Recommendations for lenses for Canon 40D

[samantha_morgan]

Hi

 

I've been reading some of the comments about Canon 40D -v- 5D & buying lenses, which have been helpful. I have,

though, a slightly bigger budget for lenses than one of the last postings and so would appreciate any help with

thinking about which ones to chose.

 

Firstly, I should say that I've been wanting to buy a 5D, but have reluctantly decided it is just tooooo heavy for want I

want to use it for. My favourite travel spot over the last 5 years is the Himalayas & I am finally giving up my film SLR

& 3 lenses (wide angle (28mm) being my favourite) to go DSLR. The 5D takes breathtaking shots, but then I know it

can be hard work up passes & the mountain paths can all get a bit dusty and I hear the 5D is not too happy with

that. So I think it should be the 40D.

 

I would really like a fast lens (preferrably f 2.8). I am willing to pay a good amount, although not insane amounts... I

was looking at the Canon 17-40L (but the f2.8 is double the price of the f4... any comments please?) & the Canon 70-

200 L (f4 - I don't think I could pay the price of the f2.8, but I would pay for the image stabilisation). I think I use a

wide angle much more than I would use a zoom and of the 2 I'd prefer the wide angle to be faster.... any

suggestions? So that leaves with me with a slight difficulty as there is a gap between 40-70. I was hoping to start

with only 2 lenses this time (bulk & weight issue).

 

I am also aware that on a "cropped" digital camera the 17-40 is not that wide.

 

I'd appreciate any thoughts/suggestions and lessons learnt from experience!

Thank you

Samantha

[yakim_peled1]

An excellent start would be 17-55/2.8 IS + 70-200/4 IS. If it's a little too pricey replace the tele with a 70-300 IS. You compromise on BQ and AF but optics and IS are top notch. If you can add the 10-22 then it's highly recommended as well and weighs very little.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[JohnMWright]

I don't think the weight is all that different. The 40D is a little smaller but not much.

 

I don't mind the gap between my 17-40 and 70-200 (I do landscapes and animals/portraits). If I did more portraits I would look at the 24-70 or 24-105. Some people will say otherwise, that's fine. You can always fill the gap later if you want.

 

The 17-40 is awesome, I have never regretted owning it. It is about like a 28mm on the wide end compared to a full frame camera. Combine it with a tripod and a Canon sensor... great images. But technique is usually more important than the gear.

 

For the 70-200, if weight is a concern then get the f/4 for sure.

[freelance]

" I've been wanting to buy a 5D, but have reluctantly decided it is just tooooo heavy for want I want to use it for."

 

Then, do not buy the 40D. It has the same weight.

[wgpinc]

Samantha, I have an idea that might work for you. The new XSi has image quality equivalent to the 40D, is smaller and lighter, and costs less. It may fit your hand better than either of the other two bodies you mentioned. You give up some functionality that may not really matter to you. I would suggest that you pair that body with the excellent Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 zoom (together approximately $1150). Get that combination and use it for a while. You are covered with that combo in the range of approximately 28mm to 80mm equivalent with the crop sensor. After you use it for a while you will have a much better idea of any other lens you may want or need. Good luck.

[juans eye]

I'm on a tight budget. I just bought my camera to take better kiddie pics, and it turned into ANOTHER hobby. I need another hobby like I need a hole in the head :)

 

My selection under a stretched budget is as follows: EF 70-300 f4-.5.6 IS (bought), Tokina ATX 11-16 f2.8 (on order), Sigma 30 f1.4 and EF 50 f1.4 (future purchases). I do have the XSI kits lens EF 18-55 IS, which works well enough for the time being.

 

/bing

[alan_vanderhaegen]

Hi, Samatha says, and I quote " mountain paths can get a bit dusty and I hear the 5D is not too happy with that". I've heard this before. I'm hesitating between the 5D and the 40D myself. Would you rather buy 1 year old technology, digic3, better dust proofing or 3 year old technology,digic2 but full frame at double the price? I've been milling over this for more than a week and still don't know what to do.

Cheers, Alan

[g dan mitchell]

<p>A good place to start might be to replicate what you do like about your existing film lenses and to avoid what you don't

like - and then look for Canon options that can get you there.

 

<p>Depending upon what you shoot, some great combinations for hiking/backpacking photography (of which I do a

considerable amount) might include:

 

<ul>

<li>EFS 10-22, EF 24-105 f/4 L, 70-200mm f/4 L IS. This covers a very large focal length range and the IS feature of the

two middle lenses can compensate for not having f/2.8. (more on that below)

<li>EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/4 L IS. This has the advantage of getting you your f/2.8 aperture (with IS!) in a

general purpose lens, and adding telephoto with a single IS lens. If you can do without focal lengths shorter than 17mm (not

tremendously wide but essentially equivalent to your old 28mm film lens) and don't mind the very small gap between 55mm

and 70mm this setup has a lot going for it.

<li>When I used a cropped sensor camera I liked the combination of the 17-40, the 24-105, and the 70-200 - though today

I'd be more inclined to get the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a cropped body, even if I still wanted the overlapping focal length

ranges. I think overlaps are very useful.

</ul>

 

<p>Antonio makes a good point about the 40D versus the 5D. If I were concerned about weight I'd think very seriously

about the XSi. I used its ancestor the XT (or 350D) in the backcountry for awhile and the smaller, lighter bodies have some

real advantages there - and image quality is at least equal to that of the 40D. If you are going to carry the heavier body and

you are interested in full frame, then the 5D could be a very good bet. That is what I currently use in the backcountry,

where my basic kit on longer trips is the 17-40 and the 24-105.

 

<p>About weight and bulk... I find it curious that you would be concerned about weight and bulk but consider the f/2.8

zooms. They are significantly larger and bulkier compared to the f/4 alternatives, especially when you are carrying this gear

on your back. I don't miss f/2.8 at all on the trail...

 

<p>Regarding the 17-40 v 16-35 comparison... The best choice here depends a lot (though not entirely) on what you'll shoot

and how. For example, if you tend to shoot landscapes at small apertures - especially on full frame - the 17-40 is an

outstanding performer that equals or perhaps very slightly (though likely not significantly) the performance of the 16-35. On

the other hand if you do a lot of hand held low light shooting wide open at f/2.8, this is where the 16-35 excels.

 

<p>Dan

[KenPapai]

My backcountry jaunts are overwhelmingly satisfied with the 40D and 16-35 2.8L kit.

I don't think there's a better combo.<div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

Ken, that reminds me a lot of a section of trail near Agnew Meadow...

 

Dan

[sheygetz]

As others have pointed out, there's no weight difference in the two cams, so you need to rethink you're original axiom. I second the recommendation of the 450D. Have you thought about using primes at least for part of the spectrum? They are pretty light - and cheaper - compared to the ambitious zooms that are being bandied about. The 20mm 2.8 USM would be similar to the 28mm (film-eq) you mentioned. Then there's the 85mm 1.8 USM, but you'll probably want at least at tele-zoom. Both these primes are about 400g each, while some of the zooms are a kilo to one-and-a-half. Just a thought...

 

Hendrik

[rob 101]

Don't be too dissapointed with the 40D it's a great camera and produces amazing color. I worked for about a year at a small company color correcting and retouching images and i've seen a lot of camera profiles when the 40D came out I was blown away. I thought that the 5D and the Mark III were the best.

As for the lens think about the 24-70 2.8. I have this lens and I love it. Stopped down its amazing produceing extreamly sharp rich photos. It is heavy but not to bad. Also the 17-40 L is a great lens and will provide the coverage you will need.

[PuppyDigs]

Both the 5D and 40D are great bodies. However the choice should be based on budget and/or preference for FF or 1.6x. I

have both bodies and the diff in weight is really small. The 5D is 28.6 oz whereas the 40D is 26.1 oz. I can't tell any diff

unless I lay them on a scale.

[samantha_morgan]

Thank you so much! Although slightly panicking with the thought of having to consider another camera when I thought I'd at least narrowed that one down (:-))...but I think your ideas are great.. and have added some real meat to my research! I take your point about the XSi (or 450D in the UK!), Gil, and will be going in to a camera shop now to try the XSi alongside the 40D. I also take your point about the 40D being nearly the same weight as the 5D. I think I was being a slight camera snob yesterday by not even looking at the SXi (my error) and only comparing the 40D & 5D. I wonder if you are all men that are replying, because I found the 5D almost difficult to hold (I guess slightly smaller hands?).

 

I've been plowing through 4 hours worth of lens reviews this morning :-)... and am keen about the 70-200mm f4IS (but will need to see it, ie the lighter version anyway). I liked the point made about IS could compensate for a slower lens (hadn't thought about that, thanks G Dan). So big dilemna about 17-55 f 2.8 or f4, 16-35mm f2.8 or 17-40 f 2.8/f.4. Ironically although the 17-40 is the L lens and I was thinking about that, my interest is now moving more towards the 17-55.

 

So I'm now heading to a shop with a memory card to try out various lenses & the 2 cameras and hopefully will have a better idea & even make a decision. I have 2 weeks until I go to the Himalayas ... I need fast & I mean fast!

 

Thank you again for all your feedback... really helpful (much more so than the magazine & much more lively!)

Samantha

[derrickdehaan]

If you have smaller hands, then you may well find the XSi to fit better. It will also be lighter for your backpack, but not near as robust in build. I would rather have durability than light weight.

 

Derrick

[dan_hall4]

I have a 40D with Canon 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400. This works great for my interest which are wildlife/landscape. I would recommend these lenses to anyone. The 24-105 is an amazing lens. It stays on my 40D 80% of the time. Throw in a high quality CP like the Hoya Pro 1 dmc and you would be able to get some amazing landscape/mtn images. Below is a link to some pictures I took in Alaska in May. The wildlife was with the 100-400 and the landscapes were with the 24-105. When the link opens, click "slideshow" in the upper right side of the page.

 

[g dan mitchell]

"I have a 40D with Canon 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400."

 

That is a very interesting set of lenses, and I've been surprised to not see more people with that specific set. It seems

tailor made for a crop sensor photographer trying to cover the widest range of focal lengths with the smallest number of

lenses. (Not saying it is "the best" set for all photographers in all situations, but it sure looks like it could be nearly perfect

for certain folks.)

 

Dan

[KenPapai]

G Dan, we broke camp at Little Yosemite Valley after summiting Half Dome earlier in the morning -- we were along the Merced River there.<div></div>

[marcomariano]

if you want the lightest possible combo, i'll go with [450D, 18-55IS, & 55-250IS + 430EX].

 

but since you want 40D, 17-55/2.8 IS is perfect for it. some are even pairing it with 55-250IS as well. but im saving for

70-200/2.8 IS, i dont mind the 55-70 gap.

[marcomariano]

if you want the lightest possible combo, i'll go with [450D, 18-55IS, & 55-250IS + 430EX].

 

but since you want 40D, 17-55/2.8 IS is perfect for it. some are even pairing it with 55-250IS as well.

 

but im saving for 70-200/2.8 IS, and i dont mind the 55-70 gap.

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

I have 4 bodies and I must say the 5D is way better than my 40D. The only reason I shoot my 40D is for it's speed during air shows. I spend too much time adjusting every pictures coming out of the 40D. My BEST combo is 5D with 24-70 or 24-105. For your purpose the 24-105 is lighter and the extra reach will be nice. I hate to say this but I even like shooting my 30D over my 40D. 5D replacement needs to hurry and be way better before I jump ship to Nikon. v/r Raz

[g dan mitchell]

"G Dan, we broke camp at Little Yosemite Valley after summiting Half Dome earlier in the morning -- we were along the

Merced River there."

 

Ah, makes sense. There is a little section of trail just after the trailhead at Agnew Meadow that looks almost exactly like

this. Did you go out via the Illilouette trail to Glacier Point - or perhaps go in that way? That is a wonderful trail across the

tops of those cliffs to the east of the fall.

 

Dan

[mdoyle]

Sam

 

The 17-40 F4 is a great lens. I have it always on my 40D body. I use the 70-200 F4 on the 30D body. You cant go wrong with either lens. The IS is good to have but I think if your steady it should be fine. Get the 17-40, its an awesome len.

[lamoine_einspahr]

I have two 28-135IS lenses and both are completely satisfactory at F8. The second came with the 40D. I shoot in some larger halls and find that my old ex550 will light them good enough for this lens. My son has a 24-70L, but is too soft at anything wider that F2.8. I also have a 100-400L IS. The main thrust of my post however is that if you have NOT yet chosen a camera body, that you give serious thought to restricting your choice to one that has the digic lll processor, or higher if it takes that long. Reason, I had the Rebel, Xti and now a 40D. The Rebel was too slow starting up and the shutter was slow. The Xti had a fast startup and quick shutter, but I did not like the image renditions. The 40D does it all right. Color is superior, focus and IS snap into operation instantly. I can only wonder what Canon can do to improve that camera body for anything like the same money. I liked the Rebel images even at 6.3 mpixels. I did not like the images from the Xti and the body was too small for my hands and the images after a number so shots would all acquire a decided left tilt. The 40D has more "handle" and I absolutely love the camera. My next lens will be a 70-200L F2.8, but only after a length of time gathering funds.

[samantha_morgan]

Thank you... what you've said is really helpful.. and in fact very calming after some of the camera-shop experiences today... just when I thought I'd maybe made a decision someone chucked in a strong push for Nikon (please see the other thread I have posted). I did in fact respond to this one first after coming back from the shops but somehow it doesn't seem to have come up. It did want to politely thank you all first before setting up another post!

 

I now have a good idea of what I will do if I go for Canon which is great - thanks to a lot of your responses.

 

But trying to consider Nikon as well ... the D80 seems an option but, I have to say the lenses options for me is a little bit more tircky, eg the Nikon 80-200mm is heavy by comparison to the Canon 70-200 f4.

 

I think I might put some rocks in my rucksack, which might with thinking about the options!

 

I appreciate your ideas & advice.

Samantha