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

furious

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
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

macrumors 68000
Nov 16, 2006
1,864
0
New York City
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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
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

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,096
3,405
Twin Cities Minnesota
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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
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.
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
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.
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
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

macrumors 68000
Nov 18, 2006
1,582
0
Melbourne, Australia
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

macrumors 6502a
Jun 21, 2004
889
0
ct, us
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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
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

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
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

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
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, the original isn't.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
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

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
I have looked at third party lenses at the camera store. It is just reviews online rate the canon lens higher.
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,680
69
Sendai, Japan
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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
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

macrumors 6502
Sep 15, 2004
441
0
Melbourne, Australia
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. If you're in Melbourne, try Photobuff. 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

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
1,012
0
Australia
If you're in Sydney, look at Discount Digital Photographics. If you're in Melbourne, try Photobuff. 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

macrumors 68020
Mar 28, 2006
2,419
0
The Library.
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

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
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.