yaiza_schmohe Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Hi! After many years of using my 300, I´ve decided to go digital. I am thinking about buying the 450D which is not pro but, is it ok?As I´ve always known, the most important bit is the lens, that is why my old 300 gets fine pictures with my EF 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5 USM, but because of the crop factor I need to buy a new lens, and here comes my question: which lens should I buy? 1) EFS 17-55 f2.8 USM 2) EF 17-40 f4 L USM 3) EF 16-35 f2.8 L USM I 4) EF 16-35 f2.8 L USM II I am not a professional, but I love taking travel photographs so I would like something light which gives me a good result. I am happy with my old EF 24-85mm although sometimes I wish it was a faster lens, because it is poor in low light. I do not mind investing on a good lens, but I am not rich, so price is an issue, although if it is worth it I might consider buying the best option. I also Know that the EFS will be incompatible with my old 35mm camera.... So please do help me decide! Also I would like to know the best and cheapest place to buy all this (the camera body and the lens) either in the internet (but where is this trustable) or in any shop in NY, because I have a friend who is going to NY next week and things are cheaper there than in Spain or the UK. THanks in advance for your help yaiza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_lowe3 Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Hi Yaiza - I've heard really great things about the 17-55 f/2.8 for crop cameras although I did not decide to go that way. Instead, I went with a combo of two lenses - 24-105 f/4 IS L and the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 because they offered the greatest range for my needs. I also travel a lot and just recently came back from Ecuador where these two lenses worked great. In my opinion, I need the extra 50mm at 105 rather than the 2.8 speed (IS also helps) and the 10mm on the wide is really fun to use. I know two lenses aren't part of your options, but just something to think about. If you're going for one, from what I've heard, I'd go for the 17-55. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 To me it would be a combination of the 17-40 and the 50/1.8. Most others will recommend the 17-55/2.8 IS I'll guess. Why my suggestion? The 17-40 handles like a dream, is built like a brick and shoots beautiful pictures. The 50/1.8 is very cheap, has good image quality and is a very versatile toss-just-the-camera-and-the-50-in-the-bag / lowlight / portraiture lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari v Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Tamron 17-50/2.8 has ok build, constant f2.8, nice range, good image quality and it's not terribly expensive or heavy, about $400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Your best all around bet (if the 18-55 IS kit lens isn't good enough) on this camera is the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I've used the 17-40 on both crop and FF bodies, and its strength is in stopped down (e.g. - landscape) shooting on FF more than in its performance in more typical situations on a crop body. If I were getting a crop sensor body today I would get the EFS 17-55mm lens, even though I already own the 17-40. On a crop body it equals or beats the 17-40 in almost every way: Better focal length range, f/2.8 rather than f/4, better IQ especially at large apertures, inclusion of IS. The 17-40 does have the "L" build, but the EFS isn't a badly constructed lens by any means. By the way, the 50mm prime would not be particularly useful if you had the EFS 17-55. Yes, it gets a bit more than one more stop at f/1.8, but that isn't likely to be a significant issue, and in a number of situations the IS feature of the zoom will let you shoot in even lower light. You might assume that the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L would automatically be "better" for you, given its higher price and larger size. However, from test results I've seen its performance on a crop body provides no advantages over the 17-55 EFS lens and its focal length range is far shorter and it doesn't provide IS. While IS will not solve all low light shooting issues, it is useful in a number of situations, especially for the sort of travel photography you mention. The 450D, by the way, is capable of producing really excellent photographic results that can equal or exceed those from the 40D. While the 40D does provide some additional features, it is not necessarily true that these features will be useful to you or that they will improve your photography. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_fraser1 Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Out of the lenses you mentioned, the 16-35 2.8s are the most expensive and you will likely find them to be rather limited on a crop factor body like the 450D. It would be a good lens on your film body but I guess that kind of defeats the purpose! The 17-55 wouldn't be bad and would give you something quite similar to your 24-85mm on your film body (27- 88mm). If you're happy with that lens on your 300 then it might be the one to go for. I have the 17-40mm F4L and while it is a great lens, it is limited by the crop factor going from fairly wide to a bit telephoto. I don't think it would be good as a single lens choice in your case. You haven't mentioned what kind of photography you like but if you don't need anything too wide then a great single lens option is the 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens. It gives you an equivalent of 38-168mm on the 450D. It's constant F4 but if you're not shooting moving targets the IS allows you to shoot 3 stops faster than you would normally get. It is by far my most used lens. Excellent build and image quality and it is one of the cheapest L series lenses. If you don't need wider than 38mm and can live with the F4 as opposed to F2.8 I would definitely recommend it as an excellent one lens option. About prices, generally speaking buying in the states is going to be significantly cheaper than in the UK. A good place to check average American prices would be with B&H who are one of the most popular retailers - www.bhphotovideo.com I've just checked and they sell the 24-105 for about £590 GBP. I find the best place to check UK prices is www.camerapricebuster.com. They don't sell equipment, its just a comparison site but it shows you the best UK prices for any Canon/Nikon cameras, lenses and accessories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris.sager Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 The Tamron 17-50 F2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 "By the way, the 50mm prime would not be particularly useful if you had the EFS 17-55." True. Unless you want to travel light. It's not everybody's cup of tea but every time I go out with just my 400D and the 50/1.8 I have great fun. (To be honest, I nearly always have fun when I go out shooting but the tiny 50 does have a high fun factor.) Matthijs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 But the 50mm focal length is a rather narrow angle of view short telephoto lens on a crop sensor body. While I understand that a few people have adapted to using this alone, it doesn't provide a wide enough angle of view as a prime for most folks. If you want to go the prime route to travel light, something like the 35mm f/2 or even a 28mm or 24mm lens would meet the needs of a larger percentage of photographers. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yaiza_schmohe Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share Posted September 16, 2008 Thanks to all of you! It is all very helpful. Matthijs: I do have already the EF 50mm 1.8 II, sorry I haven´t said so. And it´s true, it is very light and fun so I will stil use it, but when i go travelling i sometimes just go around with one lens while the other is in my room... so i need a lens for that, an all purposes lens. Christian and Verina: Tamron 17-50/2.8 is it a good lens? I hadn´t heard about it before, sorry, so can it give out good results like the canon? Dan: "I've used the 17-40 on both crop and FF bodies, and its strength is in stopped down (e.g. - landscape) shooting on FF more than in its performance in more typical situations on a crop body" so the 17-40 results are not as good as the 17-55? or are they the same? I do think that the EFS 17-55 would be very nice, I am only worried about the fact that then it won´t be useful in a full frame camera which is, i guess, what we all will have in the future, and also it won´t be useful in my film camera neither, whereas the other EF would. Sorry also about the lack of information: I am mostly a travelling photographer, I do not use that much the telephoto, because I like playing with people and compositions. I quite like wide angle, as wide as possible but at least something like a 28mm would be fine, the problem of the EFS is that although it covers most of my needs for the EOS450D i can´t use it as a much wider angle in my film camera, which I would like to keep using specially for BW. Having said so, and after what I´ve read from you all, it seems that the EFS is the best option, also because I like the depth of field that the 2.8 gives you even more than the light factor, because playing with the EF 4L and the EF 2.8L I realised that i loved that difference in depth of field. On the other hand, I felt that the 2.8L was a bit too heavy or big or... I don´t know, but as I am a "girl", not very strong and as I like to travel with the camera all the time, I might end up using the lens less because of that weight-size factor, still, I haven´t had a feeling for the EFS. Anyway, sorry for all this mess of ideas and thanks for all your answers :-) I will try and have a look at the EFS and see how it feels, and maybe is not so bad that it won´t be useful in the future. Thanks to all again yaiza ps: thanks Neil for the webs that tell prices, that is really useful :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 >>> After many years of using my 300, I´ve decided to go digital. I am thinking about buying the 450D which is not pro but, is it ok? <P> It doesn't need to be "pro." It's still a great cam. <P>I use one exclusively and almost always with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog">Most of my photos here</a>, were taken with that combination. www.citysnaps.net 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