One all purpose lens for 40 or 50D

[esther_du1]

<p>I decided to go with one of the two camera bodies and want an all purpose lens for starters. I am now learning photography in order to become a professional and would love a good starter lens. If it's possible, I'd love to get a lens in the 400 dollar range, and if I can't get a good enough lens for that price, I'd go with the 24-70. It seems to be recommended by so many. What would suggest and why?</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>This scatter-gun approach to posting more or less the same question isn't appreciated, Esther...</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>The 24-70 isn't very wide on an APS-C sensor body like the 40D and 50D. I have a 28-135mm lens that I use a lot on my 20D and 40D, but my preference is for longer focal-length shots.</p>

<p>For a more all-around lens (i.e. with a bit more wide-angle range), I'd recommend one of the 18-50mm lenses like the Canon 18-55 IS (very cheap at about $170, but decent), or the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (just barely over $400 but very well reviewed).</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>One all-round lens $400 range - the Canon 50mm 1.4. It's a great way to learn with a quality lens.</p>

[graybrick]

<p>Try the Powershot G10.</p>

[bueh]

<p>I second Grayson's advise. If you want a one-lens solution, you are buying the wrong cameras!</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>40D($800), 50D ($1070)or XSi ($558) with Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 ($395 at B&H) will allow you to take professional level images in all but the extreme worst light. For that you can add a 580 EX II or 430 EX flash with some kind of diffuser. Shoot with that combo for a time and save $$ for a longer or wider lens depending on what you think you need. There you have a pro level wedding, portrait and event set-up that will let you grow your skills. Don't keep analyzing just dive in and start making images. The more you take the more you will learn and get better. Good luck! </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>One thing you may want to consider is are you planning to upgrade to full frame at a later date. If so either the 24-105 F4 or the 24-70 F2.8 are great lenses but they are expensive. The 24-105 is about twice your budget and the 24-70 is three times. They are also quite large and may unbalance the APS-C body (I am a full frame shooter but even on the 5D MarkII the 24-70 is a lot of lens). If you stay with APS-C you will probably want to go wider than 24mm so the Tamron may make sense. Canon also makes a 17-55 F2.8 which i have seen good results from but this is twice the cost of the Tamron. You may just want to think about the kit lens and perhaps one or two lenses such as the 24 F2.8, 35 F2, 50 F1.4 and 85 F1.8. All are great lenses and can be used on both APS-C and full frame cameras and cost between $200 and $400. They will perform better than the 24-70 F2.8 although not by much. If you want to develop your skills prime lenses help in my experience as they make you walk and think about your composure. A zoom allows you to be lazy and the result is average shots.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Get a tamron 17-50. $400 bucks and very good. Maybe ad a prime down the road and you have a good fast kit.</p>

[esther_du1]

<p>Thank you to those who are not out to intimidate new posters who actually <i>want</i> to <gasp!> <i>learn</i> photography. Your responses have helped me.<br>

Philip, if I choose to go with a prime, as I <i>really</i> want to learn photography properly, which prime lens can work indoors and outdoors? I read that a lot of primes are difficult to use in a small indoor space.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Esther, I strongly recommend that you get a full frame body such as an EOS 5D Mark II (or a used 5D, if cost is a factor). That way, your lenses will have the focal lengths that they were designed to have.</p>

<p>As for prime lenses, I learned photography with a manual focus FD 50/1.4 (and still use my FD gear about 50% of the time). My favourite prime lens is my FD 85/1.2, which I regard as ideal for portraiture. Anything over 85mm does get tight indoors, although I have successfully used my 100/2 and 135/2 indoors. So the primes I'd recommend for learning with a full frame body are the EF 50/1.4 and the EF 85/1.8 (or the EF 100/2).</p>

<p>If you insist on getting a 40D or 50D, the effective focal length will be 1.6x. In that case, the primes I'd recommend would be the EF 35/2 and the EF 50/1.4.</p>

<p>The only zoom lens I would consider for your purposes is the EF 24-70/2.8 L, which many consider to be the finest standard zoom made.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you to those who are not out to intimidate new posters who actually <em>want</em> to <gasp!> <em>learn</em> photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Esther, have you asked why you got the kind of response you did from a few persons? Since you apparently know very little about internet etiquette, it's time you learn. This is an archived site. Your multiple postings on the same subject, if not deleted by the moderators, will persist for a very long time. When you ask a question, be patient. It is bad form and very selfish of you to insist that <em>your</em> question is just so important you have to keep posting over and over. You started off on the wrong foot here. Learn something from the experience other than some people are just so <em>mean</em> , darn it.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Sheesh, ain't that big of a deal...</p>

[morthcam]

<p>Esther:</p>

<p>There is so much agonizing over "which" lens to get -- if you really learn photography, if you become a professional, you will end up with many lenses to cover different subjects/goals/environments/etc. So the important thing is not to get "the right" or "the best" lens -- it doesn't exist -- but get a decent one that you will learn with. Pay attention as you use the lens, you'll see where it works for you and where it doesn't. You may notice that you need a faster lens, or longer, or wider, for the type of photography you do. You can then purchase your 2nd lens based on your own personal needs and style.</p>

<p>I personally think the advice for a photo rookie to start with a $1000 lens is not the best. I think the advice to start with a Tamron 17-50 is great advice, it's a very good lens that covers most of your bases. You'll certainly find it's not long enough for everything, and you'll find it's not wide enough for everything. But it should cover most of your overall needs (if you have very specific needs, like birding, that's another matter). </p>

<p>If you want a "standard" prime, then go with the Sigma 30 1.4 or one of the Canon 28mm lenses. Less flexible than a zoom, but it might make you think more about composition. Me personally, I'd go with the zoom.</p>

<p>Just don't make the lens choice a bigger deal than it should be -- buy one, use it, pay attention to how it works for you, and don't become a lens junkie (like the rest of us).</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Esther - do you even know what type of photography interests you most? Landscape, portait, sport, wildlife, macro, still life, reportage, journalism, wedding, travel. Until you know this then any discussion will be largely superfluous.<br>

I think the 24-70 is far too limited a range especially on a crop sensor (neither wide andgle nor a real telephoto reach).<br>

Most of the kits I see in UK come with the 18-55 IS which is a pretty decent lens by all accounts. I don't know if the same package applies in US (if that is where you are) but if this is the case I would keep with htis and seriously consider adding the the 70-300 IS. These two will cover most of the range you will need starting out until you decide which type of photography grabs you most.<br>

If the 18-55 IS is not bundled with the camera then I would follow Matt's advice of the tamron 17-50mm f2.8.<br>

As for cameras, then personally I would go for the 40D - consensus seems to be that the 50D is not significantly better and if it is, then it needs top notch lenses to show this. So buy the 40D and put the money aside until you know which type of lens you want to spend top dollar on. If you go professional you will get a 'full frame' such as the 5D and the 40D will make a fine back-up camera. <br>

There are heaps of other bits and pieces you will need and the money saved buying the 40D may help there: tripod(landscape, studio, macro); monopod (wildlife, sports, travel); filters (landscape); flash (studio, macro, wildlife). Then there upgrading computer hardware for post-processing, buying hard discs for back-up storage, buying post-processing software. Then there are printer(s), paper, ink.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you are brand new to this, do not spend much money at all on lenses to start out. Begin by getting and using the quite decent and useful but very inexpensive EFS 18-55 image-stabilized (IS) kit lens. It is not a bad little lens at all, and it is a great lens to start with for a whole host of reasons. (I might describe it as a very good "one lens solution for starting out.")</p>

<p>One of the most important reasons for getting this lens is that you can, at very little expense, begin to make a lot of photographs. By doing so you'll begin to acquire the experience necessary to determine what _your_ photographic preferences are in terms of subject, shooting style, and so forth. It is only <em>after</em> developing this that you should begin to make serious decisions about acquiring additional lenses.</p>

<p>As you are probably starting to figure out, there is no universal "right" answer to the question of what lens or lenses will ultimately be correct for you. It is a very personal thing. If you end up being very interested in portrait photography you would want quite different lenses than if you end up doing landscape. A street photographer might want yet a different set of lenses. You do not yet know which of these or others will become your passion. You can <em>start</em> to do any of these with the kit lens, and by doing so discover what lens features you'll really need later on.</p>

<p>Despite writing that there is no "universal 'right' answer" in the previous paragraph, I am going to give you one other very strong recommendation about starting out. Ignore the recommendations to get a single prime and "learn to shoot with it" before getting other lenses - especially ignore this "advice" if the lens recommended is a 50mm lens. This is very "old school" advice (and I come from the "old school!") that really no longer is relevant.</p>

<p>Back in the "old days" of SLR photography the advice to start with a 50mm prime was fine advice. Good zooms were out of the reach of typical beginners, cheap zooms were abominable, the 50mm focal length provided an angle of view often regarded as "normal," and there were many excellent and inexpensive 50mm options.</p>

<p>Today there are quite decent zoom lenses that cost little - the current IS version of the EFS 18-55 lens being a prime (bad pun!) example. It is optically fine. It is inexpensive. Image stabilization is useful in a number of situations. The 18-55mm focal length range allows you to learn aspects of photography that beginners were unable to learn about in the "old days," including the important effects of changing focal length on things like foreground/background/subject relationships and depth of field.</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[esther_du1]

<p>Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. I am aware that there is no one lens, that's why I posted the question, because I wanted to hear from those who know, have experienced the lenses. You have helped me immensely, because I was told to start with an expensive lens (24-70) by quite a few people, and I felt it was way beyond what I need right now. I will read this a few times, do searches and decide. <br>

I would appreciate if anyone else who has any knowledge/thoughts on this, would chime in.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Ditto Dan's thoughts on the Canon 18-55mm IS. I recently purchased an XSi as a backup body and the 18-55 IS came with it. It is a sleeper and more than rivals my 17-40 F4 L in many respects. And even more amazing is a comparison a friend and I just made between that combination and images from a SONY A900 with the Zeiss 2.8 24-70 lens. The Zeiss was sharper and a bit more contrasty but it WAS NOT night and day on a 13"x19" print. The 18-55mm IS has to be one of the best little gems around right now for Canon APS bodies at the moment.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Ditto Dan's thoughts on the Canon 18-55mm IS. I recently purchased an XSi as a backup body and the 18-55 IS came with it. It is a sleeper and more than rivals my 17-40 F4 L in many respects. And even more amazing is a comparison a friend and I just made between that combination and images from a SONY A900 with the Zeiss 2.8 24-70 lens. The Zeiss was sharper and a bit more contrasty but it WAS NOT night and day on a 13"x19" print. The 18-55mm IS has to be one of the best little gems around right now for Canon APS bodies at the moment.</p>

[digimage]

<p>the lens in 400$ dollars range for 40D or 50D look like unfair but if you can I would like to ask you 24-105 mm L IS f/4 to cover alot of shoting field and you will happy one shot in target not waves to much bullet before you hit the right one like you just ask ONE ALL PURPOSE LENS . good luck<br>

( the lens 24-70 L 2.8 it is not 400$ dollars range either )</p>

[duckprintsgallery]

<p>I'm not sure why I'm even joining this conversation other than the fact that I have a cold and I just went out for New Years and had a martini and some wine. OK, Esther...I have a Canon 40D, I also have a 24-105 "walkabout"...it's sharp, easy to use, and I get great images. I have a number of other lenses too...but from what I can see from your original question..this lens would be good for you..it would help you "learn photography" without all the other incredibily complicated stuff to which everyone else is referring. <br>

This is my first...and possibly my last post on a thread here. I'll keep my photos on the site, but...yikes...you all are way too...toooo..... for me. Fabulous images on this site, but it seems like most people are "talking smart" rather than really trying to help.<br>

Happy 2009.</p>

[esther_du1]

<p>Thank you for responding Rebecca. I agree. There are many other places to find information if you want to, where you aren't shot down for being a novice, but are given the time of day. </p>

[alan_myers]

<p>Hi Esther,</p>

<p>Look for whichever camera you choose in a kit, with a lens. That's often a better deal than buying separately.</p>

<p>You will probably find either lens offered in kits with 28-135 and 17-85 lenses. Either would be fine to start out, you can supplement later with additional lenses, once you have a better idea what you might want.</p>