Argh, someone dropped my camera!

[NewCreation517]

So I made the mistake of letting one of my church students use my 20D, and low and behold the little booger dropped it. Luckily the body is fine, but the 18-55mm stock lens is nice and cracked. Time to replace it. :fish

So ... question time. Since I now need to purchase a new all around lens (I shoot mostly indoors, low light situations), what would be a good purchase? I've read reviews, etc. but I much prefer to hear from you guys. I'm looking to spend absolutely no more than $400, would prefer to keep it at $300.

Thanks :)

-A

[jdryan3]

I liked the 28-135 IS in that price range. Not as wide as what you had, but a decent lens. I used it on my 300D for several years as my general purpose walk around lens.

BTW - if you wanted a new lens, you didn't have to pay some kid to kill your old one :rofl :rofl

[Art Scott]

I personally really like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex dg.....great for a short semi wide walk around lens....some where in the $300 range....bought mine from Cameta Camera on ebay.

Of course the 18-50 f2.8 would be great also............

[Nikolai]

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=53478

[sirsloop]

lol... next time you let someone borrow the camera you insist they wear the neck strap!! IMHO, you should be getting a free kit lens, or the value of it from that person. If they didnt at least offer after smashing your stuff, thats lousy :huh

[Scott_Quier]

Don't know what your budget is, but in addition to the list in thread pointed to by Nik, you might want to consider the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

It's a little pricey, but OMG is it a splendid lens!

[troutstreaming]

With the key words being indoor and low light - have you considered a used 50 1.8 and a used 85 1.8? It will not give you an especially wide option, but you could substitute a used wider prime for the 85 1.8. I REALLY like my 85 1.8 for portraits and sports, so that is why I chose it over something wider as the spendier of the two lenses and the 50 1.8 tends to pop up everytime someone mentions budget and low light. I have the 50 1.4 instead. On the wider end I have the sigma 30 1.4 and have contemplated adding the 20 1.8 as well.

If you are looking for zooms I am partial to my Tamron 28-75 2.8 but have not shot with their wider zoom, nor with the sigma equivelents. For full disclosure, since I have purchased the 3 fast primes in that range (30, 50, and 85) it is rarely mounted on the camera, even when I am not shooting sports. For shooting in low light buy the fastest glass that you can as it will also help with focus speed and to some extent composition, as you should have more light in the view finder or on the autofocus sensor to work with than a slower lens. If there were 1.4 and 1.8 IS primes I would be all over them, but given a choice between large aperature primes or slower IS zooms, I choose the large aperatures primes (IS does nothing to prevent motion blur when your subject is moving...) IMHO -YMMV

Andy
http://www.troutstreaming.com/photos/113706650-M.jpg
50 1.4 at 1.4 ISO 3200 1/200
http://www.troutstreaming.com/photos/128222859-M.jpg
85 1.8 at 2.0 ISO 1600 1/500

http://www.troutstreaming.com/photos/106878885-M.jpg
Sigma 30 1.4 at 1.8 ISO 800 1/1000
[all images have been processed with Noise Ninja and sharpened in PS]

[wxwax]

Either the 24-70 f2.8 or the 17-55 EFS f2.8.

The 24-105 is a wonderful lens, but it's only f4 and you say you do a lot of low light shooting. IS won't cover all situations, best to go for fast glass, IMHO.

[claudermilk]

If that Sigma Art suggests is anywhere near the quality of Canon's 24-70, I'll second that. I have the Canon 24-70 (about 3x your budget) and it's a fantastic mid-range zoom for indoors. Some don't like the range on a 20D, but I find it works comfortably.

[HiSPL]

My wife has the Sigma as well, and I recommend it. It's quite good!

[NicoleB]

Just to state that I feel your pain.....ouch :(
Good to hear that at least the camera is fine.
Does that little s*** not have an insurance?
Most kids now these days do, no? :huh
Best wishes that you find a good lens and that really nothing else happened to the cam!

----------------------------

http://nicoleb.smugmug.com

[AlpineMan]

For your budget of $300 to $400, IMHO, the best bang for the buck lens for low light indoors (especially in tight places) would be the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Anything above 18mm on the wide end is simply not wide enough on the 20D. This was my main lens on my 20D/30D until I upgraded to the 5D...where 24-70mm is somewhat the equivalent of that focal length in full frame.

Before I had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8...I had the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8...I just had to find out the hard way, that indeed, 28mm is not wide at all on my old 20D...sold it and got the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC...much much better as far as fitting in as my all around lens...then heard lots of good reviews on the Tamron, so I bought that and sold the Sigma. You will not be disappointed with the Tamron...I sure wasn't. My only complaint about it was the noisy auto focus. As far as sharpness and contrast goes, it beat my old Sigma 18-50, my brother-in-law's Canon 17-40 f4L, 17-35 f2.8L, and on par with the 16-35 f2.8L.

[Jane B.]

For your budget of $300 to $400, IMHO, the best bang for the buck lens for low light indoors (especially in tight places) would be the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Anything above 18mm on the wide end is simply not wide enough on the 20D. This was my main lens on my 20D/30D until I upgraded to the 5D...where 24-70mm is somewhat the equivalent of that focal length in full frame.

Before I had the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8...I had the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8...I just had to find out the hard way, that indeed, 28mm is not wide at all on my old 20D...sold it and got the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC...much much better as far as fitting in as my all around lens...then heard lots of good reviews on the Tamron, so I bought that and sold the Sigma. You will not be disappointed with the Tamron...I sure wasn't. My only complaint about it was the noisy auto focus. As far as sharpness and contrast goes, it beat my old Sigma 18-50, my brother-in-law's Canon 17-40 f4L, 17-35 f2.8L, and on par with the 16-35 f2.8L.

Not having any personal experience with one that starts at 17, I hesitated to post such a suggestion. But this is one that I am interested in myself. I shoot a lot for our church newsletter and scrapbook and have found myself not being able to "zoom with my feet" enough with a lens that starts at 28 at the wide end on a D60. It was fine on a film slr. I run into walls instead! That is especially true if it is something in a Sunday School classroom rather than the Fellowship Hall or Sanctuary.

[pat.kane]

I have a Canon 17-40mm f/4L that I love. The quality of the lens is just outstanding and I've taken some of my best shots with this lens. I've seen them sell for < $500 used, but that is still out of your stated price range.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would make a lot of sense given your low-light requirement.

I recently purchased a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for my wife's 20D. It can be purchased new for around $325. She seems to really like it and with her 70-200mm f/4L she has everything covered w/ quality, budget glass from 17-200mm w/out any overlap.

I had a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8; however, I just didn't use it that much. I would only get it out if I really had to have f/2.8 (e.g., school play and/or church where flash wasn't allowed) and that was about it. It was a good lens, but I found the low end at 24mm to be limiting on a 20D.

[AlpineMan]

Not having any personal experience with one that starts at 17, I hesitated to post such a suggestion. But this is one that I am interested in myself. I shoot a lot for our church newsletter and scrapbook and have found myself not being able to "zoom with my feet" enough with a lens that starts at 28 at the wide end on a D60. It was fine on a film slr. I run into walls instead! That is especially true if it is something in a Sunday School classroom rather than the Fellowship Hall or Sanctuary.

Jane, that is exactly how I discovered that 28mm...or 24mm for that matter, was not wide enough in tight places on a 20D/30D. I shoot a lot of family photos inside the house, you can only do so much with a lens that starts at those focal ranges. Check out the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8...you'll love it. Had I not moved on to a 5D, that lens would be mounted on my 30D 90% of the time. This lens makes a great portrait lens as well.

[seawolf66]

Get the 50mm F1:4 lens:clap :clap