Canon 40D What lenses should I start with?

[tom_koetting]

some images for illustration

 

10-22 (link below)

 

http://flickr.com/photos/tomkphoto/tags/efs1022/

 

17-55/2.8is (link below)

 

http://flickr.com/photos/tomkphoto/tags/efs1755is/

 

60 macro (link below)

 

http://flickr.com/photos/tomkphoto/tags/efs60macro/

 

85/1.8 (below)

 

http://flickr.com/photos/tomkphoto/tags/ef85usm/

 

135L (below)

 

http://flickr.com/photos/tomkphoto/tags/ef135l/

 

70-200 4 IS (below)

 

http://flickr.com/photos/tomkphoto/tags/ef702004is/

[marcsharp]

I started out with the 40D and the kit 28-135mm Zoom, but that lens just was not wide enough. So, I bought the EFS 10-22mm which is great. But then I kept having to switch back and forth all the time. I wanted a good general purpose lens, so I got the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8. Now that lens is on my camera almost always. If I had to do it all over again, I would buy the body only and get the 17-55mm lens. The 18-55mm is cheaper, but the wider aperture and better build of the 17-55mm is worth the $$.

[jtipton]

I have a 40D that came with the Kit 28-135 and I love it ,great lens. I supplemented that with a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. Found I wanted something a little wider for landscapes and a little faster for low light and the Sigma fit the bill both in function and price. I use them both frequently. For me, and I am strictly an amateur, this combo has worked well.

[brianurbano]

if i had to start over again with a 40d i would look into getting a uwa 10-22 canon along with either a 28mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4 prime and then one of the 70-200 zooms (non IS 4.0 works perfectly and will fit within your budget)

[expats]

I agree with the above. The 18-55 is a good training lens. You might want to throw in a 50 mm f/1.8. It's cheap and gives you a lot of option.

 

Work with what you have, learn the camera, and about composition. Buy another lens when you start to reach the limitations of your current equipment, limitations that you cannot get around. When you start to say, "If I had a _________," then upgrade.

 

I started with a kit 18-55. A slow lens makes you think creatively to get a decent shot.

[de_isaacs]

Given your budget and the fact that you can through more money at this later, I would vote to start with 55-250 as a good all-around initial lens. 55 is about 80 on your 40D so it should be wide enough for travel. 250 is about 300+ so great for close ups, telephoto and even some macro. The IS is a feature I had scoffed at thru the years � but now as the song says � �I�m a Believer�. Just this lens and the 40D will be a great start.

Don�t forget to grab extra memory cards, batteries, a case or backpack and a nice (sturdy) tripod!

Good shooting!

Derek

[thanospapadopoulos]

remember this, the lens will stay with you even after you change camera... There are some great lenses in good

prices like Canon 17-40 L 4 lens or the Canon 70-200 L 4 lens. Primes are also

My opinion is go for the best lens you can afford to pay. You will have them for the rest of your life....

[thanospapadopoulos]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

 

this site has some good reviews for the EOS lenses...

[hawkman]

a useful all-around lens is 17-55 f/2.8 IS, this lens is the 24-70 equivalent for 1.5X crop camera.

[kasperhettinga]

"You will have them for the rest of your life...."

 

Although this can be thought to be true for photographic lenses...I don't know if you can be too sure with EF-S lenses: if FF cameras become more affordable and you decide to switch, the EF-S lenses can't be used anymore, and whether EF-S lenses will keep their value as well on the second-hand market in that case remains to be seen....

[marcsharp]

Right...If you buy EF-S, just realize that it might be just for this camera. If canon someday goes to all full frame sensors,

then the EF-S will be obsolete (unless the new cameras some how accept EF-S).

[yakim_peled1]

I traded two L lenses (17-40 and 24-105) for two EF-S lenses (10-22 and 17-55 IS). I like them so much that I decided to keep an EF-S body even if I buy a 1.3X or FF body. Yes, they are that good.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[joseph_martines]

It all depends on how much money you have to spend, how far along you are into photography, and your developed

opinion on lenses.

 

Most advanced photographers will tell you: "Save your money and buy prime lenses." They are right!

 

Depending on the type of photography you do, I love zoom lenses. They give me great versatility.

 

My all around "walk around" lens is a Tamron 28 - 300 MM with IS/VC. Great lens, light, has quasi macro function - very

versatile.

 

I am saving for lenses now. Next will either be a 400MM (after Photokina) or a 500 MM lens. Love them birds!

 

Take it from my experience and buy good glass, primarily primes.

[virginiamarie]

I have the kit lens you're talking about and I love it. I plan on purchasing a macro lens in the near future but for now I've added a set of Hoya +1, +2 and +4 macro filters whenever I want to make a macro photograph. The 28-135 lens has been an excellent lens. I would purchase the camera with this lens included.

[richard_crowe4]

I always recommend basing your DSLR kit on a top-line mid-range zoom lens. Since you will probably be using this lens for the majority of your shooting, IMO, it should be the best you can afford.

 

Two choices come to mind. IMO, the ultimate mid-range zoom lens is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I have one of these and it is my go-to lens. I can't really say anything negative about it. The constant f/2.8 aperture combined with its great IS make it a pretty darn good lower light lens. In fact, I seldom carry my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I amymore.

 

Another very valid mid-range zoom choice for the 40D is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. This lens provides great imagery and the zoom range is really nice for the 1.6x format 40D. You don't have the IS capability but, IMO, IS is just icing on the cake in a lens of this focal range.

 

The 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens is a nice lens which can do a lot of things pretty-well but, can do nothing really great. If you are lucky enough to get a good one, the image quality is pretty good. However it seems that there is a vast difference in the quality of individual copies of these lenses.

 

I go against the stream of forum thought in that I love the focal length of this lens because it matches up very well with my 12-24mm f/4 Tokina. I just wish the lens were a bit faster (say a constant f/3.5 or even f/4) and that the IQ (especially contrast) was a little better. The older IS, while helpful, could do with an upgrade also.

 

Pairing the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens with the 70-200mm f/4L IS tele-zoom makes a wonderful combination and is what I shoot with for my general and travel photography. The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens provides superlative imagery and it pairs up with the 17-55mm very nicely (I don't miss the 55-70mm gap). The pair makes a relatively light weight combination but, they are a pair of expensive lenses.

 

For a less expensive combination, the 17-50mm Tamron pairs up nicely with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens. IS capability is, fror me, pretty necessary in a tele-zoom. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS 3-4x more often than I was ever able to use the non-IS model of that lens.

 

I personally would not buy the 18-55mm or 55-250mm IS lenses to match up with the great 40D camera. These lenses while O.K. are just that; no more than O.K! You will never reach the full potential of the 40D camera with these lenses.

 

For photographers who want to go the less expensive route with the pair of new IS lenses; I would strongly recommend getting a refurbished XTi from Adorama for $469 instead of the more expensive 40D. You would have a very usable outfit for around a thousand bucks. I have a refurb 30D which has performed better than the several Canon DSLR's which I purchased new. I have more confidence in the quality control of the canon Service Centers than in the quality control of the Canon Assembly line.

 

IMO, putting the 18-55mm and 55-250mm IS lenses on a 40D is like buying a high performance automobile and equipping it with the cheapest K-Mart tires to save money. Even a more inane idea is the thought of buying the K-mart tires for your sports-car and using them until you learn how to drive the car. Sure the K-Mart rubber will be fine for driving to and from the supermarket - but, is that what you bought the sports-car for?

[tom_koetting]

> I personally would not buy the 18-55mm or 55-250mm IS lenses to match up with the great 40D camera

 

The new 18-55IS is quite good (better than the 17-85IS) and is a PERFECT mid zoom for an occasional birthday party or

family reunion. Before I got the Tamron 17-50 for a wedding back-up to my Canon 17-55/2.8 I used to use the kit lens for

group shots. At F8 it's fine.

 

The OP mentioned landscapes and nature/macro - neither which are served by overspending on a mid-zoom

 

The 10-22 will provide eye popping landscapes and a dedicated macro will get you closer to flowers, etc. Get the lens

that's right for the job - if you don't plan on shooting in the "middle" of focal ranges (boring in my opinion), then don't blow

your budget on a brick like the 17-55is (I NEVER use mine unless I'm paid to do so at weddings).

[tom_koetting]

Anyone who says the new 18-55 is not worthy of the 40D should read the reviews on places like SLRgear.com ... that blur

index looks mighty fine to me for a kit lens

[jsilva]

Get the kit with the 18-55 IS lens and be happy. If you're an absolute beginner, I'd say get the Rebel XSi or even better the Rebel XS kit

with lens, 430EX flash, a couple of memory cards, a couple of extra batteries (not necessarily from Canon mind you) and be happy.

 

There'll be no improvement in image quality between the cameras I mention and the 40D unless, MAYBE (and it's a huge MAYBE here),

you're a terminal pixel-peeper (or perhaps a conceptual artist working at pixel-level). The supposedly better ergonomics in the 40D don't

justify the higher price. With the 40D you'll have to carry a bigger, heavier, more intimidating camera (believe me, that makes a

difference if you plan on doing some photojournalism).

 

A Rebel and the kit lens will give you wonderful photos. Only when the lens starts getting in the way of something you do everyday in

your photography (because you found out some kind of photo you particularly like) then start considering a new lens.

 

Me? I upgraded from 18-55 to 17-55 f/2.8 IS because I found out I liked to take photos of live shows and social events that usually

happen at night. I can't for the life of me tell the difference in sharpness between the two, but the 17-55 allows me to shoot in poorly-lit

places more often.

 

That's it. Don't blow your $2k in lenses that you might never use. Don't blow your $2k in "L" lenses until you actually need one because

you'll be using it for work all day, every day, for a number of years.

 

Finally, don't base your purchase decisions solely based on what you read here. This post inlcuded. :-)

[dan_hall4]

While everyone's needs vary, I have a 40D with Canon 10-22, 24-105 f/4 IS, and 100-400 IS. They work great for me. The 24-105 is a fantastic lens and stays on my 40D about 80% of the time. One convenient thing is that all these lenses are 77mm which makes filter choice a breeze. Take a look at these lenses on B&H Photo/Video. Great place to buy from if you are not familiar with them.

[looking for the next one]

I think you will be ok with your lens choice. The one thing I have noticed about the "Pro" shots is Photoshop. All the professional photos are photoshopped. I guess thats the investment you need to make. Software that way you can make it look like the pros no matter what lens you choose.

[dogbert]

Get the 18-55 IS as your all purpose walkaround lens. The 50 f1.8 may be useful as a second lens, not because it

is a good focal length on the 40D but it is cheap, can serve as a portrait lens and has very good IQ for the price.

 

Next when you are tempted to consider buying lenses such as the Canon 10-22, 24-105L, and 70-200 f4L, think

about the nifty 50 mm and consider that all of these expensive Canon L lenses have about the same image quality

as the 50. That way you will understand what you are getting for your money.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that there are not good reasons to own some of Canon's top end lenses.

Indeed the core of my kit is the Canon 10-22, 24-104 f4L and 100 macro. Just be aware that great photography is

hard work (though fun) and involves so much more than having expensive gear.

[yakim_peled1]

IMHO a fast aperture is more important than IS. Thus, if you need to choose between the two (i.e. if you decided not to buy the 17-55/2.8 IS) I think you should go for the lens with the faster aperture. That means to get Tamron 17-50/2.8 rather than the Canon 18-55 IS.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[caseyscanlon]

I started with the kit lens, (28-135mm f3.5/5.6 IS USM), and think its a great starter lens. Has some zoom to it, descent walk around. I also picked up the canon 10-22 and have a lot of fun with the wide lens. Next is the 70-200L IS USM...saving my pennies!

[g dan mitchell]

I'm revisiting this thread a few days later... after spending the better part of the week photographing in the High Sierra.

 

But now back to the business of the forum. Near the start of this thread I wrote that someone like you ("fairly new to photography

but enjoy it and am looking forward to it as a hobby and learning all I can" and with an all-inclusive list of potential photographic

interests) would be best off spending some time learning with the EFS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens at first. I pointed out that the

choice of which lenses to get is very personal and is based on what and how you photograph, and that this self-knowledge takes a

bit of time.

 

My bottom line recommendation is: Get the fine kit lens. Shoot a few thousand photos. Enjoy the camera and lens. Start to

understand how it all works and - even more important - begin to understand what _you_ need your camera and lenses to do. Figure

out what features in lenses will get you there. At that point begin to figure out which lenses will meet those needs and start to shop.

 

The reason I'm writing this again is that I just scanned the many posts in this thread - and I see a ton of wildly divergent and in

many cases completely contradictory lens recommendations. To which I'm tempted to simple write, "I rest my case."

 

Oh, I just did write that.

 

What you are reading is the evidence that there are many possible "best" lenses and that the choices are very individual and

depend greatly on the answers to a number of questions that you cannot answer...

 

... until you shoot a bunch of photographs...

 

... hopefully, with the kit lens.

 

Dan