[lovegadgets]

I am going to get a 40D very soon and wonder which lens should I go for. My usage covers from landscape to portrait to wildlife and sports.

I don't really want to carry too many lenses and wonder if a walkabout lens like the Sigma 18-200mm DS DC will mate well with the 40D. Are these walkabout lens have too much compromise. How about the Canon 17-85mm IS - is it a good lens?

Please advice

[monkeyleader]

My main walkabout lens is the Canon 24-105L but I'm not sure how good it would be for true landscape stuff. As an about town lens its just perfect. Up until now its been used on my 350D but in abou 5 hours time it will soon get a new buddy - the 40D

Nige

[h4rri]

I think the 'coverall' lenses are a bit of a compromise, they aren't great at all focal lengths / apertures but a good all rounder.

I would say use the kit lense for now, see where you need the extra reach, the wide or long end and go from there. No point rushing out to buy all the kit now until you know what you need and what suits your style.

[richard plumb]

agree with the kit lens comment - except that you don't get the normal kit lens with the 40D, so have a browse on ebay, they should be pretty cheap

that'll should give you about the same quality as a general lens like an 18-200, plus it'll show you if 18mm is wide enough for you. For landscapes, stopped down to f8 or so it'll be nice and sharp anyway, so that should be fine

If you do a lot of portraits, you could consider a 50mm f1.8 which are about £70 and are a bit of a bargain.

wildlife to sports you want a long lens and here the 18-200 will let you down because of the slower aperture on the long end, which makes getting a good shutter speed difficult.


I have a 24-105 for my walkabout, then a sigma 10-20 for wide angle stuff, and a canon 70-300IS for longer stuff. There is a nice bit of overlap on the long end so generally I don't find myself swapping too much - the 24-105 stays on unless I know I'll be shooting long/wide.

[Tobers]

Charles, tell us how much money you want to spend and we'll sort you out.

There's so much choice and spread of prices that a bit of budget guidance is needed.

[lovegadgets]

Since I am a newbie to DSLR and I have been using a Casio EXP700 recently which I think is one of the compact digital you can getbefore moving up the ladder to DSLR. My previous 35mm camera is a Nikon FE2 with a F1.2 Nikkor 50mm and Tamron zoom which I was very happy with before I started digital.

I have been following the recent development of DSLR and think its good time to accquire one now. Can't really affort the full frame 5D so I think the next best thing (cost-wise) will be the 40D (Nikon D300 looks better on paper but can't justify the extra £400-500 for a cropped sensor DSLR).

So here I am, decided to get a 40D. The lens budget at this time is £400-500 (I know you won't get much quality for this price) but if its for a lens designed for the cropped sensor camera then I think its about right. I will upgrade to a full frame one when the price is right but the cropped lens will not be compatible (except for Nikon?).

The idea of getting a kit lens initially seems a good idea but I believe £70 for a 50mm f1.8 (model number please). How about the quality of the kit lens - I think I may came across one which looks and feels a bit on the cheap side (no offeences here).

Please advice.

Regards
Charles

[Tobers]

Are you getting the 40D with the kit lens? If so, it will be fine for the time being I'm sure but what you'll be missing is longer range. Not much point getting the 50mm f1.8 initially as your kit lens will cover that range.

So, I suggest the rather excellent 70-200 F4L at £350. This will partner your kit lens very will indeed. It is a proper L-series white lens with superb build quality.

Your next upgrade step will then probably be to upgrade the kit lens, and all & sundry will recommend the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS which is a tad pricier .

Tobers

[BananaTiger]

Originally Posted by charles.y

Since I am a newbie to DSLR and I have been using a Casio EXP700 recently which I think is one of the compact digital you can getbefore moving up the ladder to DSLR. My previous 35mm camera is a Nikon FE2 with a F1.2 Nikkor 50mm and Tamron zoom which I was very happy with before I started digital.

Can I ask what range the tamron was? Perhaps we can find an equivalent.

[h4rri]

Originally Posted by Tobers

Are you getting the 40D with the kit lens? If so, it will be fine for the time being I'm sure but what you'll be missing is longer range. Not much point getting the 50mm f1.8 initially as your kit lens will cover that range.

So, I suggest the rather excellent 70-200 F4L at £350. This will partner your kit lens very will indeed. It is a proper L-series white lens with superb build quality.

Your next upgrade step will then probably be to upgrade the kit lens, and all & sundry will recommend the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS which is a tad pricier .

Tobers

The 70-200 will also fit the full frame bodies so wouldn't need changing later in the day.

[lovegadgets]

So all the suggests have so far is to for a standard kit lens 50mm f1.8 and then get a 70-200mm f4 L series lens.

Is the kit kens 50mm suitable for landscape (50mm x 1.6 = 80mm already)? I sometimes like to have the wide angle on some landscape works. Are there any kit lens with range 17-50mm?

Am I right that the 70-200mm does not have a image stabilizer? How about the kit lens - what is the quality (OK/useful/average etc)?

How much do I expect to pay for the lens please and model number? Much thanks.

Regards
Charles

[lightpainter]

I thought the lens that comes with the 40D is the Canon EFS 17-85 IS USM which I have found to be a very good all round lens!

[senu]

Originally Posted by lightpainter

I thought the lens that comes with the 40D is the Canon EFS 17-85 IS USM which I have found to be a very good all round lens!

I wasnt sure Canon would put that as standard as they might lose money giving away an IS lens but they obviously do
That you find it great shows how good you are: I think Canon missed an opportunity to make it much better for the price

Saying that I use and like the concept of the 17-85
but
While it is better than the kit lens by no small measure ..it is nowhere as good as the cheaper prime 50mm , or the much costlier 17-55
Im often told the (non IS/USM) Sigma and Tamron equivalents are better optically but I have no personal experience of them
Ive taken some very nice pictures with it and find that its focal range as a walkabout is great but
Of all my (small collection of) lenses it is the least sharp and I wonder if it wont prevent the OP from finding out how good the 40D can be

[homerdog]

It sounds like your total budget for camera and lens is about £1200-£1300. I would suggest the 40D and 17-85IS kit, which costs £949 from Warehouse Express. Add on a 70-300IS for £365 and you've got 17-300 covered in two lenses. This will give the equivalent of 27-480 in 35mm film terms.

All for £1314 - when you take into account the Canon Cashback promotion starting on October 1st, which will save you a further £110, you will have paid a total of only £1204 - bargain!

Have a look at Camera Price Buster for some price comparisons.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by senu

Im not sure Canon would put that as standard as they might lose money giving away an IS lens

It's part of one of the kits available from Canon. They're not giving it away, but you pay a lot less for it than normal.

Originally Posted by senu

That you find it great shows how good you are

That's very patronising - it's not a great lens, but still good. Post me the best shot you've taken with any of your lenses and I'll show you a better one taken with the 17-85!

[richard plumb]

Originally Posted by homerdog

It sounds like your total budget for camera and lens is about £1200-£1300. I would suggest the 40D and 17-85IS kit, which costs £949 from Warehouse Express. Add on a 70-300IS for £365 and you've got 17-300 covered in two lenses. This will give the equivalent of 27-480 in 35mm film terms.

All for £1314 - when you take into account the Canon Cashback promotion starting on October 1st, which will save you a further £110, you will have paid a total of only £1204 - bargain!

Have a look at Camera Price Buster for some price comparisons.

I'd agree with this, but also suggest you look at alternatives for the short end. The 17-85IS is a good lens, but one of the 17-70 f2.8 lenses might be a better option. There has been good development in that area recently and having a faster short lens might be a good option

[senu]

Originally Posted by homerdog

That's very patronising - it's not a great lens, but still good. Post me the best shot you've taken with any of your lenses and I'll show you a better one taken with the 17-85!

Im sorry if you read that and concluded it was very patronising. I dont do patronising and while you are entitled to that interpretation I would say youve made a snap judgement

It was infact a back handed way of saying that the poster ( lightpainter) can get a good image with any lens great or not so great and as such , a compliment to him

Also you have selectively quoted my post or read it in haste (or both) . It is not negative but (IMO) a realistic personal assessment of the lens
I have championed the 17-85 in the past See HERE

In the post you've quoted from
I also stated:

I use the lens and like its concept

and that Ive taken some very nice photos with it

You haven't referred to these

Feel free to show your images by all means whichever lens took them with
but
I dont feel the need to retract stating that of the few lenses I own it is the least sharp
As it happens , I continue to use it for its fast quiet accurate AF, nice range and useful IS but not for its sharpness, or speed

Canon used to sell it for £400 -450.. ( which is what I bought it for ) I imagine they cannot continue to justify that price which is why it is now a "kit" option with the 40D
To the OP ,: the 40D seems like an exciting camera to own, pair it with lenses with care

[lovegadgets]

Thanks for the advice so far guys. Very useful indeed.

Since I take more portraits and landscape than wildlife and sports therefore fast lens is not the high priority. Looks like either the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 or EF-S 50mm f1.8 will fit the bill for the time being. How about the image quality of these lens, are they bad/ok/average?

Am I right that you can't buy just the 18-55mm on its own because it is a bundle lens but I can find them easily on ebay (is £50 reasonable?)

I quite like the 50mm f1.8 (£70 is good nice) which is suffficient for most portraits and landscape and nice f1.8. For this price, I do not expect excellent image quality right?

Regards
Charles

[senu]

Originally Posted by charles.y

Thanks for the advice so far guys. Very useful indeed.

Since I take more portraits and landscape than wildlife and sports therefore fast lens is not the high priority. Looks like either the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 or EF-S 50mm f1.8 will fit the bill for the time being. How about the image quality of these lens, are they bad/ok/average?

18-55: usable but underwhelming in the long run.. It isnt the pits TBH but it can be used to learn and get used to the camera..There is something about good quality lenses that wants to let you just keep taking photos. You may not get that with this lens. Saying that ,it has been used to win several of this forums monthly photo comps so you can wring a bit out of it but if you didn't already get it for "almost free" Id be hesitant to recommend it

Am I right that you can't buy just the 18-55mm on its own because it is a bundle lens but I can find them easily on ebay (is £50 reasonable?)

You can (some dealers sell body only from a kit) but it is more likely to be on Ebay .. £50 is slightly more than you should pay IMHO

I quite like the 50mm f1.8 (£70 is good nice) which is suffficient for most portraits and landscape and nice f1.8. For this price, I do not expect excellent image quality right?

Wrong ,it is probably the most VFM lens ..ever
What you lose by being restricted to one focal length, so so AF and flimsy build you gain in sharpness , speed.. and excellent IQ
The 50mm 1.4 is rather better but not by a factor of the cost difference (4X)

[Holowlegs]

Hi ya

Just picked up my 50mm 1.8 this morning, not had a chance to use it yet but it is well thought off on here and I only paid £56 from here very good service.


Cheers Holo

[lovegadgets]

Thanks for the advice guys. Here is my decision ...

Canon 40D body + EF 50mm F1.8

this will keep me busy for the next few months to get to know and manage the hugh amount of controls of the 40D. I will then seek advice later on what tele-zoom lens to get before X'mas to qualify for the cash debate offer.

Will get them on Monday.

Regards
Charles

[senu]

Nice combo but TBH the 50mm prime is not a walkabout, and not wide enough for a large no of subjects
I reckon you will miss a "walkabout" lens no matter how basic very early on for those " rough and ready" shots

[Radiohead]

Assuming you don't want to pony up for the 17-55IS, I'd be putting the excellent Tamron 17-50/2.8 on the 40D.

I use the Canon 17-40mm as a standard zoom on my 40D, but that's because I need all lenses to cover both bodies. Otherwise it'd be the Tamron. Had one briefly and it's a stonking little lens and a bargain.

[lovegadgets]

Does it mean that for the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8, a 50mm prime is not really needed?

[senu]

Originally Posted by charles.y

Does it mean that for the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8, a 50mm prime is not really needed?

For the 50mm focal length ...no
But the 17-50 Tamron ( or any other Wide angle zoom for that matter) will not be as fast or optically able to match the 50mm 1.8. at the 50 mm focal length
So you could just get the Tamron, alone .. or both but you would miss out on useful every day wide range if you only had the 50 mm 1.8

However the 50mm 1.8 is a very inexpensive example of fast, sharp lens which will tell you very quickly how capable your camera is.
Using it (By moving backwards or forwards to compose) takes a little getting used to but the results tend to be worth it

[lovegadgets]

The idea of a fast(-ish) wide-to-standard zoom is very tempting.

Am I right that the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 has similar IQ compares to the the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 but without the IS and USM and £200 less?

This way I can also get a EF 50mm F1.8 for indoor portrait use. Just wonder how often that you guys out there will swap your 10-40mm/17-50mm/17-85mm for a prime 50mm for1.4/1.8.

Since I don't do many wildlife and sports shot therefore I may consider a 70-200mm later on when needed.

How is that so far? Please advice.

Regards
Charles

[senu]

Originally Posted by charles.y

The idea of a fast(-ish) wide-to-standard zoom is very tempting.

Am I right that the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 has similar IQ compares to the the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 but without the IS and USM and £200 less?

A matter of opinion as the 17-55 is actually "L" glass (for whatever that is worth) but in pure VFM stakes it does give the Canon lens a run for its money. A few review suggest the Tamron works better between f 4 and 5.6 but I cant say as Ive never used it. I do have the 17-55 and it seems to be happy at all apertures but as you've rightly pointed out it is costlier

This way I can also get a EF 50mm F1.8 for indoor portrait use. Just wonder how often that you guys out there will swap your 10-40mm/17-50mm/17-85mm for a prime 50mm for1.4/1.8.

Speaking for myself : Enough times , if the subject is suitable especially portraiture.
For more casual imaging maybe not.

Since I don't do many wildlife and sports shot therefore I may consider a 70-200mm later on when needed.

How is that so far? Please advice.

You seem to be thinking it through fairly logically. Some have suggested the 24-105L as a good all rounder (at a cost ) I have no personal experience of it .

[Holowlegs]

Hi ya


Another lens you maybe worth a look at is maybe the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens. Ok at the longer end it is F 4.5, but it is 20mm longer than the Tamron.


Cheers Holo

[lovegadgets]

It seems to be that most of the non-Canon 18-55/70/80 zooms don't have IS. Just wonder if IS really that important with a fast lens e.g. 1.8/2.8 etc?

I realised that the wider range of focal length the zoom covers, the more compromise likely and that's why I don't really want to stretch the both ends too much. Otherwise, I may just get Sigma 18-200 OS as I said in the beginning of this thread.

Or change the plan to just get a all-in-one walkaround like the Sigma 18-200 and with a good prime like the 50mm f1.4?

Please advice.

Regards
Charles

[richard plumb]

if you're using it indoors or in low light, even 1.8/2.8 can result in slow shutter speeds, so IS can help.

Having said that, if you're in a controlled environment you're more likely to be able to use flash, or pop it on a tripod and live with a slower shutter. So I'd say no, IS isn't essential on a wide/fast lens.

Certainly helps with longer/slower ones though.

I'd get a relatively cheap, simple, fast lens in the 17-50 ish range. Most of the ones recommended on here should be great for you.

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by charles.y

Since I take more portraits and landscape than wildlife and sports therefore fast lens is not the high priority.

Regards
Charles

IMO a fast lens is an absolut top priority for a good portrait lens. You realy want a good shallow DoF and sharp as a pin for portraits, which is why the primes (50mm, 85mm and 135mm) are primarily used as portrait lenses.


If I had a tamron 17-50f2.8 I certainly wouldnt bein too much of a hurry for the 50mm tho but its just so cheap..

Canons 17-55f2.8IS is from an image quality POV an 'L' (and has the special optical elements requierd) tho being EF-S and having slightly inferior (to L) construction means it'll neevr get called L.

Primes have pretty much no distortion, are sharp wide open (or close) are fast and without doubt the best picture you'll get from any lens. IMO there should always be space for a few primes in anyones kit bag, starting with the 50mmf1.8 - you need a fair old fortune to improve on its image quality.