Good wide angle and walkaround lenses for 40D

I'll be purchasing a 40D very soon and I was planning on getting the 28-135 IS lens with it as a kit since the

lens is discounted. I was planning on using that for a walk around lens and buying a 50 1.8 prime for low light

situations. I also love shooting landscapes and was thinking about the Tokina 22-24 f/4. My concern is that the

28-135 is not wide enough and I will end up switching it with the Tokina a lot. Does anyone have a similar set up?

 

I've also considered buying the Canon 17-40L for wide angle and complimenting it with either the 28-135 or the

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. My concern with this set up is that the 17-40L would not be "wide" enough on a crop sensor

40D. I don't need it to be insanely wide but I do want it wide enough that I get good landscape shots. I've

looked at the 17-85 IS but from the reviews it seems like its not the best deal for what your paying for.

 

Any suggestions would be helpful. I keep going back and forth on this. I mostly shoot landscapes when traveling

or hiking and I shoot people at family gatherings and at home (I have a new baby).

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff

Hi Jeff. I have just upgraded from a 20D to 40D and I find it an excellent combination with my 17 - 40L. Although at its widest with the cropped sensor it is not always quite as wide as one would like, on these few occasions the option of stitching is always available. Someday I hope to upgrade further to FF when the 17 - 40 should really come into its own.

 

Paul

If I could only have one lens for my 40d it would definitely be the EFs 17-55 2.8 IS. This lens will do most of what you

mentioned in your post very well.

I have the 17-40L as my main walkaround lens and its a great L series, relatively cheap and not too heavy.

I've also considered the 17-40L, 50 1.8, and 70-200 f/4 IS as a possible setup. The only thing I was concerned about is the 17-40 being too short.

Jeff, why don't you get a 5D Mark II (or a 5D) and a 17-40/4 L? That way you'll have a superb, very wide landscape

lens, and much better image quality than you'll get with a 40D.

Yea that wide end of digital is frustrating. For general use the 17 - 55 or 17-85 range is probably most useful but some opt

for an UW ( like 10-22 ) and ad a 24-105 or 28-135 or some other full frame lens to cover more ground.

 

I agree that 28 is not wide enough. Maybe consider getting the kit with the 40D and the 17-85. Not a bad place to start. You

can see what you lack and go from there without a huge $$ investment.

I have a 40D with the 28-135 kit. I also have: 85/1.8, 100/2.8, EF-S 10-22, and two Olympus OM primes, 50/1.8 and 35/3.5.

 

I almost never use the 28-135, and when I do, i usually wish I didn't. Perhaps i have a bad copy, but I find it too soft when compared to the rest of my lenses.

 

I suggest you get the 40D body only, and buy a good lens. I think you would be very happy with the 17-40L. The 27mm equivalency at the wide end is sufficiently wide for many landscape shots, and it's an excellent lens. A friend has one, and I've used it on my 40D with good results.

 

If you need wider, the EF-S 10-22 is excellent.

 

I have yet to purchase the ideal walk around for my 40D. These days I probably use the 100mm Macro as a walk around most of the time. Or the 35mm for street photography.

 

When the funds are available, I think I will replace my 28-135 with the f/2.8 24-70L.

 

In summary, skip the 28-135. Buy the body and one lens, the very best one you can afford that suits one (or more) of your needs. Buy more very good lenses as funds allow.

 

I hope this helps.

Bill I did not care for the 28-135 mine was always soft tool. I sold it right after I purchased the kit. I now have a 24-105

which is a fine lens but also not really wide enough but an all around better long range zoom. A 10-22 or something similar

is next on my list.

I have a 28-135 combined with a sigma 10-20. Excellent combination for MY shooting. My 28-135 seems to be a good copy (nice&sharp and no creep at all, even after years of use).

But I generally shoot 28-135 indoors/outdoors for my kids playing, where I like the extra reach up to 135.

I only shoot wide angle for city-/landscape, so switching is not so much of a problem.

IMHO, Bill is on point. You might consider buying the 40D body only, and something like the 24-105 f/4L or 17-40 f/4L. The image

quality from these lenses is significantly better than the kit lens. They are also useable if you upgrade to FF.

That's definitely a consideration. I was thinking of possibly getting the 40D body and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS along with the 70-200 f/4 IS. I'm not completely sold on the 17-55 yet though. I was thinking maybe the 17-40L (which is less expensive) w/the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for wide angle stuff. I've read some reviews that say that the 24-105 f/4 L isn't much better than the 28-135. Don't know if that's really true, but its made me cautious in considering it as an option.

I have the 40D and did have the EFS 17-85. It was just to soft. I replaeced it with the EF17-40 f4L and have been very happy with it. The L glass is so sharp and color and contrast is so good. Of course I added the 24-105 and it is my go to lens but for anything "wide" the 17-40 is my main stay. It is reasonbly priced and goes to either side of a 50mm equivalent on a crop sensor. You wil love the 40D.

If you are planning to get the 28-135 lens then for a wide angle I would choose the Canon 10-22. There will be gap between 22 and 28 but This is not a range I think you will miss.

 

For my 40D I have the 10-22, 17-85 IS and the 70-300 DO IS. Together they give me a 30:1 zoom range enabling me to cover all subjects. My favourite lens is the 10-22.

for my crop camera, I like the Tamron 28-75

I have the Canon 5D and 40D.

 

When I use my 17-40mm lens on my 5D, I don't find it wide enough to my taste, even less with the 40D cropped sensor. With your 40D, you should consider getting the EF-S 10-22mm.

I also have the 28-135mm lens and I don't find it built as sturdy as other Canon lenses.

 

IMHO, if you are considering changing cameras, you should consider getting the 5D full frame sensor like Mark Pierlot suggested, then your lenses will be exactly what they are. It depends on how many lenses you allready have that won't be useful anymore and on your budget. Or do you plan on keeping both cameras, like I do.

I like to have both cameras mounted with different lenses and be ready for different needs without having to change the lenses too often and risking getting dust trapped on the sensor.

 

Personnaly, I am considering buying the new Canon 14mm f/2.8L II EF USM Lens for my 5D one day, but it's quite expensive! It is just border being a fish eye but it's not. So no circular photos. Just a beautiful ultrawide angle lens.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers!

Another vote for the 17-40L. When I was still shooting crop, my 28-135 gathered a lot of dust, while the 17-40 stayed mounted as my favorite walk-around lens. That only works, though, if your walkaround shooting habits are more wide than tele -- that is if you walk on the wide side.

Of course if you get the 28-135 cheaply in the kit, I'd go for that one too. It's actually a fairly decent lens.

I have a 40D with the 28-135 and it is actually a good lens if you understand it's limitations. No lens can do everything. I also have the Tokina 12-24 and I love it. It stays on my camera more often than not. The 17-40L is an excellent lens but it may not be wide enough for you or your needs. Try renting a couple of different lenses as that is about the best way to determine which lens works best for your style of shooting.

The 28-135 is a pretty good lens ... I used it lot when I shot film. But it's at the end of it's life cycle, I think. It did not stand up particuarly well to heavy use, and I eventually sold it. The 17-40L is a great lens. I used it frequently with my 10D and 20D, and it has become a real work horse with my 5D.

I know many really like the 17-40 but IMO its to short of a range to make sense as a standard zoom. When I think

standard zoom I want to be able to get into portrait mode ( 70-135 ) but thats just me. I kinda feel if a zoom range is very

short Ill just use a prime. ( UW is the exception )

 

The 17-55 is a nice lens but its not the same quality feel as the L's and its the same price. For that reason and its EF-S

which can be limiting. But if your looking for high quality photos from a 40D its probably the best. But just a bit short on

range for me.

how about 10-22, 70-200 f/4 & tamron 17-50 2.8?

17-40 is not long enough for a walk around and the large aperture makes it boring to use. I have it for my 40d, with a 24-

70, and I am going to sell it. The 17-55 is the logical choice. Combined with a prime in the 28 to 50 focal range depending

on your budget and usage. 35mm f/1.4 is the best lens I've used on my 40d.

If you are not planning going FF soon I'd get the Canon 10-22 and the Canon 17-55. I have the 10-22 and I can't be happier, it has a great range and it is very sharp and contrsty. I also usedthe 17-55 for a period of 10 days and the lens is great L or not it has the IQ of such and is pretty fast throught and as a bonus has the IS might not be the cheapest but it sure is a good lens. Those 2 will get you from 10 to 55.Should you get a good 70/200 you will only miss the 55 to 70 range.

Best of luck

Arnold, the 10-22, 70-200 f/4 & tamron 17-50 2.8 is a combo I have seriously considered for a while. Basically I can afford either the Canon 17-55 2.8 or the 10-22 and a tamron 17-50. This would be ideal because I'm not sure that the 17-55 is wide enough for my taste. I'm a little hesitant though because I've read some reviews about the tamron having focusing issues. Anyone had experiences with this lens?