40D Vote on what lens package I should get

I have the 70-200 IS 2.8 and want to add to that on the macro end and possibly

on the telephoto end. Please vote with an explanantion if possible which way

you would go.

 

Option 1

24-70 2.8 L and 100-400 4-5.6 L

 

Option 2

24-70 2.8 L and 1.4 or 2x converter and 16-35 2.8

 

Option 3

 

17-55 2.8, 100-400

 

Option 4

17-55 2.8 and teleconverter 1.4 or 2x

 

Otion 5

16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and teleconverter

 

Option 6

16-35 2.8, 24-702.8 , 100-400

 

Option 7

24-70 2.8 teleconverter

 

 

Now I would like to try and stay within my budget of $3000 and I just want to

get the right combo of lenses that will cover sports(indoors, outdoors),

portraits and wildlife/landscapes.

If you are staying with the cropped body for a lengthy time Option 3.

 

... the right combo of lenses that will cover sports(indoors- 70-200mm 2.8, outdoors 70-200mm 2.8, 100-400mm f-5.6), portraits - 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, 17-55mm 2.8 and wildlife/landscapes - 100-400mm 4-5.6

 

If you plan to go full frame sooner then later ... Option 6 along with your 70-200mm would be ideal! Covers wide angle to telephoto and everything in between but then again 16mm on cropped sensors is not as wide as it would be on a full frame.

 

My opinion anyhow.

You do mention macro end, however, I do not see a macro lens included here?

16-35mm f2.8 L, 50mm f1.4, and 1.4x converter for your 70-200.

 

 

If you must get the 24-70 then I would add the Sigma 12-24 instead of the 16-35/2.8 L.

Option (6) 16-35 2.8, 24-702.8 , 100-400

 

or

 

Option (3) 17-55 2.8, 100-400 + 100mm macro f/2.8 USM

I don't think the teleconverters will work with any canon lenses under 135mm. Because of that I'd go for option 6.

Which sports? What kind of wildlife? Does it include macro?

You are trying to cover almost all types of photography with this kit - and that is a tough trick, especially if

you are going to do it with limited lenses and within a budget. Picking lenses is an exercise in compromises

unless you have unlimited funds and an unlimited willingness to schlep tons of gear around.

 

You almost certainly need something very wide for landscape - at least 17mm. This eliminates your options

that only go to 24mm, unless you are a very unusual landscape shooter.

 

The least expensive high-quality landscape wide zoom is the relatively inexpensive but quite excellent 17-

40 f/4 L. Plenty of people produce "professional" landscape work with this lens. The 16-35mm f/2.8 II gains

you virtually nothing in landscape functionality, though it costs a ton more. (If you do a lot of some other

type of non-landscape wide angle work, it might make sense.)

 

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EFS lens would also get you to 17mm and cover the heart of your useful range in one

fine lens.

 

If you go with the 16-35 or the 17-40mm for the wide end, a 24-105 would be a good lens to cover the

next step out in longer lenses. If you want to go really long, adding the 100-400mm zoom would get you

there with three lenses. If you need a prime or two for low light, get the 17-40 instead of the expensive 16-

35.

 

If you go with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EFS lens you could live with the small gap between 55mm and 70mm

(likely be no big deal at all) and add one of the 70-200mm L zooms. A teleconverter might work on one of

these to get you sufficient longer range.

 

One final question. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have to ask. Do you have a lot of previous

experience in photography, particulary with SLR photography? If so, I'll say no more - you can figure out

what will best meet your needs.

 

If not, perhaps it would be a much better idea to not throw thousands of dollars at lenses whose features

and relative advantages/disadvantages you do not yet understand. No one can really understand this stuff

without some baseline of experience. It can be better to get fewer lenses now, shoot them and learn a bit

more about your shooting style and so forth, and then apply your new found self-knowledge to selecting the

most appropriate lenses for your particular usage.

 

If that makes sense, a good place to start in your case could well be with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EFS lens. It

will cover a lot of shooting situations in a single lens, and it will hold you back in very few situations.

 

Take care,

 

Dan

the 17 - 55 has very good close-up perf for a non-macro lens (at 55). for true macro you need a macro lens. there's the 60 EFS -- they say this lens rivals or exceeds any EF macro

I'm sure glad that - collectively - this group isn't a negotiator trying to talk down a jumper!

You already have 70-200/2.8 IS. I would go with 17-55/2.8 IS plus macro lens, plus may be 1.4x or 2x converter. May be, instead of 100-400, I would go with 300/4 IS.

Or, I could just give you what you want - a list.

 

Get the 17-55 f2.8 IS EFS, the 70-200mm f/4/IS, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS. You've

covered everything from 17mm to 400mm in 3 lenses, you have wide aperture in your

most-used lens, and IS in all three.

 

Who knows if you'll think this - or any other combination -was a good choice in one or

two years?

 

I could have made up three or four alternate lists that would make just as much sense. :-)

 

Dan

My vote ... option 3.

I have Option 2 + the 70-200 f/4 & they work very well for me, covering almost everything I

use, from carry around to travel/landscapes to outdoor sports.

I already have a 70-200 2.8L so that range is taken care of. Thanks for all your input so far. Keep it coming. I guess it comes down to what do I want for that short range and then on the long zoom the 100-400 or the teleconverter.

 

If only we could get someone to make a 17-500 lens then end of story and probably our arms as well. Just a side topic has anyone tried any Sigma 50-500 or 80-400 lenses? I know they are not as good as an L lens from Canon but some reviews out there on the 50-500 seem to be fairly positive.

"I just want to get the right combo of lenses that will cover sports(indoors, outdoors), portraits and wildlife/landscapes."

 

It looks like you want a 'do-it-all' kit... nothing wrong with that.

 

Even with a $3000 budget I'd say go slow until you are sure about what is going to work for you.

 

"Option 4 17-55 2.8 and teleconverter 1.4 or 2x" -- This looks closest to what I'd advise. Start with the 1.4x and 17-55/IS, plus a 77mm 500D and/or tubes for macro: This will take about half your budget.

 

Once you figure where you interests/needs lay, you can plow money in that direction.

 

What kinds of sports are going to shoot ?

The question is as old as SLR photography itself. Sports photography, to take one example, needs at least a few lenses that must all be fast and within reach in an instant. This adds up to an expensive area of specialty. Landscapes are not so critical; almost any Canon lens will do an admirable job. Macro falls within the same category.

 

You do not mention if you take pictures for fun or profit. As the previous writer mentioned, you need to sharpen your focus (no pun intended) on your area of specialty. A lens kit designed to do everything is both big and expensive.

 

A 24-70 and your 70-200 should take care of 75% of your needs. Add to that a 16-35 and a 2x converter and you're up to 90%. Macro can be handled by either extension tubes, + lenses, or an inexpensive third-party lens.

 

Work with those for a while until you decide which area interests you the most.

What kinds of sports are going to shoot ? Everything, indoors and out.

I vote for option 3. I use 40D cameras. The 70-200/2.8 IS or f/4IS is always with me, along with the 1.4x teleconverter. Unless you're shooting wildlife, this gives you the field of view of a very long lens indeed, longer than we normally had access to in film days.

 

Although I own the 24-70, I gravitate toward the 17-55/2.8 almost all the time. On a 40D or any other crop camera, 24mm is simply not wide enough. The 17-55/2.8 is a terrific lens, especially when the internal stabilization is factored in. Extremely useful lens, the field-of-view equivalent of a 28-85mm on a full-frame camera, with good speed at f/2.8. On the 40D, the 17-55 is a better choice than the 16-35, for a lot less money. If you want macro, get yourself a macro lens. For wides, the 10-22 is quite nice.

 

It's hard to find a 17-55/2.8IS on the second-hand market at any sort of bargain. The 10-22, for some reason, shows up very frequently on my local craigslist and on the assorted photo forum buy/sell sites for under $600.

All sports? Then you need 600mm f/4, probably plus TCs (surfing, cricket) 400mm f/2.8 (stadium sport under floodlights), 200mm f/1.8 (ice dance).... down to 8mm fisheye (skateboarding), with just about anything f/2.8 or faster in between.

Forget using the 2X with the 70-200/2.8. IMHO, it's not a good combo and I doubt you will be very satisfied with the image quality.

 

On the other hand, the 1.4X works quite well with that lens.

 

The 70-200/2.8 can also be used with extension tubes for reasonably good macro capabilities.

 

24-70 is an excellent "normal to short tele" lens on 1.5X crop cameras. This is also a very close focusing lens, Canon calls it "macro", but I think it's about 1:3 on it's own. Still, that's close enough for a lot of macro work. Add an extension tube if you want to get more magnification.

 

If you go that route, then I'd suggest you consider the Tokina 12-24/4 for your wide lens.

 

Adding 12-24, 24-70, 1.4X and a Kenko extension tube set would be well within your budget, probably under $2200-2300.

 

So, you might have monies left over for something else. What does a 400/4.6 sell for?