EOS 450D with which lens?

[yaiza_schmohe]

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

[michael_lowe3]

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!

[matthijs]

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.

[kari v]

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.

[g dan mitchell]

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

[neil_fraser1]

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.

[chris.sager]

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

[matthijs]

"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.

[g dan mitchell]

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

[yaiza_schmohe]

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 :-)

[Brad_]

>>> 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.