Canon 400d with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8? or 40d enthusiast pack.

[furious]

Canon 400d with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8? or 40d enthusiast pack. What would be the better package as an introduction into SLR photography?


Canon 400d with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8:

Pros
- Great lens
- $150 dollars cheap. Means I could get a tripod.

Cons
- 400d body feels cheap to me
- Will the 400d body last the 4 or more years I expect it to?

40d enthusiast pack (comes with EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6)

Pros
- I have held the 30d and it feels more comfortable in my hands than a 400d. I would expect the same from the 40d.
- Better body

Cons
- Not a fast lens

Both lens have IS and USM.

Now I have been using a P&S camera for about 2 years and feel it is time to step up. Both packages are easily within my budget. It really is a question of will a cheaper body and better lens serve me better, in your opinion, than a better body and a slightly slower lens.

What will I be using the camera for. Landscapes and nature photography at first but as I get better I would like to try macro as well as some commercial type photography.

Is it unreasonable to expect the Body's of either camera to last 4 years? I personally am ok with either lens. I know you guys get a lot of similar questions so be kind.

[taylorwilsdon]

Not considering Nikon?

Everything taken into account, the D80 is a much better all around camera then the 400d. The 40d ought to be a smack better then said D80, but for the money it can't be topped by any of Canons offerings.

I say this as I own goodies from both sides of the fence, so don't take any fanboyism into account.

[furious]

I already have access to a library of canon lenses if I need to. So going Nikon would cost me more in the long run.

[840quadra]

Not considering Nikon?

Everything taken into account, the D80 is a much better all around camera then the 400d. The 40d ought to be a smack better then said D80, but for the money it can't be topped by any of Canons offerings.

I say this as I own goodies from both sides of the fence, so don't take any fanboyism into account.


I agree that the OP should look into Nikon (more importantly Glass from either company first), however calling one camera "Much better all around" is plain silly when on paper, they are quite similar.

Lets call them what they are.

The D80 and 400d are both 10 Megapixel plastic bodied Digtal SLR cameras with competitive features (to eachother).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD80/page21.asp

One may edge the other out on one or two features, but the differences are not really worth the paper they are printed on, when you are out taking pictures in the real world. Speaking of the real world, with comparable good glass you would hard pressed to tell me or anyone else which picture is shot with what camera unless you pulled up the EXIF. They are both great cameras, you just have to decide how sensitive you are going to be about features, or if you want to get serious and look at the Lenses you will actually be using with your camera.



furious


If you can afford the glass you want while purchasing the 40D, that may be the way to go, depending on your shooting needs. If you need quicker burst mode, and like some of the features (and feel) of that camera better, it may be worth the money to you. I would first wait for some reviews on this camera before taking the plunge (or putting money down on one), the 400d may actually take better pictures :confused:, though lets hope not ! :)

[furious]

furious


If you can afford the glass you want while purchasing the 40D, that may be the way to go, depending on your shooting needs. If you need quicker burst mode, and like some of the features (and feel) of that camera better, it may be worth the money to you. I would first wait for some reviews on this camera before taking the plunge (or putting money down on one), the 400d may actually take better pictures :confused:, though lets hope not ! :)
I agree about waiting. it is just I have to set the money aside now so I don't spend it. ;) I can only afford each package unfortunately. I wish I could get the 40d and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 that is out of the question.

[timnosenzo]

I already have access to a library of canon lenses if I need to.

IMHO I'd say go with the 40D & 17-85 if you have access to better lenses when need be.

[Grimace]

Everyone should own the 50mm f/1.8

It's the best $70 you'll ever spend -- razor sharp photos every time.

[miloblithe]

I'd get the 400D and the 17-55. This combination would definitely give you better image quality and lenses last longer than cameras. The 17-85 lens doesn't seem to get terribly good reviews. You'll take the 17-55 to your next camera, which hopefully would be at least 4 years. The 400D is theoretically rated for 50,000 shutter cycles. Depending on what you do, that's a lot or a little. However, repairing the shutter is cheaper than getting a new camera. But probably one repair is enough. Eventually, of course, the cost of repair doesn't compare well to a new camera.

Another option, of course, is getting the 40D and a different lens, or set of lenses. For landscapes and nature, IS isn't as helpful. You could get the 40D, a tripod, and some nicer glass.

Another thought, I'd wager that the new 18-55 IS lens will compare well to and be cheaper than the 17-85. If you're set on the 40D, I'd get that and spend the extra money on the 50 f/1.8, a tripod, and whatever else suits your needs, like a macro lens.

[furious]

I'd get the 400D and the 17-55. This combination would definitely give you better image quality and lenses last longer than cameras. The 17-85 lens doesn't seem to get terribly good reviews. You'll take the 17-55 to your next camera, which hopefully would be at least 4 years. The 400D is theoretically rated for 50,000 shutter cycles. Depending on what you do, that's a lot or a little. However, repairing the shutter is cheaper than getting a new camera. But probably one repair is enough. Eventually, of course, the cost of repair doesn't compare well to a new camera.

Another option, of course, is getting the 40D and a different lens, or set of lenses. For landscapes and nature, IS isn't as helpful. You could get the 40D, a tripod, and some nicer glass.

Another thought, I'd wager that the new 18-55 IS lens will compare well to and be cheaper than the 17-85. If you're set on the 40D, I'd get that and spend the extra money on the 50 f/1.8, a tripod, and whatever else suits your needs, like a macro lens.

I have time and all good things come to those who wait. My aim is to use one lens and get use to the camera. Then in six months or so upgrade to a better lens (hopefully the 100mm f/2.8 macro). I am in Australia so prices are a little inflated to what you Americans pay. We manly get boned with lens. Body's are well priced.

[OreoCookie]

The D80 and 400d are both 10 Megapixel plastic bodied Digtal SLR cameras with competitive features (to eachother).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD80/page21.asp
The D80 is much more robust. Even the OP said that the 400D feels cheap, I can't say the same thing about the D80 (plastic ≠ plastic).

[miloblithe]

I don't know why people can't get this. The D40x and 400D are the only cameras in the Nikon and Canon lines that actually line up in price and features. The D80 is a better camera than the 400D? It damn well should be. It's $880 vrs $630. That's a 40% difference in price. If it weren't a better camera, Nikon would be a pretty pathetic manufacturer.

[M@lew]

I'd go for the 400D + 17-55. The body quality of the 40D won't really make up for the Image Quality of the 17-55. It's your personal choice though. Remember the 400D is still a very good camera.

[timnosenzo]

FWIW you might be able to find a 30D on sale now that the 40D has been released. A 30D & 17-55 would be a nice combo.

[furious]

After reading review on FM for the 17-55 f/2.8 I am concerned about the dust problem. Is this as bad as what the reviews make it out to be.

[Abstract]

Usually, i would say that the camera doesn't really matter. However, I'd never buy the Canon 400D. If you go Canon, I think the minimum level is the 30D. It feels quite good (although I don't like Canon's controls), is a better camera. Remember, you're going to hold this camera every time you use it.

Get the 40D + 18-55 mm IS, and borrow from the lens collection you mentioned. Or you could possibly get the 30D and an even better lens. The 30D is still a great camera. The 40D really isn't that big an improvement. In fact, until reviews come out, you don't even know if the photo quality of the 40D is better than the 30D.

[OreoCookie]

You could also get the 30D/40D + a Sigma 2.8/18-50/Tokina 2.8/16-50 lens, cheaper and for all intents and purposes just as good. If you are really strapped for cash, you can also consider the Tamron 2.8/17-50 zoom, although personally, I don't like Tamron. I'd recommend the Tokina: even though it's the most expensive of the bunch, it has the best built quality, probably a better built quality than Canon's 2.8/17-55: the former is a full-metal lens (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1650_28_nikon/index.htm), the original isn't (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm).

[Abstract]

Dislike Tamron if you want, but their top lenses are optically better than Sigma's top lenses (when their lines converge into similar products, because truth be told, Sigma is far ahead in terms of product range, OS, etc). The Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 is supposed to be ace. Sigma's 18-50 mm f/2.8 effort is supposed to be OK, but not as great as Tamron's. Same with Tamron's 28-75 mm f/2.8, which is sharper than Sigma's 24-70 mm f/2.8. This is coming from a happy owner of the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8. ;)

Going to try out my new Sigma 30 mm f1.4 tomorrow at dinner (low light restaurant). ;)

[OreoCookie]

Dislike Tamron if you want, but their good lenses are optically better than Sigma's good lenses. The Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 is supposed to be ace. Sigma's 18-50 mm f/2.8 effort is good, but not as great as Tamron's. Same with Tamron's 28-75 mm f/2.8, which is better than Sigma's 24-70 mm f/2.8 (and this is coming from a happy owner of the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8).
I'm a Tokina guy myself, I have never owned any Sigma or Tamron lenses. I've briefly tried Tamron lenses and they feel cheap (although not worse than most kit lenses).

In either case, I think we definitely agree that third-party lenses might be a third alternative for the OP.

[furious]

I have looked at third party lenses at the camera store. It is just reviews online rate the canon lens higher.

[OreoCookie]

I have looked at third party lenses at the camera store. It is just reviews online rate the canon lens higher.
Two things:
(i) You are on a limited budget.
(ii) The difference in image quality is nowhere near as big as you probably think it is. Plus, the Tokina's build quality is actually better than Canon's.

I'm not saying the original isn't worth it, but in your situation, don't rule out viable alternatives so quickly.

[furious]

Two things:
(i) You are on a limited budget.
(ii) The difference in image quality is nowhere near as big as you probably think it is. Plus, the Tokina's build quality is actually better than Canon's.

I'm not saying the original isn't worth it, but in your situation, don't rule out viable alternatives so quickly.

The budget is flexible to an extent. I would like to save money where I can. I still have a few weeks before I make the purchase so I will be doing more research obviously. This thread was just to get me thinking in the right direction. Which it has. The 400d is out. The 40d is the camera I am looking at. I have a friend who purchased one upgrading from a 30d (don't ask why I thought the same thing) and so far the photos he has showed me are slightly better that his with the 30d.

[sjl]

I have time and all good things come to those who wait. My aim is to use one lens and get use to the camera. Then in six months or so upgrade to a better lens (hopefully the 100mm f/2.8 macro). I am in Australia so prices are a little inflated to what you Americans pay. We manly get boned with lens. Body's are well priced.

If you're in Sydney, look at Discount Digital Photographics (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/). If you're in Melbourne, try Photobuff (http://www.photobuff.com.au/). Both are parallel importers - they buy their stuff direct from Canon USA, cutting out Canon Australia, which means you save a lot of money - I got my EF-S 10-22mm, with Hoya Pro 1 UV filter, for $AU985 (or so), which is below Canon Australia's wholesale price for the lens alone.

A cousin of mine asked, when I was asking about the D3, if I'd be buying gray market. I replied, "Lenses, yes. Body, no - there's more that can go wrong with the body." I'm still comfortable with saying that; the price difference is significant enough that I'll go gray market for lenses without batting an eyelid.

[furious]

If you're in Sydney, look at Discount Digital Photographics (http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/). If you're in Melbourne, try Photobuff (http://www.photobuff.com.au/). Both are parallel importers - they buy their stuff direct from Canon USA, cutting out Canon Australia, which means you save a lot of money - I got my EF-S 10-22mm, with Hoya Pro 1 UV filter, for $AU985 (or so), which is below Canon Australia's wholesale price for the lens alone.

A cousin of mine asked, when I was asking about the D3, if I'd be buying gray market. I replied, "Lenses, yes. Body, no - there's more that can go wrong with the body." I'm still comfortable with saying that; the price difference is significant enough that I'll go gray market for lenses without batting an eyelid.

Yes, I know all about these website;). But thank you for clearing up the gray/ parallel import thing for me. I was wondering how they run there business.

[wmmk]

I see the recommendations for the 30D, but heck, even the 20D is still a great camera. It has the same sensor, body, and frame rate as the 30D. The only differences are in buffer and LCD size, which should be a huge deal for you. Anyway, the 20D can be bought used (mint condition) for $100 USD less than a retail 400D. That would give you a tripod and a used flash over the 40D kit. The 17-55 f/2.8 is unarguably the best Canon non-L lens out there.

20D+17-55IS+small manfrotto tripod+used SB-26 (old nikon flash)+radio transmitters for flash=seriously killer kit

[Abstract]

I have looked at third party lenses at the camera store. It is just reviews online rate the canon lens higher.

Like it's even possible to notice. ;)


I will say one thing about Tokina though: Worst chromatic abberation and best build quality. That's what they're famous for. Sigma, good build quality and good optical quality lenses. Tamron's lenses are usually sharp (and sometimes sharper than Canon and Nikon equivalents), but they feel the cheapest. For many people, it doesn't matter. Plastic lenses will last as long as metal lenses under normal use by most people. Plastics are quite strong and durable nowadays.

[furious]

Like it's even possible to notice. ;)


I will say one thing about Tokina though: Worst chromatic abberation and best build quality. That's what they're famous for. Sigma, good build quality and good optical quality lenses. Tamron's lenses are usually sharp (and sometimes sharper than Canon and Nikon equivalents), but they feel the cheapest. For many people, it doesn't matter. Plastic lenses will last as long as metal lenses under normal use by most people. Plastics are quite strong and durable nowadays.

I realise it is the person behind the camera that makes all the difference. It is the quality problems I am worried about. And rightly so. I work hard for my money I want to get the best value for it. If you are paying $500 for an item and you have a choice of two items one with a 10% chance of failure and the other with a 25% chance of failure which would you chose?

[Zeke]

There are cheap Tamrons and there are nice ones. I've been very impressed with the nicer of Tamron lenses. The 28-75 2.8 was awesome and made me get the 17-50 when it came out and I've not been dissappointed. If you're just getting into slr photography there's absolutely no reason not to get one. Even if you happen to grow out of it (I haven't and I consider myself a pretty serious amateur) they hold resale value well. There's no reason for you to drop 3x the money on the Canon unless you just want the Canon name because the only real benefit is the USM.

[OreoCookie]

I realise it is the person behind the camera that makes all the difference. It is the quality problems I am worried about. And rightly so. I work hard for my money I want to get the best value for it. If you are paying $500 for an item and you have a choice of two items one with a 10% chance of failure and the other with a 25% chance of failure which would you chose?
Huh, where did you take those numbers from? Probably not from experience ;)

I've had a Tokina lens crash on the street in excess of 15 mph, the body (Nikon F80) was a goner, the lens worked just fine (the UV filter was cracked, though) -- their lenses are all full-metal and built like tanks. My cousin, a professional photographer, uses Canon, Sigma and Tokina lenses. If you are concerned about built quality, then either Tokina or more expensive Sigma lenses will be just fine. Tamron aims at a different price point, I think, but also offers quality lenses. I've never had any lens fail on me, though, neither original nor third-party.

Third-party lenses definitely have better value, for instance I expect the full-metal Tokina zoom to be a lot more durable than the (quality) plastics Canon original -- at half the price. In my book, the best value is clearly among the third-party lenses. Don't just pay twice as much for a `Canon' badge (or in my case, Nikon).

[furious]

Huh, where did you take those numbers from? Probably not from experience ;)




Have you heard of a hypothetical.

[OreoCookie]

Have you heard of a hypothetical.
Yes, it's not a good source. ;)

[furious]

Yes, it's not a good source. ;)

WTF

[OreoCookie]

WTF
Relax, I was merely being humorous. :)

[colinmack]

Sounds like you may have already made your decision, but as a general rule you will *always* get more bang for your buck from investing in glass as opposed to investing in bodies.

Sensors will change over time, features will improve, bodies end up being replaced...but glass is an investment you keep over multiple bodies for a longer period of time, not to mention that it has a more visible impact on the final result - and it's all about the pictures, right? ;-)

If it was me I'm not sure I'd go with either of the packages you suggested, the 17-55 is great optically, but it's a whole lotta cash for a non-L build lens (you also can't take it with you if you go back and forth with film bodies, or ever decide to upgrade to full frame, but then you could always sell it). As for the 17-85, it's a convenient walkaround range, but it certainly doesn't get stellar reviews for it's optics.

Depending on the quality you're expecting, maybe get one of the new 18-55/55-200 IS kits, or get a 17-40L and 50mm 1.8 and save up for a 70-200L...my 2 cents.

(I've had the 350D, 400D, 30D, 5D, as well as the Nikon D50...as someone else mentioned, if I didn't have an investment in Canon, I would certainly be looking harder at Nikon right now as a first-time buyer)