker 

Mind you, the 24-105L (f/4) is going to be lighter apparently.


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 7, 2005)

Hades said:
			
		

> The 24-70L is f/2.8 USM too - doh, forgot about that little tinker
> 
> Mind you, the 24-105L (f/4) is going to be lighter apparently.


 
Shouldnt the f/2.8 always be heavier seeing as it has wider glass (bigger aperture) ?  Obvisouly not if your comparing say the 24-70L to a 70-200 f/4.

Will they make that 24-105L in an f/2.8 ?

IM probably going to get the 24-70L and 70-200L f/2.8
These 2 lenses will give me decent coverage for now.


----------



## Hades (Sep 7, 2005)

Yes, the f/2.8 will be heavier.  But the F/4 will not be much lighter because it also has IS included.


----------



## MDowdey (Sep 7, 2005)

my question is this...why would you EVER want to downgrade bodies? the 20d body is built like a brick ****house, and the 350d is more or less a step or three down from that.

just food for thought.


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 7, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> my question is this...why would you EVER want to downgrade bodies? the 20d body is built like a brick ****house, and the 350d is more or less a step or three down from that.
> 
> just food for thought.


 

That thought has already passed. Im sticking with the 20D body.
Only thought of down grading to help me buy some better glass for it.
But i will just have to save up extra now.:greenpbl:


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 7, 2005)

Buy some cheap primes.  They whoop up on any zoom, including the "L" glass lenses.

By the way, does anyone know what the "L" stands for?  Luxury.


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 7, 2005)

What do you mean whoop up? Yeah I will get a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. The 1.8 is about a 1/3 of the price of the 1.4      Is it worth it ?


----------



## usayit (Sep 7, 2005)

The 5D is coming out soon perhaps another option is to wait for a used 20d.

For me... I'm perfectly happy with my 10d.  It does 90% of what I want.  I'd start with a used 10d ( under 800 ) with a 50 f.18 ( 60 ) and one of the following: 24-70 f2.8L or 70-200mm f2.8L USM ( IS if you can afford it ).


----------



## Marctwo (Sep 7, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> my question is this...why would you EVER want to downgrade bodies?


Maybe you're only interested in image quality???  Just a thought.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 7, 2005)

HoboSyke said:
			
		

> What do you mean whoop up?



The $70 Canon 50mm f/1.8 will beat any Canon zoom (of any price) in a test for resolving fine detail.  Today's pro zooms are amazing, and are very close to primes in image quality.  But primes still rule, and for a lot cheaper.

The 50mm f/1.8 mark II is plasticky, and cheap, but still makes an image that's about as good as it gets.  The 50mm f/1.4 has a much higher quality build, and is of course a fraction of a stop faster.  If you can find an older 50mm f/1.8 mark I, it's a nicer build than the mark II, but even used it will cost more than a new mark II.

I also like the 85mm f/1.8.  It's a fantastic lens, and not too pricey compared to a pro zoom.


----------



## thebeginning (Sep 7, 2005)

i'd agree with matt. I used to be an all out zoom guy, all the way, and would argue to the death that zooms were just as good.  for the price, optical quality, and ability to get wider max apertures, primes are the best.  for portability and convenience, zooms are the best.  also, dont get stuck on L glass if you decide to look at zooms.  I've researched out the kazoo on most every EF and EF-S canon lens and almost every sigma and tamron lens to try to find out if "luxury glass" was by far the best in terms of sharpness, build quality, and contrast.  from all the comparisons and tests I've found, they arent.  Choose a focal length you want (dont forget to include the 20d's crop factor) and research lens reviews and tests. you'll be surprised at how good third party lenses really are, and for much cheaper.


----------

