klechak photography Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Ok so here we go again another what lens question. I am going to buy the 40d but now there are package deals with lense choices. EF-S 17-85mm IS USM AF Lens vs EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I am thinking about later on.. 6 months buying the tokina 12-24. so what I am thinking is that the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens makes more sense. Anyone have either or know the reiviews on these? Or have you bought one buut wish you had the other?Also any ideas on best place to buy? Thanks! Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I'd start with a 24-70/2.8L - add a 70-200/2.8L later, and top it off with a 16-35/2.8L when you can afford it. What's the point of buying a great camera like the 40D and then chopping it off at the knees with a lens like the 28-135? Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klechak photography Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 so not even do the lens kit. and go to the better lenses. thanks colin! anyone else Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klechak photography Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 ok so just looked at the 24-70/2.8L I should say that I am looking in the same price range as those that come on that camera. The 1300 price range... a little too much. I am looking at between 1-500 price range. Thanks Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tam_ho Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 you should look at Sigma 18-200 OS lens, 457.60 at amazon.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_vejr Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Hi Collin I just ordered a 40D and I took the ef 28-135mm kit it only cost $230 more so I figured it was worth it, now I can use the camera get to know it and figure out where to go from there lens wise. Also spreads the costs out (just in case the wife checks the credit cards) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffs1 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I'm going through a similar decision process: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OfH1 I'd suggest looking at the photozone reviews of any lens you're considering. They have nice data to backup their assertions. Personally, I'm currently leaning towards the 28-135mm & 40D kit, with the $170 18-55mm IS lens. The 17-85mm is another option, and it has some strengths over the others (mostly in sharpness), but the CA did it on for me. The 18-200mm OS super-zoom might also be a good option (I'm not familiar with that specific lens). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay a. frew Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I bought the 40D+28-135 kit. I already knew what was being said about the 28-135, particularly on PN, so, I planned to sell the 28-135 to recoup some of the cost of the 40D. After I used the 28-135 for a while, I found that my copy was much (much) better than the reviews it was getting. I have good lenses to use for comparison (85/1.8, 17-40L, 70-200/2.8L) Sure, it is a little slow (3.5-5.6), but, the 40D noise at ISO 400 (and even higher) is negligeble, so, that helps to alleviate some of the problems caused by the relatively small aperture. I kept that lens. I find the field of view (45-210 mounted on the 40D) useful. It's not too heavy. It's not too long. It's less conspicuous and has more zoom range than its 'L' counterpart. It has Image Stabilization. Build quality is OK. I get great results with it and I don't hesitate to recommend it.I think it is good value for the money, especially when bundled with the 40D. Cheers! Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 "The 1300 price range... a little too much." Sadly, they're definately not cheap. I'd suggest that if you get the chance, have a look at them - have a hold of them - take some shots with them. You'll see why they cost more. As a rule, L series lenses are built like tanks - weather sealed - fast - and with uncompromising image quality. Keep in mind that they don't become obsolete in a year or two like the cameras that they mount onto do. Keep in mind also that the lens has a FAR bigger effect on image quality than does the camera. I almost gave up photography out of dispair from the poor results I got from kit lenses - nothing I did seemed to get me results I was happy with. Bought my first L Lens (24-70) and as the say "the rest is history". My policy now is "L-Series or nothing" - and it's a great feeling when I read about issues people have with the build quality / image quality / sample variations / compatability etc with cheap and third party lenses :) Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskphotog Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I agree with Colin. I think you will be better off to get one lens that is "a little too much" but which is very good than to get weaker lenses that you will very likely grow out of later. Your photography will grow much faster with one exceptional lens than it will with a couple of average ones. My experience with my own lenses is my argument. I will no longer buy a compromise. If I can't afford what I know I really want, I wait until I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klechak photography Posted March 7, 2008 Author Share Posted March 7, 2008 Thanks everyone! I think then I shall wait for my tax return and get the nicer glass. Now....to chose a computer HEEEHEEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now