40d lens selection

[jonathan_bailey1]

I am about to get a 40d. I have no lenses and am building a system from the ground up. Of course reality bites

when it comes to shelling out for good glass; I can't have it all at once. But I want to start out with decent

stuff and a base set of lenses or a base lens that would see me through until I can buy the next lens(es) --

without being frustrated in the meantime.

 

I like to shoot pictures of my kids. I particularly favor tight candid portraits (head and shoulders or full body --

with natural light when possible). But of course they do a lot of running about and I try to catch them in action

inside and outdoors.

 

Little league baseball and soccer on junior pitches is another typical venue where I like to capture the action.

 

Occasionally, there are the group shots of family gatherings.

 

I am also making a trip to Utah in the fall and would like to get some people-in-landscape shots (although

landscapes aren't typically something I would shoot).

 

With all that in mind, I've been fixating on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (or even 2.8f if I

can bite the bullet, both without IS).

 

If I do that, I will not be able to afford the external flash immediately (for when natural light is not

available). And I'm worried that by cheating myself on the shorter focal length on a 1.6 crop camera I won't be

able to get the indoor shots so easily. I've been sifting through previous posts and looking at other people's

photographs taken with these lenses and think it might be workable, but I thought I'd ask the

members here directly to see what thoughts you have.

 

Thanks in advance.

[saskphotog]

If I was in that position, I would get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and start shooting. Image quality is very high, and it would make a very good general purpose first lens. Add more as you can afford them, and as your photography makes it clear what you actually need.

[nathan_meador]

Is this your first SLR of any kind? If so, you are talking about a lot of money for the set up you have in mind. If you are just starting out, I'd go with the kit lens and a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4 if you have the $$$). For the type of pictures you are describing, they should be fine to start you out.

[jim_larson1]

Yeah, an XTi with the 18-55 kit lens is a good start.

 

Plus pick up the 50/1.8 for portraits. Don't knock the 50/1.8 because of the cheapo plastic mount -> it is a very good lens. One can debate how much better the $1000+ 50/1.2 really is.

 

Not sure I would get the 70-200/4L without IS. On bright sunny days. .. it's just fine. Little league and soccer in fading fall light would be a problem. Might opt for the 70-300/IS instead at this price level.

[nate_kinnee]

For indoor use, I agree with the recommendation for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It sounds like the sports you're interested in are outdoor, in which case the 70-200 f/4 should be fine. If you want to shoot indoor action, you'll be much happier with an f/2.8 lens (or a faster prime).

[matthijs]

Dear Jonathan,

 

This is of course a decision which you can ponder for a year and all the while forgetting about doing the cool

stuff: taking pictures.

 

My advise:

 

Generic walk around lens: The IS version of the 18-55 kitlens. (Never take the non-IS one, that one just doesn't

cut it.)

 

Indoor for shooting the kids at home: The 50mm/1.8

 

This was the easy (and cheap) part.

 

 

Indoor and outdoor sports: That's the tough one, I'll cover it more extensively:

 

In my opinion:

 

- you really need a lens that is longer than 99mm. (So the Tamron 17-50 is out.)

 

- you need a F4 or better for outdoor sports.

 

- you need a F2 or better for indoor sports. (So indoor zooming is out.)

 

- a zoom beats a prime for flexibility.

 

- IS beats non-IS.

 

This is not compatible. So it depends on your preference and money.

 

Relatively cheap option: 70-300 IS plus 100mm/f2 for indoor.

More expensive: 70-200 f4 IS plus 135/f2 for indoor.

Expensive: 70-200 f2.8 IS plus any really expensive "white" sports prime for indoor.

 

Hope this is helpfull,

 

Matthijs.

[JDMvW]

If you buy the 40D (and since you seem to have some background in photography already, I'd recommend it as

something you will "grow into"), then one of the "kit lenses" offered by many outfits is the 17-85mm IS lens. If

you can only afford one lens right now, this is a good compromise solution, especially in the kit price. It

covers from modest wideangle to telephoto, and most of us who have one, find that it is our most commonly used

lens. Mind, it does have some warts such as high barrel distortion at the wide end, but you won't even notice

this if you don't do architectural work. The problems can, in any case, be easily fixed in Photoshop, and I think

that this lens is now supported in the DPP software that comes with the camera so it can be done there as well.

 

For sports you will need a longer lens, but there is a solution (if not ideal) there even for people with little

cash to "invest" in lenses. Canon make a couple of old 75-300mm non-IS lenses that sell for about $150-200

depending on the kind of autofocus. These are nowhere near as good as the IS 70-300mm, but they are so cheap you

can get them now on a limited budget and upgrade at a later time to the splendiferous, white "L" lenses ;) [look

at http://reviews.ebay.com/Canon-EF-70-300mm-Range-Zooms_W0QQugidZ10000000001516026 for a comparison ]

[alan_green4]

i don't recommend the 50 1.4 for regular stuff. much prefer the ef-s 60 macro. this is one of the sharpest brightest lenses made and is an excellent choice for head/shoulders portraits of kids. the 50 has a bit of an old-fashioned color palette. the 60 is sharper at f2.8 than the 50 is at any f-stop. portraits of kids with the 60 would simply glow

 

the 50 1.4 is a specialty lens. my 17-55 is better at 50mm than this prime. however, when the light level is in the dumper or i want extremely narrow depth-of-field (read: special effect dof) the 50 1.4 is my go to lens

 

the 70-200 f4 IS is sharper than the non-IS version (they have different glass)

[ben_quinn1]

I have similar requirements to you on my 40d and I have the 24-70 f/2.8, great for tight shots and portraits on a 40D and

has close focusing ability for up close shots. Combine this with the 50mm f/1.4 for indoor portraits (low light, less room

etc). Then later add the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) is superb for taking shots of kids outdoors. These 3 lenses you'll get some

great portraits of your kids. Don't shoot people with wide angle lens as it is just not nice.

 

The efs 60 f/2.8 is a great lens too but wouldn't buy that before the 50 f/1.4.

[bob_osullivan]

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 $300 image quality as good or better than all mentioned so far. Focuses much faster than the Tamron.

Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS $500 great for the long shots and day games. (you're gonna have to shell out big buckd for a good long fast lens for night games some day).

Canon 50 1.8 $80 for portraits and low light situations.

 

$900 total. Maybe add a 430 flash for $300 and off camera cord $60.

 

This was my second setup (after I learned some hard lessons on my first set up). Very useful, flexible and reasonably priced.

[jonathan_bailey1]

Thanks for all the responses. Very much appreciated.

 

Matthijs' comment ("This is of course a decision which you can ponder for a year and all the while forgetting about doing the cool stuff: taking pictures.") made me smile. There was no XSi when I started pondering this!

[andreasb]

Jonathan,

 

Most of the pros around here will probably disagree with me but my initial setup with my 40D was a Sigma 18-

200mm lens with image stabilization. I did not have high hopes for this lens and there are obviously better ones out

there but I have been really surprised how good a job this lens does. I have since added a Sigma 10-20mm, a

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and a Canon 100-400mm.

 

There are many times when I do not want to carry a big camera bag full of stuff and the 18-200mm covers a lot of

territory. For this reason alone, I find myself bringing the 18-200mm along more often than any of the others. I go

into the woods a lot and bring camera gear for nature and wildlife photography. Since weight is an issue after a few

miles, I tend to bring the 18-200mm and either the 70-200mm for low light or, more frequently, the 100-400mm. If

you have the chance to try an 18-200mm with your camera body, even just in a camera shop, I think you too will be

surprised how well this relatively inexpensive lens does. It may not be ideal for the sports scenario you talked about

but it lends itself very well to the family vacation you talked about and a lot of other common situations. If you crank

up the ISO, you may get some decent results with sports also - at least good enough to get started with. It makes

a great, versatile first lens to get started with while you figure out your more specific requirements.

 

Good luck,

 

Andreas

[andreasb]

I would also add that the Sigma 18-200mm does a fairly good job with macro photography also, which only adds to its versatility.

[tom_worster]

<p>70-200 on a 40D sounds really long for what you're planning to do with it. i would also suggest a normal zoom to

start, which on a 40d means 17-50-ish. going wide is very useful for family and party photos.

 

<p>the EF-S 18-55 IS is not to sneezed at, if the measurement reports i've read are anything to go by (e.g. <a

href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review)">photozone</a>.

the IS is often a boon, though less so with moving subjects. and it's cheap enough to maybe allow you to buy

another lens at the same time.

 

<p>for a bit more $$ the tamron 17-50/2.8 has the advantage of being faster, which for taking wildlife shots, such

as your baby, is valuable, probably more so than IS.

 

<p>the EF-S 17-85 IS, which i own, is sheer perfection in terms of versatility and flexibility with that zoom range

and IS but is a bit compromised in sharpness and distortion. i've been thinking of upgrading to get better image

quality but there just isn't anything comparable. if i were only allowed one lens it would probably be this.

 

<p>and there's the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS which is fast, has good image quality and IS. it nearly has it all, just

missing the bullseye with its price.

 

<p>i recently <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00PhKA">asked a question here</a> and got

lots of good info and opinions in the answers. i think you might profit from reading them.

 

<p>but on the other hand, one can over-think these things. remember that second hand prices on lenses in good

condition are high, so you're not out much if you change your mind and trade it in for something else. so the

advice already given to just get a decent normal zoom and start shooting is very solid. after a while you'll have

a much better notion of what your needs are.

 

<p>one last thought. a digital rebel will take pictures comparable in quality to the 40D. the money thus saved

can be put into lenses or a good flash. and the body will be obsolete soon while the lenses will not. my DSLR is

a 40D and it's is a fine camera but i chose it over the 400D because i was willing to pay for the better

viewfinder. the ergonomics are a bit better too. i've hardly used the fast drive.

[JDMvW]

Tom has right. The only thing I'd replace my 17-85 with is an IMPROVED version of the same lens. I don't find sharpness per se to be a problem, except for the barrel distortion and the slight CA (see http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review ). It's certainly sharper in the middle than at the edges.

 

Of course the other solution is to buy a full-frame camera and get one of the 24-135 or so lenses that Canon offers in that range.