Canon 40d - With lens kit or not?

Although the EF 28-135 is a step above the kit lens, the difference isn't so significant that it'd be worth spending your money. Save up for the 24-105mm f/4 IS L which is a fantastic lens and definitely worth the wait.

I'd agree. Check out the 24-70mm f/2.8L too - it's a top notch lens. Then you'd have:

12-24mm
24-70mm
70-300mm

Congrats! I love the 40d. What were you shooting with before?
Also, wanna pony up a wallpaper size (ummm something around 2560x1600 hah hah) of this photo right here? It's pretty!

The kit lens will be a great replacement for the 18-55 mm. Although you might consider getting a `real' lens, e. g. one of the 2.8/16/17-50 zoom lenses by Tokina, Sigma or Tamron. They really expand your possibilities (there is no replacement for a 2.8 aperture be it L glass or not).

same here

i have xt (350D) and i have 3 lens, 18-55 kit lens, 85 f1.8 and 55-200 f4.5-5.6

just get a 17-40 F4L as a birthday gift. now i am thinking about sell my whole xt set up and only keep the 85 f1.8 and my 430ex flash. and get a 40D, but feeling tell me may be i should just keep my xt as a backup body, or not upgrade at all. My xt also have the BG-E3 and also two batteries

and may be I should sell the 55-200 since i barely use it and thinking about get an used 70-200mm F4L

tonyeck said:

I need a replacement for the 18-55mm as I am not happy with that lens. Ideally I would like the 17-105mm L lens (or the 17-70mm L) so would it be worth waiting 6 months or so to pick this up? Or just go for the 28-135mm and make do

Thanks for any advice!

Click to expand...

All L lenses are full frame, and a 17-105 or 17-70 lens compatible with FF is physically very difficult in regards to front element size and distortion correction. Add the factor of a constant aperture, even, f/4, and we're nearing impossibility.

The 17-55IS is a great lens but has terrible problems with dust getting inside the lens, where it appears magnified in photos. It also has rather measly build for a $1000 lens. The Sigma 18-50/2.8 has some serious quality control issues.The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is an outstanding performer but has slightly flimsy build. Finally, the Tokina 16-50/2.8 has amazing IQ and is built like a tank. If you want more range, you'll have to sacrifice the fast constant aperture...

wmmk said:

All L lenses are full frame, and a 17-105 or 17-70 lens compatible with FF is physically very difficult in regards to front element size and distortion correction. Add the factor of a constant aperture, even, f/4, and we're nearing impossibility.

Click to expand...

Ummm.... what exactly are you trying to say?

ALL EF and EF-S lenses made by Canon are compatible with the xxxD and the xxD series of digital SLRs. When you get into the xD series (5D, 1D, 1Ds), then you can't use the EF-S lenses. ALL L lenses are EF.

Are you talking about the fact that the 24-105 and 24-70 L's are a bit on the long end to be a useful walk-around lens. I'd agree that if he's looking to get a top-notch walk around lens for a crop-sensor camera, the 17-55 is "meh," but there is always the cheaper, and sharper 17-40 f/4 L.

Was that just a joke because the OP wrote 17- 105 and 17- 70, as opposed to 24-105 and 24-70? I think that we all knew what he meant, as there aren't any L lenses in production with these specs. If you're saying that a lens with some major zoom and sharpness is impossible, I'd tell you to look at the Nikor 18-200, or the Canon 28-300 L.

Lovesong said:

ALL EF and EF-S lenses made by Canon are compatible with the xxxD and the xxD series of digital SLRs. When you get into the xD series (5D, 1D, 1Ds), then you can't use the EF-S lenses. ALL L lenses are EF.

Click to expand...

That's not quite correct: the D30, D60 and the 10D are not compatible with EF-S lenses. However, I don't think that this is relevant anymore.

Swing for the 24-105. It has better resolution figures than the 24-70, and apparently less trouble with copy-to-copy variations in optical quality.

The 17-40 is probably (build-wise and spec-wise) the single best standard zoom on a crop camera, unless of course you succumb to the reputation of the 17-55 f2.8.

Personally, I am not impressed by the 17-55 because of my background with 70's era film cameras. The quality of the build on the 17-55 instills no confidence in me. When I hold it, I do not think "wow, this lens will withstand all kinds of use for a decade". My lenses from the 70's are good as new; I doubt the 17-55 will be so in 10 years. Because of my place in life as a poor student, I have to stretch everything to the max. Spending 1000 on a lens with mediocre build quality won't cut it when you could spend LESS on the 17-40 that is built like a battlecruiser.

Anyhow, look into the 24-105 or the 17-40. Full-frame or 1.3 crop will doubtlessly become more affordable in the future (especially with more players like Nikon entering the marketplace). The fixed f4 is of no concern if you invest in a good 1.4 or 2.8 prime and learn to use it to its fullest. Zooms can make you lazy.