Jump to content

First DSLR, 40D and WHAT lenses?


ming_chai

Recommended Posts

I just decided to buy my first DLSR. I have read lots of forums about the

Rebel vs 30D vs 40D and am sold on the 40D. I am however not sure yet which

lenses to start with. I will primarily use the camera for

leisure/travel/family types of pictures. I would love to use it for my trip in

a few weeks! I don't think I will need long telephoto lense just yet. So that

been said I am thinking about the following 2 of the following 3 (probably the

first 2):

 

1) 50mm/1.4

2) 10-22mm/3.5~4.5

3) 17-55mm/2.8

 

I have heard a lot of good things about the 17-55/2.8. The price is few

hundred dollars more than the wide angle 10-22. So I am not sure which one to

buy. If any of your experts out there can shed some lights that will be very

helpful! Any other starter lense suggestions are welcome as well!

 

Thanks!

 

Ming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17-55 is very good indeed and it is IS lens, however, for your trip 10-22 will do better if you're gonna shoot sceneries, landscapes. If you are not planning on shooting wide angle, 17-55 will be more than you need and it has more "reach" also. Skip 50/1.4 for now. If you want prime 50mm then get 1.8 version, it is cheaper and very good lens, and sharper then 1.4.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can swing it, get all three. The first two are a very nice set, but the gap between 22mm and 50mm is too large, and since if corresponds to 35-80mm in full frame, you are missing the entire standard range. A lot of people start with a lens that covers just this range, and many never buy anything else, which indicates it's kind of useful for just the stuff you want to shoot. The 17-55mm/2.8 covers it handsomely.

 

If you like wide angle shots, you sure are going to enjoy the 10-22mm. It is an awesome lens, but since you don't have anything else to cover the standard range, I would give up wide angle before standard. An easy way to save would be to go for the 50mm/1.8 instead of the 1.4 - or get the Sigma 30mm/1.4 with the 10-22mm. That way at least you have a standard lens instead of a short tele.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For "leisure/travel/family types of pictures," I recommend that you go slow at first. For most people in your situation, starting with the kit lens and learning the camera

(and your own photographic preferences) a bit will make you a smarter shopper later on.

 

If you will primarily share photographs with friends and family in the form of letter size or smaller prints and/or share electronic version in email or on the web you'll be

fine with the kit lens for awhile. In fact, you may be fine with the kit lens for a LONG while.

 

A good way to approach this is to ask yourself if YOU can clearly articulate what the functions of those lenses are and how you will use them in your photography. If you

can't do this yet - and I truly mean no disrespect here - it is not time to make a lot of purchases yet.

 

One example of this in your own message is to think of the 10-22 and the 17-55 as alternatives - and not be sure which one to buy. Buying either because I or anyone

else writes "you should get this lens" would quite possibly be a mistake. If you are the kind of photographer who relies on an ultra-wide angle lens for much of your work,

then there would be little question that you would _need_ something like the 10-22. On the other hand, if you are the type of photographer who finds that 17mm is wide

enough on a crop sensor camera and you need extra low light capability for natural light photography then the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS might be a better choice.

 

The problem is that you/we don't know _your_ predilections in this regard. Both are fine lenses, but both are not appropriate for the same purposes. In some situations

one of them would be "best." In other situations, the other one would be "best."

 

The good news is that you'll figure this out after you shoot a bunch of photos. The other good news is that you'll probably save a lot of money or at least spend in more

effectively if you go a bit slow at first. Even more good news - you don't have to buy now; these lenses and others will still be available in the months and years ahead.

 

Back to my "articulate your needs point" for a moment. Can you articulate what it is about your photography that will benefit from the 40D over the XTi? For many people

in your circumstance - though admittedly not all - the XTi could actually be a "better" choice. If you are getting the 40D because you think it will produce significantly

better image quality for your leisure/travel/family pictures, you may be a somewhat disappointed. In general the XTi should probably be able to handle this just fine.

 

(As a point of reference, I used the 350D/Rebel XT for a couple years for backpacking and outdoor photography. I sold photographs taken with that camera - as prints, for

electronic use, and for use in publications. The XTi is the current equivalent of that camera.)

 

Have fun with you new camera.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the 30D/40D. Its ergonomics and built-quality are better which will lead to a more enjoyable photo experience. At least for me. I find the entry-level cameras simply too "toyish" and uncomfortable to hold.

 

Get the 50mm f/1.8 for now. If think the f/1.4 is a bit overpriced and its wide open image quality is not that exciting. The f/1.8 is an excellent portrait lens with good low-light capabilities.

 

The other two lenses (10-22mm, 17-55mm) are rather expensive. Are you sure you will like them? Why not just start out with an 18-55mm kit zoom, it's quite good for its price.

 

The EF-S 17-85mm is too slow, too big and heavy for all-round use. I didn't like it, but if you are interested in it, be sure to check it out and handle it. A max aperture of f/4-5.6 is not very hot.

 

Typical beginner mistake: You are forgetting a flash unit. You need an E-TTL compatible Speedlite with bounce flash for pleasant indoor photography (unless you go the available light route). Don't take this lightly -- a modern strobe will greatly expand your photographic options: High-speed sync, AF assist light and reflected/bounce + diffused flash illumation are all extremely helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A beginner shooting "leisure/travel/family types of pictures" is precisely the target market for a camera/lens combo like the XTi/kit lens. If it isn't appropriate for such a user, who is it

appropriate for? :-)

 

I used the 17-85mm for about a year when it first came out. It is OK for a lot of stuff and its slightly better reach at the telephoto end can be useful, especially combined with the image

stabilization (IS) feature. But the cost is considerably more. I'd still shoot that kits lens for awhile before you get something like the 17-85. If it turns out to be just the thing, you really won't

have wasted any money on the kit lens since it is virtually free; if it turns out that the 17-85mm is not right for you (and it has its "issues") then you'll save some money that might have been

spent prematurely on the wrong lens.

 

However, again keeping in mind the poster's mission of shooting "Leisure/travel/family types of pictures" with her "first DLSR," I would also recommend not getting an external flash right

away. Bueh is correct that the use of a more sophisticated flash unit than the built-in flash on the XTi or the 40D can create better lighting, but I have a pretty good hunch that you may be

perfectly happy with the built-in unit and not want to complicate your life by adding an external flash right away. Again, after you shoot for awhile you may well feel differently - in which

case you can still get that external flash.

 

I guess my main points include:

 

- beginners should generally start small and avoid buying a bunch of gear because someone else says they should

 

- beginners can learn a lot by using simple and less expensive equipment at first.

 

- as beginners gain experience they will be able to better identify their own photographic needs and come to conclusions about what gear to get.

 

- once you become a bit more sophisticated about your photography you'll realize what YOUR right equipment is.

 

And, for those of us responding to questions from beginners:

 

- it is important to keep the particular needs of the person posting the question in mind, and tailor our replies to their situation. (Example: I shoot a 5D on a tripod with a bunch of L and

similar lenses. That is the right solution for me. But I sure don't think it would be right for a beginner looking to take some family shots. At least not at first. ;-)

 

It isn't my mission to contradict Bueh, but I seem to be doing that recently... (Don't take it personally, Bueh. We just seem to have different opinions about these things, and it doesn't hurt

anyone to hear multiple viewpoints. In honor of that sentiment I won't say anything here about the 50mm lens recommendation this time... ;-)

 

Take care,

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Frank Mueller.

 

 

If you have done the homework, which it seems you have, get all three if you can: they would be an awesome travel / general kit

 

If you can only afford two of these three lenses, I also suggest sacrificing the wide angle zoom, at first.

 

Alternatively, get all three but, the50mmF1.8MkII, and the two zooms mentioned to better balance the budget and still give the flexibility.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are wise to be considering some high quality optics. If you want to save some money, look for some lower cost alternatives, but that still have good IQ.

 

A low cost option is the 50 f1.8 which is a fantastic lens for the price. On a 1.6X body it may be a little long at times for indoor "family" shots or for landscape/travel.

 

There are several options in the 17-55 range, form excellent, to good, to P&S equivalent. I consider that FL range to be highly versitile and I suspect you will do plenty of shooting over that range for many years to come.

 

The 10-22 and the 50 will cover greater range than the 17-55 and give you some great capabilities at wide angle. Another option is to go with the 17-55 (either with or without the 50 as well) and then add a wide angle prime or the 10-22 later.

 

Which do you need more right now, the extreme wide angle, or more in the standard range (semi-wide 17 to 55)? If I look at my typical travel/family shots the EXIF data show lots of work done in the 17 to 55 range.

 

I wouldn't waste the money on the 18-55 kit lens (consider it a $100 discount on a better 17-55, which you will probably buy someday anyway if you use the range of the 18-55). You can learn just as much on the 17-55, and you will likely get better results from your vacation.

 

There are several 3rd party lenses in the 17-55 range that cost less (about 1/3 to 1/2) of the Canon 17-55 and that give results that are pretty close, and much better than the 18-55 kit lens.

 

-Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm another vote for not buying the kit lens as in most cases, they are rubbish! You will have it for six months and then will be looking to replace it as I guarantee you will be disappointed when you see your images on a large monitor! Its been my experience that if you buy cheap, you end up buying twice (I know of what I speak!). While the 50 f/1.8 is an excellent "cheap" lens, its possibly one of the least used lenses in anyone's bag! Also please note that the 10-22 is a EF-S lens which is incompatible with full frame bodies which you may be looking at down the track. I would check out the Canon 17-40 f/4 L which is one of the best landscape lenses or even the 24-105 for a walkabout lens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You definitely don't want either the 10~22 ON ITS OWN or any 50mm lens ON ITS OWN. Start with a standard zoom. The choice depends on how price-sensitive you are and what your priorities are, but if you can afford to go straight for something better than the kit lens, by all means do so. When I first had a 20D, the 17~40 'borrowed' from my film kit served quite well as a standard zoom in terms of quality, but I'd regard the 17~55/2.8IS as very much preferable now. The 17~85 might be worth thinking about - cheaper, lighter, and with a wider focal length range than the 17~55, but much slower and of lower optical quality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>I'm another vote for not buying the kit lens as in most cases, they are rubbish! You will have it for six months and then will be looking to replace it as I guarantee you will be disappointed when you see your images on a large monitor!</i>

<p>

I'll third this, except replace "kit lens" with "17-85/4-5.6".

<p>

DI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, David! Funny, one year or so ago everyone was recommending the EF-S 17-85mm as THE definitive beginner lens because its specs sounded so good (catch-all zoom range, <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr> magic, fast <abbr title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr>, good minimum focus distance, affordable price etc). But I think the tide has turned, and for various reasons the regular kit zoom is more desirable (I guess especially the new version with <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr>). Image quality and usefulness was just not as great as expected.

<p>

Dan, I couldn't care less what gear someone I don't even know buys. Of course I don't take your stance against the 50mm prime personally, but still I wonder what you have against this lens when it delivers outstanding image aestethics that most beginners aren't used to (coming from cheap consumer zooms or point-&-shoots). The difference has to be seen first, but if the photographer feels that the drawbacks outweight the improved image quality (sharpness, bokeh, etc) there is no big loss switching it to a more versatile prosumer zoom.

<p>

I think an external Speedlite is the most overlooked tool for beginners. Without it, <abbr title="digital single-lens reflex camera">dSLR</abbr> pictures with flash will just look like the ones from an inexpensive digicam. Red eyes, harsh shadows and that deer-in-headlights look just aren't my cup of tea. Again, the difference between direct flash and <b><a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-82.html">bounced flash</a></b> is quite breathtaking and this technique vastly improves the aesthetics of most indoor photography. That's why I keep recommending the user-friendly Speedlite 380EX, it has only two controls -- power on/off and high-speed sync on/off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd put a vote in for the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as a good lens to go with one's purchase of a

1.6-crop body. It's not nearly as expensive as the Canon (especially if you can find a good

one used), but it covers the coveted standard zoom range with an f/2.8 aperture.

Personally, my 50/1.8 has come out once or twice since I got the 17-50/2.8, although it

had been a regularly-used lens prior (in conjunction with the Tamron 19-35/slow and a

telephoto zoom). Plus, it's generally well-liked in the used equipment world, so it

shouldn't be terribly painful to sell it if you decide you don't like it it.

 

For indoor photography, I agree that a good flash would be helpful; I'd budget for either

the 430EX, 550EX, or 580EX, in the near-term future if not right away. All of them have

some degree of manual control available in the event you want to go off-camera at a later

point in time, and it's a lot cheaper to buy good gear up front than to buy cheap stuff and

then sell it for a significant loss in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used all three lenses and all are great.

 

for your body, however, I think that the 50mm would probably not be used much if you have a sharp zoom in the same range.

 

if you have $$, buy the 17-55 IS 2.8. I doubt you will ever regret it. that lens lives on one of my 20D bodies.

 

if you don't have $$, consider teh 17-85 IS. sharp lens, a bit slower.

 

the 10-22, IMHO, is a specialty lens for close quarters or architectural work (of course, a 5D with a 24 T/S lens is really better).

 

the 50mm is good for portraits, but it's not as sharp wide open, and I think that the 85mm 1.8 is a better use of your $$.

 

the 17-55 IS 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 (or 1.2 if you can $$ it!) is a great combo, and my 'go to' setup if I don't know what I'm going to photograph at an event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> While the 50 f/1.8 is an excellent "cheap" lens, its possibly one of the least used lenses in anyone's bag! Also please note that the 10-22 is a EF-S lens which is incompatible with full frame bodies which you may be looking at down the track. <<< (SS)

 

On the second point first: the 17 to 55F2.8 IS, is also an EF-S lens (which also was not previously mentioned, I think).

 

Re the 50mm: The choice of a fast prime(s) as a companion(s) to a zoom based kit would (always) be based upon the requirement for more lens speed. (and all the benefits / uses thereof).

 

The choice of FL for that (those) primes would (should) be decided by style, subject matter, common shooting scenarios, etc.

 

In the OP, it is difficult to gauge how much knowledge and experience went into the selection of the three lenses mentioned.

 

But assuming, for example, there is a need for a fast prime for `portrait style work`: a 50mm on an APS-C body would be used quite extensively.

 

Buying `cheap` can often mean buying twice, yes definitely.

 

Do not confuse `cheap` with `a less expensive, viable alternative` (i.e. EF 50mmF1.8MkII to the EF 50mmF1.4).

 

Possibly it has decided that FL 50mm will be used extensively, possibly not:

 

If not, then more thinking should happen, as mentioned it might not be often used.

 

If yes, and there is just not enough cash to stretch for the 50mm F1.4, then the F1.8 is a good alternative which will give good service and results.

 

Posted to reinforce clearly the significant difference in the `value for money` comparison between the `kit lens` and the 50mm F1.8, and also to stimulate the thinking about the reasons for a 50mm prime in the first inst.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...