Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have the 20D, too. For $1,500 U.S., aka chump change in Leicadom, it's amazing. Great choice on the 16-35mm, as well. I have the earlier 17-35mm f/2.8L version and like it a lot--the 16-35 is even better, I hear. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is reputedly one of the very best of Canon's best zooms. I've had mine for about a month. Admittedly, it's a chunk. But it is now the 20D's default lens. Again, at about $1,300 U.S., it's chump change for a fiscally hardened Leicaphile. If you like the 50mm f/1.8 with the 1.6x crop factor (which makes it about the same effective focal length as that 75mm Summilux that refused to bond with you), see if you can get a 50mm f/1.4 for a test run. Shoot a batch of full-frame head shots wide open and at f/2.0. It's scary good. And for about $300 U.S., you have a portrait lens for less than...well, the mind staggers and what sort of drop-kicked-around-the-planet piece of whipped Leica glass you could get for $300. Chris Lawson--who dipped a toe in digital waters with the Rebel last January "just to see if he liked it." Deep water, it is. tedgrant@shaw.ca writes: I bought the 16-35 and knew it was a lens I could love to use as soon as I put the camera to my eye in the store, as it was.."Wow, neat framing, zoom range and feel." Sandy I believe has the 24-70. I also picked up the 50mm f1.8 simply because it was "cheap" as lenses go.