40D lens advice

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mustard Chops, Feb 25, 2008.

  1. Mustard Chops macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #1
    I'm going to grab myself a 40D next month when i visit New York. It will be an upgrade from my 350d which I've been using with the kit lens and a Canon fixed 50mm f1.8.

    I'll get the camera from BH Photo. These guys have the 40D with a choice of 2 lenses;

    EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens @ $1,664.95

    EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM AF Lens @ $1,369.95

    I'm gonna keep the 50mm and maybe get a 10 - 22mm Canon or 10 - 20mm Sigma also (if I can afford it and the wife doesn't kill me!)

    Do you guys have any advice on which kit to get and bearing in mind that the 10 - 20/22mm might not be viable?

    At the moment i'm leaning towards the 28 - 135 ;)

    Cheers!
     
  2. Lightglance.com macrumors member

    Lightglance.com

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    #2
    Personally i would go for the "24-70mm f/2.8", it makes you less dependent on the light, and covers most of the "normal" range pictures, but lacks some when it comes to zoom. It is a part of the Canon L-Series, so you are sure to get quality.

    Product link=24-70mm f/2.8
     
  3. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #3
    Coming from the kit lens (18-55mm?) I guess you'd want something that can get almost as wide angle, right?

    So really the 17-85 kit is probably the one for you. O.k. it's little slow (f/4 - f/5.6), but IS will probably help you out (if not just up the ISO). At 28mm the 28-135 may mean you miss out of some of the wider images you currently capture with your current kit lens. It's longer at the other end though, but I personally find I use wide angles more than a telephoto option.

    The 24-70 is a fine lens, but it's expensive pro lens which to be honest isn't really wide for a cropped body (plus it's quite heavy compared to what you're used too).

    Based on the fact that the 10-22 might not be an option, I'd go for the first kit.

    One word of warning though, remember to add the State tax onto the B&H prices when buy in New York (8.375% ?) plus any import duty and Vat (thats if your from the UK - I'm guessing Mustard Chops has to be a UK name!).

    Also most important the Camera and Lens warranty is not valid in the UK. Also from March 1st Canon UK are offering £100 cashback on the 40D and £40 cashback on the 17-85. The official Canon site doesn't mention it yet, but Park Cameras have a page announcing it.
     
  4. seany916 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    #4
     
  5. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #5
    Look at the 17-40 f/4 L. Fantastic lens and a great price for its quality. a 50mm f/1.8 ($75) and a 70-200mm f/4 lens might make a great lineup for you later on.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    I would not get the 17-85. It covers a great range, but doesn't sound like a particularly good lens. It's slow, has major distortion and CA problems. Of the two, I'd get the 28-135 (because it's cheap and would give you some reach that you don't have) and continue to use your 18-55 for wide angle shots, or use the money you're saving over the 17-85 to indeed get that 10-22.

    If you're going to consider other lenses, Sigma's 17-70 DC Macro sounds like an interesting lens. It's not IS, but it's cheaper than Canon's 17-85, is a stop faster, has better optics, and does reasonably good macro.
     
  7. phiberglass macrumors 6502a

    phiberglass

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    #7
    I would opt out of all of those and pick up a 17-40 or 17-55 and your UWA.
     
  8. crazyskillz07 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    #8
    I think a important question is what kind of stuff will you be shooting. I have the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS and I hate it. I do sports photography and it is useless for me. On the other hand I have a 85 f/1.8 which is amazing for indoor sports and portraits. My next lens is a 70-200 f/2.8 non IS which is great for sports. Maybe you should look into a 70-200 f/4 non IS for about 570 USD.
     
  9. jdsam macrumors member

    jdsam

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Location:
    Hanover, NH ... for now
    #9
    I would really recommend looking into the canon 17-55IS f/2.8. If you can afford it the image quality is great. I got this lens to go with my new 40D and have nothing but good things to say about it. It is a much nicer lens than the 17-85, if you can handle the price and the more limited zoom I would highly recommend it.
     
  10. Mustard Chops thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #10
    That's really interesting news, with the £100 cashback the price seems in line with the US price for the body only...
     
  11. Mustard Chops thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #11
    Mainly architecture, portraits and landscapes I think. Thats generally what I'm shooting at the moment.
     
  12. Mustard Chops thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #12

    You're right it is a UK name ;) I'm prepared to pay the sales tax on the items. Import duty / VAT, not so much. I was going to get one of my friends in New York to ship the empty boxes over to me once i leave. You cant pay VAT on an empty box! :D
     
  13. rhomsy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    #13
    If you're doing architectural, then you need a wide angle lens. I just got a 40D, and I shoot architectural shots for real estate listings. One thing to note is that the 1.6 crop factor of the 40D works in your favor when you are using telephoto, but it works against you when you want wide angle. I have decided to only invest in EF lenses because I want them to be compatible for a future full frame camera later. However, I will get an EF-S 10-22mm because it is the only way (in Canon's lineup) to get a really wide shot.

    I just don't have the coin yet to drop for that lens. But that is the next one that I'll be picking up. Essential for what we shoot with a 40D.
     
  14. Lucy Brown macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    #14
    If your going to get that 10-22 I would get the longer kit lens for the reach. If your not going to get the 10-22 I would get the 17-85 for the wide angle. IMO it's a better walkaround lens. Your not going to get the reach that 135 length gives you but I'd rather trade the long side to start than the short side.
     
  15. NeXTCube macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    #15
    We love to help people spend money on glass! :)

    Could go with the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 as a less-expensive ($419 @ B&H) upgrade to the 18-55mm kit lens. It's less than half the price of the Canon 17-55 IS USM f/2.8. Obviously, you lose the image stabilization, and the glass isn't quite as good, but...uhm...well...you save $600! Enough to get the Sigma 10-20 (sample pictures in another mr thread) and have $100 left over!

    (By the way, I don't work for Sigma or Popular Photography.)
     

Share This Page