Good wide angle and walkaround lenses for 40D

[alan_myers]

Hi Jeffrey,

 

I'm going with almost the exact setup your described initially. I use the 24-70/2.8 instead of the 28-135. Tthe

Tokina 12-24/4 seems a perfect combo of price, performance and build quality. On the crop sensor cameras I use

mostly now, it gives slightly wider angle of view that would compare well to the 20 and 21mm that were usually my

widest lenses in my film/full frame systems. I don't really feel the need for wider or for a faster lens in this

focal length.

 

I also use the 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 Macro (so I don't really need the length the 28-135 would give me).

 

It really comes down to personal preference and you can make yourself nuts with all the possible combinations.

Yes, sometimes one pairing won't be as convenient as another and you might find yourself changing lenses too

much. Someone else might need f2.8 and find the 11-16/2.8 Tokina a better choice, pairing it with a 16-35 or

17-whatever. Others will find 17mm wide enough on crop sensor. Still others will need wider and want a 10mm.

 

Stop second guessing yourself. Just get something and start working with it. You'll either be happy or trade it

for something else that better serves your particular needs. Lightly used lenses can often be resold to get back

much of what you invested initially. eBay, Craigslist and sites like this make that easy these days.

 

Do, just get something and start shooting. Only then will you know.

[jeff_bubis]

I purchased a 40D when it first came out and love it. That being said, I would echo some of what has been written here -

and definitely consider either 5D Mark II. The sensor crop factor with landscape photography can be painful. That being

said, if that's a bit hard on the budget, I would also consider the 50D. It's only a matter of time until the 40D is

discontinued.

I use the 17-55/2.8 as my primary lens. I've also got the 70-200/2.8 for when I need a closer shot. Both have fantastic

build quality, are sharp, and with plenty of contrast. Conveniently, they also accept the same filter diameter. Adorama

has the 70-200 as a refurb... I've never seen the 17-55 available as a refurb. The only catch with the 17-55 (and what

made purchasing it so hard) was that it's about $1k - and it's EF-S. Eventually, I probably will go FF, and then that lens

will be useless. For me, it was still the right decision, but definitely take this into consideration.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I'm a little peeved that the camera stores are taking advantage of new DSLR buyers who may not understand what

lenses they'll need, and selling them the old 28-135mm lenses. That focal length range was fine on 35mm film SLRs (and

is fine on full frame DSLRs, though the available lenses are probably not what most FF buyers will want) but they are

<i>completely wrong for almost all new DSLR buyers who are looking for a standard "walk around lens."</i>

 

<p>Because of the smaller size of the sensor on your 1.6x cropped sensor DSLR, the 28mm focal length is really not a

wide angle lens at all. If a 50mm focal length was a "normal" lens back in the 35mm film days, the focal length that will

provide an equivalent field of view on your cropped sensor DSLR is about <i>31mm</i>. So if you get the 28-135mm

lens you are essentially getting more or less a "normal to telephoto" lens.

 

<p>A lens that would provide an equivalent angle of view range on your new camera would have a focal length range of

about 17mm-85mm. (Canon does sell a EFS 17-85mm lens for this very reason.)

 

<p>Unless your needs are rather unusual, I recommend against getting the 28-135mm lens. You would likely be better

off with the newer EFS 18-55mm image-stabilized kit lens - it is reportedly a pretty decent performer and it comes as part

of the standard kits. If you are not yet certain what focal lengths will give you the angles of view you are looking for,

shoot with this for awhile and <i>then</i> make investments in more expensive lenses.

 

<p>If you are certain that you need a very high quality lens that covers this focal length range, Canon also makes a EFS

17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens that is quite good but pricey.

 

<p>If you are getting a 50mm prime for your new camera because that is what people got back in the "old days" when

they bought a SLR body, stop. On your new camera a 50mm lens will behave like a 80mm lens on the old film cameras.

If you would have purchased a 35mm film SLR with a 80mm standard prime, then the 50mm lens on your 40D would

make some sense. But you wouldn't have done that, right? Again, if you need a "normal prime" for the 40D, something in

the 28mm to 35mm range would be more appropriate.

 

<p>I shot the 17-40mm f/4 L on a cropped sensor body for a couple years. In my opinion the 17-40mm f/4 L is a great

lens for small aperture landscape/architecture and similar photography <i>on a full frame body.</i> It is not necessarily

the best option on a cropped sensor body. It has corner softness issues at the larger apertures, and while its

performance becomes more uniform across the frame when you stop beyond f/8, diffraction blur on the cropped sensor

bodies is a concern beyond f/8. As one who owns and likes and uses the 17-40 on FF, if I were getting a cropped sensor

body I would get the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead.

 

<p>If you need a true ultra wide angle lens you might look at something like the EFS 10-22 or equivalent. On your 40D

this lens provides angle of view coverage comparable to using a 16-35mm lens on 35mm/full frame.

 

<p>Regarding the 5D and landscape issues I'm going to make two observations. First, full frame has its advantages for

this type of photography - more options for wide angle coverage, potentially better resolution if you make large prints, and

a greater range of useful apertures. The primary advantage comes from the larger sensor and not so much from the

larger number of photosites. If cost is a concern and you want to go full frame (and I'm not saying you necessarily should

do so) the 12MP 5D could be a fine option since its price has come down a lot and used copies are available at very

good prices. With the right lenses and technique it is certainly capable of producing fine 20" x 30" prints.

 

<p>My second observation is that if landscape is a big thing for you one of the Rebels with the 10MP or 12MP sensor

could be as good as the 40D. The image quality will be indistinguishable from that of the 40D, and you don't need the

most significant differentiating features of the 40D such as faster burst mode. In addition, the smaller body size could be

an advantage if you do your landscape photography on foot.

 

<p>Dan

[lukeap69]

Jeff

 

I have the Tamron 17-50 and have had no issues with it. It is my most used lens for landscape and night photography. Don't worry so much about what you read in the net about front or back focusing issues. I believe you can have it repaired or replaced just in case you will find a problem with the lens.

Add the 10-22 and you can have a very good wide angle setup. I've got the chance to use a Sigma 10-20 one time and it's nice to have but most of the time for my style, 17-50 would be enough.

 

Cheers

[derrickdehaan]

I bought my 40D with the kit 28-135. In one word....."worthless". I bet I haven't used it for 3 frames. What a stupid focal length to put in a kit. I already had a Sigma 17-70 that stay mounted 90 percent of the time. Do yourself a favor and buy the body only and get a wider zoom.

 

Derrick

[jmichael]

I do not agree that the 28-135 is "worthless"...I have shot 90% the images in my portfolio with it and while I probably would have gotten better results with a better lens...it fit my budget and I think my results are pretty good with it. I just try to get the best out of it that I can. I find it to be a decent walkaround lens...not real wide and not a lot of zoom...bit it can get the job done in many cases.

[tdigi]

It may not be worthless but I do agree with one of the posters above that camera stores take advantage of new DSLR

buyers who may not realize that 28-135 is not a good all around zoom range.

[jeffrey_mcconnell]

I would be sold on the 17-55 IS except that sometime in the future I see myself moving to FF and I'm having a hard time convincing myself to spend $1000 on a lens that won't transfer to FF (even though it may be a while before I change to FF). I recently tried a 24-105 and really liked it. I may end up getting that along with an ultra wide lens to compensate for the shorter end that it doesn't cover.

[toby_raincock]

Hi Jeff,

 

Reading this thread takes me back to when I purchased my first DSLR system. The same questions cropped up and similar opinions and responses often. I certainly don't have the depht of experience that others on here have got, but due to the similarities in your queries with my own, i felt I should share my thoughts with you!

 

I went for the 17-55 IS f/2.8 and love it. One thing that doesn't appear to have been mentioned is that the f2.8 over the 17-40's f4 will be of immense value when "... I shoot people at family gatherings and at home (I have a new baby)...". Ths ability and speed of the lens indoors in lower light situations is amazing. To be fair I haven't used a 17-40 f4, but can understand its capabilities. Additionally you rarely hear of there being any problems with this lens. Whilst it isn't an 'L' lens, it has been designed specifically for crop sensor camera's and as such on the 40D becomes a winning combination.

 

You more recently mention that you can't get your head around spending $1,000 on a lens that will become redundant when you go FF. If you are serious about going FF then why not take advice from others above and start now with a 5D (prices coming down all the time) aremove the 'issue'. Alternatively, when/if you go full frame (perhaps due to commercial reasons), should finances permit, it would be adviseable to have a back up and a 40D with 17-55 on it would be an excellent choice... This is certainly the view that I have taken should my 'career' take off!

 

One other thing - you mentioned looking at a 70-200... I recently invested in the f4 version and similarly love it. I personally wanted to save weight when travelling (and in turn several hundred $$$$!) and haven't yet found a situation where I wish I'd done differently. Sure, if I was a wedding photographer then I would most certainly have acquired the 2.8... but as I write i'm not! WTS...

 

As other people have mentioned, your choice really is YOUR choice, however taking into consideration everything you have said above and my personal experience I would choose: 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-200 (f4) and set about taking some awesome photographs!

 

Good luck!

 

Toby

[yakim_peled1]

It's all a question of when will you get a FF body. Soon? Ger the 17-40/4. Don't know exactly? 17-55/2.8 IS.

 

I had most of Canon lenses under 300mm and tried most I don't have. Few lenses impressed me as the 10-22 and 17-55. They are the reason for my decision that when I buy a FF/1.3X body it will be an addition to the EF-S that I have (40D), not a replacement. Yes, they are that good.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[tdigi]

Jeffrey, I went that route I had a 24-105 and just this weekend added a 10-22. Those 2 with a 50mm or 35mm prime is

an amazing set up. I have only taken about 50 shots with the 10-22 but I am very impressed. I was considering the

Tokina 11-16 2.8 but I must say the longer range sure helps, at 22 it is still useable for closer shots where 16 would

really not be.

 

I too plan to move to a full frame body one day but really its not that much better in the full frame world and I prefer

some things about the 40D/50D series ( faster frame rate, pop up flash, etc ) so I am in no hurry and how that I can

shoot wide angle ( finally ) I am in even less of a hurry.

 

You would be perfectly happy with a 17-55 or a 24-105. For general use the 17-55 range is probably the most useful so

as a 1 lens solution its probably the best one but I agree it sure don't feel like a $1000 lens. At $700 new, even the 10-22

seems a bit high, thats why I purchased it used.

[kerry_grim]

How about the 12mm or 15mm Canon EF-S lenses. Oh, thats right, just wishful thinking and never will happen.

 

I have the 17-40 and love it. At times not wide enough on a crop camera. My son has the 10-22 and he loves it. We swap back and forth frequently and we are both very pleased with both lenses. You can't go wrong with either lens, just choose the range you think you will prefer.

[jeffrey_mcconnell]

Well, I settled on the 10-22, 24-104, and 70-200. Thank you everyone for your advice and suggestions. It was all very helpful and informative. I'm sure I'll have more once I start shooting. :)

[tdigi]

Great Jeff, I would also suggest get them 1 at a time. Maybe start with a 24-105 and go from there. Also post some photos

and maybe your thoughts on how you like the setup.

[dogbert]

Good choice. I have the 10-22 and 24-105 L and it is a pretty seamless combination, without too many lens changes involved. They share a common filter size.

 

I used to have the 28-135 but sold it as it never felt quite right on a crop camera. The extra 4 mm on the 24-105 is worth a lot more than the 30 mm you lose at the long end, and IQ is very good.

[andreasb]

I use a 10-20mm Sigma and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. These two are a great, cost effective, high quality combo… especially the Tamron which has received many great reviews. Eventually I added a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and have a great kit now.

[markonestudios]

Hi Jeff, have you read the (numerous) previous posts on this topic? I would suggest you read (or re-read) them...

[don_bryant2]

>

If I could only have one lens for my 40d it would definitely be the EFs 17-55 2.8 IS. This lens will do most of what you

mentioned in your post very well.

>

 

I totally agree. This lens is blazingly sharp and performs excellently through the entire zoom range. I own the Canon 11-22

and the 28-135 and I can easily say that if I had to choose but one zoom lens for a walk around it would be the 17-55.

There are a few times when I wish the focal length were a bit longer but the reality is that in those cases changing another

lens is the best bet.

 

The 17-55 is a bit expensive but it is an impressive performer and having a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 is really nice

and an important feature for me. Having IS is icing on the cake.

 

Don Bryant