Just bought a 40d

[john_williamson4]

I just bought a 40d after a month of researching and going to play with

different cameras. This is my first DSLR so I don't have any lenses.

 

I've been on all sorts of forums researching what lenses folks recommend and I

came to the conclusion that the 17-55 USM IS was the way to go. I know it's

$900 but even on this site its recommended as one of the only zooms.

 

However, I didn't ask the question here. My main purpose for getting this

camera is to take pictures (portrait/action shots) of my 18 month old.. To a

lesser degree I want to take landscapes. I would also love to master the art

of night photography. I'm ready to invest $1000 in lenses and want a constant

aperture lens to provide the most flexibility with these types of shots

 

BTW..As I began my research I believed that getting a couple of primes was the

way to start. 30MM sigma and 50MM nifty fifty, and the 85 or 100. But then

some folks recommeded that I get at least one zoom. And their recommendation

was the 17-55 which would eliminate my budget and overlap with the 30 and 50

range.

 

I would GREATLY appreciate your thoughts

[victor_kunkel2]

Hi John -- I think you'll like the camera. I sure do; having bought one recently. I chose a kit with the 17-85 IS lens. It didn't cost a lot more (about $200.00 additional compared to the body alone) and while I'm sure there are better lenses out there, this one seems to be pretty decent for all that I have done, including children and landscapes. The 40D works well with my other non-DSLR EOS lenses too, in case you have one or more laying around.

[tridakfoto]

I'll make it simple as it seems you have done enough research on your own.

 

I also have the 40D and the first zoom I bought was the 17-55mm and it is all the reviews say it is!

 

I would get that if possible and if you are not looking to upgrade to the full frame cameras any time soon and as for a prime lens to go along with the 17-55mm ...

 

I would get the 85mm f/1.8 if I could only pick one.

 

If I could pick two it would be the 85mm and perhaps the 30mm f/1.4 but the Canon 50mm 1.8 is also good to have and it only $75 on average so you could always add that at some point if you needed it but I found with the 17-55mm I didn't use it that often unless I absolutely needed the larger aperture for low light scenarios.

 

Good luck!

[saskphotog]

I think that you would enjoy the zoom. As you become more definite about what lenses you need, primes may be an answer for you, but I vote for the 17-55 for your first one. Lots of good fun for you I bet.

[bueh]

Go with the primes. Why would you want a zoom that is bound to be slower and heavier? Start with the EF 50mm f/1.8 for portraiture and then add the focal lengths you think you are missing. If you really want a zoom, get the stabilized version of the kit zoom (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS), it is a pretty decent wide angle lens. Once you have played with your lenses for a while, you will know if you want the convenience of a zoom lens or the advantages of a prime.

[bueh]

And don't forget an E-TTL-compatible flashlight!

[davebell]

Go with the zoom, although it is a little short for my taste. I would not go for prime as a first lens, it's nice to have a high quality zoom lens!

[tdigi]

I have the same exact questions having the 40D. I am trying to make up my mind if I

should sell my Tamron 28 - 75 2.8 and Canon 20 mm and pick up the Canon 17 - 55 2.8.

as all all purpose lens that would cover most of both of these 2 lenses.

 

sorry to jump in your post but any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

I also am considering the same primes

[geoff_foale]

Are you upgrading to a 40D or is this your first 'real' camera? If you have previous experience what lenses did you use? If you have used a point and shoot, what average lens range? How far away do you expect to be from your subject? If you are unsure of the answers then I would say get the zoom. A prime may be ideal for photographing an 18 month child but what about when you have an active 3 year old. The flexibility of a zoom will pay off then.

 

Much the same applies to night photography which is a specialist subject. Assuming you will use a tripod you will have to decide exactly what you want to photograph. Trails of vehicle lights, moonshots, city lightscapes?

 

I would go for the 17-55 now and have a good think after you have used this lens for a few months. By then you will have a better idea of exactly what else you want to photograph and whether you need a fast prime or a larger zoom. If you rush this purchase you will probably regret it later.

[zigzag]

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS seems to be the best option for a 40D zoom (best IQ, reasonable low light performance, useful indoors as well as out, good 'standard' zoom range.) If you can afford it and you're only getting one, get that one. If you can't afford it then get the new kit lens (18-55mm IS) as a first zoom - but expect that one day you may wish to upgrade it.

 

If you want a 'standard' (in the old money) prime that will work well indoors in low light - i.e. 50mm on a FF camera then some reasonable choice are between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 35mm f/2 and Canon 28mm f/1.8.

 

If you want a short portrait lens (80mm equivalent) then the 50mm f/1.8 is a bargain. The 50mm f/1.4 is a little more light sensitive, has a better build but costs more.

 

The 85mm f/1.8 also has a very good reputation.

 

I own only one of these lenses so I am no expert (below is gleaned from the comments of others and finding limitations with what I do ownn for my 30D). I would say what I have learnt though:

 

1. It is better to have one very good lens than two mediocre lenses.

 

2. It is cheaper to buy the best lens first than to buy a mediocre one and then a few months/year later you go and buy the better one as well (only if you expect to 'grow' with the camera and spend a lot of time with it.)

 

3. An affordable lens in the hand is worth two expensive ones in the shop.

 

4. For indoors, low light, late/early day work then there is no substitute to having a lens at least as fast as a f/2.8 (preferably faster). IS will not save you when a subject is moving and AF will not always work in those low light situations when you have a slow lens (AF works with the aperture wide open - how wide can you go?)

 

5. If there is an absolute bargain lens like the 50mm f/1.8 for low light then you can't lose if you don't have a lens that operates with that large an aperture already.

 

6. The lighter, lower profile primes are a bonus when carrying around.

 

See the reviews at photozone.de and fredmiranda.com.

[bob_osullivan]

John;

 

You can't go wrong with that 17-55 2.8 IS. It will do all that, portraits, kids moving, landscapes. Don't underestimate the usefulness of IS. It could be the difference between getting a shot or not (when you don't have a tripod handy). You'll find you'll use the camera more and bring it with you more because of the IS and you can forget the tripod.

 

As for sharpness, those primes have nothing over the 17-55. Yes they are a stop faster but that may not be worth the hassle of having three lenses. For $1000, I would suggest the 17-55 and the nifty fifty/ pastic fantastic 50 1.8.

 

If you are determined to have primes 35, 50, 85, then also get that new 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS, and if you can afford it a 430 flash for bouncing indoors.

 

It's funny, I don't use my primes as much anymore since I got this 17-55. I keep them because I have film bodies too that cannot accept the 17-55.

[dave404]

The 17-55 f/2.8 would be my answer also. On my 20D I have the 24-70 f2.8L, the 70-200 F2.8L but at the low end I rely on the 17-85 lens. Most of the time I have the 24-70 on but with the 1.6X crop its not wide enough for me. I could put on the 17-85 but its not up to the L lenses in image quality and so it sits in the bag most of the time. Someday I hope to have a 5D Mark II in which case the 24-70 will actually be a wide angle lens. Therefore with the new 40D I suggest going for 17mm. That will be much better for group shots when you can't back up.

 

Fast primes are nice but I always seem to have on the wrong lens when the big shot comes up - especially when chasing a child around. That is another zoom advantage - fewer lens changes fewer chances for an accident. Last winter at Lake Tahoe I dropped my 20D into deep snow while juggle two lenses and the camera. It was not fun trying to do a sensor clean and unpack the snow from inside the 20D with the rocket blower.

[dogbert]

Go for a zoom first off. Those that are happy to work solely with primes have a lot of time and their hands and probably annoy the heck out off people they are trying to photograph.

 

If you are looking for a single lens then the 17-55 IS is pretty much the best there is. For a two lens zoom combo, my preference would be the Canon or Sigma 10-22, and the Canon 24-105L. Of course the chnageover piont in this combo would bug some, but I find it fine. Then throw in the 50 f1.8 for some shallow DoF.

[dogbert]

your budget would also allow for the 18-55 IS, the 85/1.8, 50/1.8, and 28/1.8 which is more flexible and exstensive combination.

[kellyphillips]

Don't miss out on the 85mm f/1.8. That is one heck of a lens. Also, sigma makes a 24-70 f/2.8 for $425. I don't have it, but I've heard from several people that it's a good sharp lens. That's up to about $750. That would hold you over for a while until you can save up for a wide angle zoom like the 10-20mm (canon = about $600, sigma = about $450) I'm sorry to sound like I'm pushing Sigma. The funny thing is that I own all canon lenses but have heard great things about sigma.

[john_williamson4]

Thanks everyone for the great suggestions. I think I'm going to stick with the 17-55 zoom, but I have gotten some feedback about additional focal lengths. I also like (and agree) Geoff Foale's comment about not rushing another lens purchase right now..But some folks have mentioned the 50 1.8 for $70. Do you think I should pick up this lens for the extra 2 stops despite having this range in the zoom. I definitely am goin to hold off on any primes right now until I figure out which range I'm going to like ( I have a feeling I'm going to want to go long vs short)

 

Thanks in advance for your opinion and feedback.

[dogbert]

The 50 f1.8 only has around 1.5 extra stops not two compared with an f2.8 lens, and I would probably use it around f2 or f2.2, which gives it 1 stop or less advantage in practice.

 

As such it provides a noticeable but not huge difference and the reality is that in practice a lot of other factors will come into play and can matter more. That said it is only around $75 and the cheapest way to find out whether you like using primes.

[William Michael]

I assume you are new to photography or at least not an overly experienced: if you were more experienced, in film for example, you would be asking about specific FL and lens qualities for example.

 

You have done the research, and you know what you want: get the 17 to 55F2.8IS, keep your excess money in your pocket until you know what else you want.

 

The next decision will be predicated on your learning the craft and becoming more aware of your desires and what gear will fulfil them: learn with this excellent lens a great body.

 

However, if the dealer were to throw in a 50mmF1.8MkII for just a few extra bucks, if you pay cash for example, I would take it, as it gives you a bit of extra speed and is a great short telephoto length for taking Available Light shots of kids.

 

But if you are to pay full price for it, just wait, because you might decide with 3 months experience that an 85mm is the prime you need.

 

 

WW

[bueh]

Photography is about using your equipment, and being comfortable enough with it to concentrate on the most important thing -- getting good photos. What has this to do with the EF 50mm vs the EF-S 17-55mm? A lot, because using the prime is much more pleasing due to the short length and light weight. The zoom becomes front-heavy and is not so convenient to wield when both focused close and extended to the long end (for portraits). I agree with Geoff, you should get the prime just to find out which type of lens you are more comfortable with.

[shuo_zhao]

Your best choice is to get a few fast primes for actions/portraits at relatively low prices. The 50mm f/1.8 (nifty fifty) is excellent for the money, and it's not bad for portraits on your 1.6 crop camera (40D)(50 times 1.6 = 80mm) The 85mm f/1.8 is also good (for tighter portraits and low light). I don't think anything longer than 85mm would be good for portraits on the 40D, it will be too long. You can probably get the 50mm f/1.8 for $70 and the 80mm f/1.8 for around $320.

 

You will definitely need a general use zoom. Since the 40D has that 1.6 crop factor, you'll probably want lens as wide as 17mm/18mm for wide angle shots.

 

If you're not looking forward into upgrading to full frame cameras, you can go with the EF-S lens. You got two good EF-S choices: the 17-85 f/4-5.6 and 17-55 f/2.8. The latter being quite expensive, while the former not being too cheap neither.

 

The new IS version of the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS is also ok (for its price of $190). Some say this is better than the original and notorious 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, which you should definitely stay away from.

 

The 17-40 f/4L get you the best image quality, but is not good for low-light (which is ok if you use your primes instead). This cost $620 with the canon rebate that will end in a week. Also this lens works on frull frame bodies also, so it's good if you upgrades later.

 

You should definitely get the 50 and 85, then get the 17-40, or save money getting the 18-55 IS (you can spend the leftover cash on accessories or other lens).

 

I would stay away from expensive EF-S lens such as the 17-55 f/2.8. Canon could be making all their DSLRs except the entry level model full frame in a few years.

 

Good luck

[dogbert]

"I would stay away from expensive EF-S lens such as the 17-55 f/2.8. Canon could be making all their DSLRs except the entry level model full frame in a few years."

 

I seriously doubt this. Canon has stated that it sees multiple sensor sizes as an advantage for its system, not a problem and I agree. They may well make a FF 40D at some point, but I think this could happily sit alongside a APS-C 40D. If I didn't care about money I'd sooner have a 40D plus a 5D, than 2 cameras with the same format.

[frank g.]

I would look at the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the 17-50 2.8, a Canon 50 1.8, and an 85 1.8. I have all of the lenses and think all of them are awesome and you will have three great lenses under $1,000 instead of just one. This is just my 2 cents.

[William Michael]

>>> I would stay away from expensive EF-S lens such as the 17-55 f/2.8. Canon could be making all their DSLRs except the entry level model full frame in a few years. <<< (SZ)

 

Addressing the first part: that is why the EF-S17 to 55F2.8IS is standard zoom for many (experienced) Wedding Professionals working in the APS-C format?

 

 

And addressing the second part: on what marketing and or economic rationale does one base this prediction:

 

1. such as the TR&D gone into the recent 40D

 

2. or the numerous Statements by Canon regarding the advantages of a system with multiple sized sensors;

 

3. or the (large) number of APS-C sensor bodies being presently used by professional and high end consumer community.

 

4. or the TR&D placed into the development of the EF-S 17 to 55mm lens itself, seen by many as a mimic of the 24 to 70F2.8L, which has since become the workhorse of the 135 format, \

 

5. or the TR&D to develop the EF-S10 to 22 to give a great wide on the APS-C . . . and etc . . .

 

No disrespect meant: but it is difficult to state this in gentler words:

 

Your closing statement and thus the strength of your argument is based upon, well, thin air, IMO.

 

WW

[robin_sibson1]

What Bill said, in both postings. Don't let yourself be deflected from the 17~55, John, by people relying on a crystal ball - they may just be seeing their own reflection. There are currently good reasons for using either format, and I suspect that an increasing number of us now have dual-format kits. Canon's view about the world moving to FF was expressed a number of years ago. They may well not at that time have realised the level of image quality that they would be able to obtain from 1.6-factor sensors, which is competitive with 35mm film at modest ISO settings and leaves it for dead at high ISO settings. Certainly the effectiveness with which they have developed some truly outstanding EF-S lenses (60/2.8 as well as those mentioned by Bill) suggests a commitment to this format beyond just entry level.

[des adams]

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM