Canon 20D & 450D, and a lens question

[toxic]

Hi, so I've been looking into getting a DSLR sometime in the near future, and I've more or less narrowed down my choices to the 20D or 450D. The 450D is more like a 10-series camera compared to the 400 and 350D since it has spot-metering and a dedicated ISO button, but it's still not one...and I can get the 20D for quite a bit less. The only gripe I have with the 20D so far is the really small LCD screen. So are there any compelling reasons to choose one or the other?

as for lenses, I've decided that I'd like an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, but that's a bit out of my price range. The alternatives I've found are the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, but I'm just wondering if anyone knows of any other good alternatives. Thanks.

 

[Ryox]

Have you had a look at the 30D? its basically a 20D with a bigger screen and other changes like a bigger buffer, not much more expensive than the 20D.
Well you do get better build quality on the 20D and I prefer the wheel on the back to that button system the 450D has. Plus the 20D shoots at 5fps which is considerably faster than the 3.5fps of he 450.

 

[anubis]

as for lenses, I've decided that I'd like an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, but that's a bit out of my price range. The alternatives I've found are the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, but I'm just wondering if anyone knows of any other good alternatives. Thanks.

Check out photozone.de 's review of those two lenses. They show the Tamrom as being a pretty good value (just a moderate amount of barrel distortion at the short end as well as some chromatic aberation wide open). However, apparently the Sigma is really soft at 17mm wide open and suffers from REALLY bad chromatic aberration.. they have sample images that are definitely a turn off.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

The Tamron is a very nice lens. It's sharp, and fast focusing, although a tad noisy when compared to some of the Canon lenses. I use the Tamron, and love it, and have decided not to limit my lens choices to EF S, specially with primes.

I just have a very few lenses as follows:

-Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (pict. of people, my dog, etc.)
-Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (landscapes)
-Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (macro, headshots of people, etc.)
-Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM (wildlife such as moose, and macro with a Kenko tube)

I also have a Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 extender I can use with the 200mm prime. My next and last lens will be a 300mm or 400mm Canon EF USM prime. I can do without IS, and save a lot of cash.

 

[wheezy]

I've been a 20D user for about 3 years now, it's a fantastic camera. But I'd jump a few more dollars to the 30D for the bigger screen. Over the 450D... I'd say yes, the extra ISO (3200) is handy, as well as the dial on the back.

 

[apearlman]

Tamron 17-50 is great

Another happy Tamron 17-50 user here.

It's not razor-sharp wide open at f/2.8, but in every other way the image quality is superb. Compact and well-built.

 

[toxic]

Have you had a look at the 30D? its basically a 20D with a bigger screen and other changes like a bigger buffer, not much more expensive than the 20D.
Well you do get better build quality on the 20D and I prefer the wheel on the back to that button system the 450D has. Plus the 20D shoots at 5fps which is considerably faster than the 3.5fps of he 450.

huh. I forgot about the 30D.

I guess I'm going for the Tamron then. And while I'm at it, should I bother getting a prime for portraits/candids? Or should I just save for a telephoto or something like that.