Suggestion for Canon 40D lens with cashback

Hi everyone,

 

I am planning to purchase a Canon 40D because I can get a cashback of 200 euros,

which makes the price 943 euros very attractive, but the included lens is a

17-85mm lens. I see that lots of people got other lens suggested.

 

I am planning to take portraits, travel and indoor pictures. Maybe its better to

buy the body seperatley and take another lens, or should the 17-85 be fine ? Im

worried about the "low" speed of the 17-85 kit lens....i know everyone is

suggestion the "fast" 18 - 55 lens, but that one is kinda expensive i thnk . .

my budget is around 1000 euros

 

any suggestion will be welcome !

 

thnx

I presume that by the "fast 18 - 55 lens" you mean the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is indeed a great and expensive choice (the actual kit 18-55 lenses are anything but fast)

 

The 17-85mm lens is not a bad one - not great, but not bad either. As a kit with the rebate on the 40D is quite a good deal. If you are just starting with SLRs and photography in general, it's not a bad choice at all.

 

If it was for me I would buy the 40D with the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 instead, but I'm not sure how that fits in your budget. It's a personal choice between the Tamron and the Canon 17-85, one is sharper and lets in more light, the other one has more zoom and compensates with image stabilization.

 

As I said, If you are just beginning and are not quite sure about things then the Canon 17-85 is a safe bet.

Thnx Daniel,

 

- yeah i mean the 17-55/f2.8

- the Tamron I will have to check on internet, i was thinking IS to be usefull for a beginner

- im also thinking about the get a fast prime lens for wide open situations and low light

 

thnx

"I am planning to purchase a Canon 40D because I can get a cashback of 200 euros, which makes the price 943 euros very attractive, but the included lens is a 17-85mm lens. I see that lots of people got other lens suggested. I am planning to take portraits, travel and indoor pictures. Maybe its better to buy the body seperatley and take another lens, or should the 17-85 be fine ?"

 

If the 17-85 lens cannot be removed without losing the cashback offer, take it and use it. It's a pretty decent lens, but like all basic kit lenses, nothing spectacular. You'll then have time to decide whether it's enough for you and what other lens(es) you might need.

It can be removed, the body alone with cashback will cost 700 euros ( 150 euros cashback)

Jemy:

 

That 17-85 would probably make a good travel lens. So, it may be worth having. You could also buy a 50 1.8 for the portraits. That's a fine lens and only $80. Then for indoors, there's the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 for $300. Also a very good sharp lens.

I vote to get it and after you get comfortable with the camera you can sell it if you feel

the need to upgrade.

Thnx guys for the suggestions. Cant wait to get my first digital SLR, have been reading the book Understanding Exposure . . . cant wait to put it in practice !

I bought this very kit and right now I'm in the process of changing the lens. I'm an amateur, and not a good one at that, so it would be difficult for me to argue if anyone said this was because of my lack of skills but I don't like the results I get from the 17-85. It's dark and my experience is - the IS gives you 'usable' images when the exposure time is longer but not as sharp as the ones with shorter times. At least not on my 19" LCD monitor [and you have to agree 19" is not a record-breaking size these days]. Plus it's not very contrasty, plus it's not all that sharp. It's not tragic but in my opinion it's too expensive too be that bad.

 

My main problem is, paradoxically, that the lens is too good value :) For instance, I shot with Sigma 17-70 f/2,8-4,5 and I liked the results more. So the Canon lens is simply overpriced, since it's almost 2 times more expensive than Sigma and gives comparable results. But then again, if you decide to buy just the body from Canon and the lens - from Sigma, you end up paying 50 euro more! Not to mention you lose not only image stabilization but also the USM motor which I agree is a nice thing to have. Plus your tele-side ends at 70 and I've read numerous opinion that 85mm is great for portraits on an APS-C sensor DSLR [like the 40D]. On the [yet an]other hand, although Canon aperture range is 4-5,6, you only get 4 from 17 to 24mm and 5,6 starts at around 45mm [!]

 

The decision I myself made was to sell the 17-85 and buy EFS 17-55 2.8 instead. My rationale was this: I paid a lot of money for a DSLR instead of a P&S to get great quality pictures. Everyone agrees most of the image quality comes from the lens so I decided to get a good one regardless of the price, especially that I already have a not-that-bad lens and it's no use changing it for another not-bad-but-not-breath-taking-either one. I was thinking about 24-105L but 24mm on a 40D 'equals' 38mm on a FF camera and that's just not wide enough for me. Then I read reviews saying image quality and contrast, and sharpness of 17-55 are as good as from an L lens and this was the deciding factor.

 

If I were you - that is, if I had a budget of 1000 euro - I'd get the body with the rebate and one of the 3 cheaper alternatives to the lens I chose: Tokina 16-50, Tamron 18-50 or Sigma 17-50, all f/2.8. It is admittedly a difficult decision, they all being so similar: you'd probably have to go to a store and test all 3. One easy point to consider is whether or not you are willing to pay a little more than the 1000 euro [say, 1050]. If 1000 is the final limit, this would rule out the Sigma and leave you with 2 options.

 

Good luck!

I wouldn't call the Canon 17-85 "overpriced" because it costs more than a Sigma. With the Canon lens you get image stabilization and a USM focus motor, which allows manual focus touch up without playing with switches. Also, there is no guarantee that any third party lens will be totally compatible with future Canon bodies. I have a Sigma that had to be returned to the factory to be "re-chipped" so it would work with a newer DSLR. I have a Tokina that worked fine with film SLRs, but caused Live View to activate on a 40D when you press the shutter.

 

Having said that, I have no problem with people suggesting third party lenses; just don't imply that the only factors in the choice are subjective sharpness and price. Lots of other things to consider. And I think the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is a superb lens for a 40D. Basically, in this case, you get what you pay for.

Wes,

Well, I have given Canon the USM :) And I remain not seduced by IS [perhaps it's

more visible on a 70-200]. The things You wrote about third-party lenses are

interesting and worth considering but it's not a good argument against my claim

that [this lens by] Canon is overpriced: they don't have compatibility issues

because it's the same company, it didn't cost them anything to avoid those

problems, so this shouldn't make the price higher. Perhaps IS and USM are

expensive to make and I was being unfair :) I know one thing - I wouldn't buy

this lens separately.

The level of satisfaction with sharpness is, of course, very subjective :)

The utility of IS depends a lot on the type of shooting you do. I rely on my rig to provide good landscape shots in some pretty extreme locations, often in dim light. If I can avoid carrying a tripod, and still get no motion blur half an hour after sunset, halfway up a mountain, that's a huge advantage. So I switched all of my front line lenses to IS versions. If you don't shoot in those conditions, no sense in paying for it.

 

I never said it cost Canon more to make compatible lenses. What it costs to make the thing is only one f several factors in setting a price. If nobody cared about future compatibility or IS, they wouldn't pay for the Canon lenses, and they'd be cheaper. But they do, and they aren't. "Overpriced" is an individual value judgment. Is a Rolls Royce overpriced? I'm not buying one, but the price is too high only if they don't sell.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps my hands are simply shaky. What exposure can you get away with with IS?

As for as Canon goes, well, all right - it's a more general attitude I have. Of course, when you scare people their 3rd-party lenses will explode and kill their children or not be compatible with hypothetical future cameras and the like, they will pay. [Mind you, I'm talking about Canon's policies, not your comment :)] How come Canon is able to make new bodies that are compatible with lenses designed when nobody knew how the new model would work? Because they have all the specifications of the system used. Why do 3rd-party lenses not always work? Because they had to guess the specifications, because Canon made them a secret in order to handicap the competition. You can, and probably will, say it's their right to do so but to me it's a monopolist practice. Wouldn't it be nice, if Canons had built-in image stabilization like Pentaxes and Sonies, so that you wouldn't have to pay a fortune to exchange all your lenses? But they preferred to put it in the lenses, you paid, they got the money. It's all legal but must I like it and praise it? Plus, couldn't I have an option of the same lens with or without IS, or - 50 f/1.8 made of metal or of plastic? When they started making plastic ones they discontinued the metal ones. Sigma, after all, also has a similar system - VR - and when a Sigma lens has it, it's also more expensive. OK, I'm through already :) As for value judgements - all are subjective and most are individual. Frankly, I'm surprised it bothers you that much - Jemy asked a question whether or not to buy the kit. I happen to have been in the very same situation some time ago, so I decided to share my experience, including what I did later and my advice. Of course, it's a value judgement, it's subjective, and it's individual - every human being's account of their experience will be all that. You did the very same when you wrote: 'Basically, in this case [the 17-55], you get what you pay for'. In other words I said the 17-85 is overpriced and you said the 17-55 is not overpriced - both were value judgements [individual and subjective] - one positive and one negative. Personally, that is precisely what I like about this site - people's experience and opinions. That's what reviews and forums are all about. And thank you for supporting my choice about 17-55! It doesn't have any influence on whether or not I will like the lens when it arrives but (in defiance of all logic) it reassures me anyway! :)

The 17-85 is an OK walk-around, get-you-started lens - especially with the kit. I got the same kit to start and it has work fine for me - got some good pics. I agree the lens is pricey if bought seperately, but I think a good deal in the kit. A lot of reviews of the lens mention it downsides (CA, distortion at 17mm) but if you shoot RAW and use the latest version of DPP for processing, those can be eliminated/minimized. Couple the kit with the excellent bang for the buck 70-200 f4 (non-IS) for a great starter package and double your rebate! (at least in Canada) I do wish for a faster lens but you get what you can within your budget - especially if you aren't making money with your camera.