Canon 40D

[cindy_rudasill]

<p>I recently purchased a Canon 40D off ebay. It looks brand new...I am so excited!<br>

I usually take pictures of deer, both close and far away..minimal distance as they are tame.<br>

I also love to take pictures of my children, so, about 5 ft. or so. I don't know what lens I should purchase. I probably will try to find it on ebay, to cut the cost. Any help out there will be greatly apprciated. I haven't been this excited for a while...so...give me your thoughts...please :)<br>

Cindy</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Right off the bat I would get the 'nifty fifty' EF 50mm f/1.8. There is a version I and version II and the version I will be more expensive on ebay. Its more b/c it has a metal lens mount as opposed to the all plastic version II. This is a great lens to have with kids. The fast aperture is great for portraits, action, and low light indoor photos (b-day parties etc.). I have the II plastic version and it is great. Its so cheap that I can't complain about the build quality. Its lasted me about a year so far and I would say I've already gotten my money's worth out of it, and I'm sure it will last quite awhile longer. I dropped it onto a tile floor from waist height (I'm 6'2'') and it was fine. It should cost less than $100 used, or right at $100 new. Other than that, I'd get a nice wide lens and a telephoto. There are plenty of options out there depending on your budget, just do some research and see what fits you best. As for a telephoto, again I don't know the budget, but for the money I don't think there's a better lens out there than the EF 70-200mm f/4L. Yes, its only 70-200mm and Canon makes 70-300mm lenses for less money, but don't let the numbers fool you. There is more to a lens than focal length. The 70-200mm beats the 70-300mm in every category except the extra 100mm. The auto focus is night and day, which is a huge deal to me on telephotos, since most shots are of moving wildlife, for me anyways. The superior and fast AF of the 70-200mm will never cause you to miss a shot whereas the other telephotos can take awhile to focus and may cause you to miss shots. I never knew the huge differences in telephoto lenses until I used one first hand, and I haven't looked back since.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Hmmm, faced the same choice as Nathan and decide to buy the the Canon 70-300 USM IS over the 70-200 f/4L. Optically, there isn't much difference from 70 to 200mm, and I preferred image stabilization at f/5.6 over no IS at f/4. Then the choice was between the focusing speed and build quality of the L lens or another 100mm of reach. Price was similar at the time, and I chose the 70-300. I haven't regretted it.------ The point is reasonable people will choose different lenses based on their different priorities.</p>

<p>For almost any kind of wild life photography longer is usually better, and 200mm isn't very long. 400mm would be better yet, but costs start to really go up, or quality really goes down. Also, don't get sucked into any of Canon's 75-300 lenses, or any third party 70-300. They are cheaper, but have clearly inferior image quality compared to the Canon 70-300 IS lens.</p>

<p>I also don't recommend the 50mm lens for small frame cameras like the 40D. It's too long to use for a normal lens. I have one, but it rarely ever gets taken out of the bag. ------ Again, different strokes...</p>

<p>You will also probably want a wide to moderately long lens for shooting family, especially indoors. Canon's 18-55 IS is the poor mans lens with decent quality. Better lenses can certainly be had for more money, and Canon's own 18-55 (non IS) is a cheaper but inferior choice. Generally zoom lenses starting out at 24 or 28mm are not the best option for these small frame cameras. They really are not wide enough.</p>

<p>One other piece of advice: You will be tempted to buy an 18-200m or 18-300mm do everything lens. They really are not as bad as some of people make them out to be, and are very convenient, but a really long zoom range in a lens forces a lot of optical and mechanical compromises that will effect things. You have a nice camera that is built to take interchangeable lenses. Don't saddle it with one inferior lens. I have one of these that I use when I don't want to pack much and I don't care about image quality, but I don't use it very often.</p>

 

[davidstormphotography]

<p>if you are going to buy lenses over the internet, try to get new ones if you can...you are always taking a risk buying used ones over ebay or whatever, since some people are not honest about scratches and stuff.. you can also take your camera body to your local camera shop and see how different lenses look on your camera, as well as snap a few pictures inside the store and see how they look when you get the images uploaded to your computer. good luck and have fun!</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Cindy,<br>

Nathan and Jim have covered it very well!<br>

Assuming you have bought only the body, then the EF 50mm f/1.8 for $100 or less should be an immediate purchase so you can take some shots with the new camera.<br>

Did you get a CF card with it. If not then my only recommendation would be to stick with the "SanDisk" brand. I use the SanDisk Extreme IV 4GB UDMA Compact Flash Card on my 50D.</p>

<p>If you don't already have it, then you will need some software for post processing on your computer. I don't specifically have any recommendations, but I know that there is some "trial offers" that can be downloaded. Hopefully someone else will chime in here if necessary.</p>

<p>I'll toss another couple of lens options your way that are worth checking into as well, when the budget permits. I would advise however, to save and purchase good glass, you will be better off in the long run and actually spend less money in the end.</p>

<p>Another consideration in the short zoom 18-55mm range would be the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF, it can be had with or without the VC or Image Stabilization.</p>

<p>You mention the possiblility of some wildlife. I would recommend possibly renting some of the larger zooms before you decide on a purchase. And if you find the 70-200 or 70 to 300's a little short, then I would suggest the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.<br>

I second the staying away from the Canon 75-300's. They were terrible!</p>

<p>Most of Canon's "L" glass is worth the extra costs, and will hold their value. However they are quite expensive for most of us.</p>

<p>Congratulations on the 40D, it will serve you very well for a long time! And welcome to PN!</p>

<p>My .02 worth! </p>

[cindy_rudasill]

<p>You guys are great! I love everybody's input. Your advice has been extremely helpful and I can't wait to give it a try. I have a Nikon D70 and D40....but I've seen pictures with the 40D from Canon. You can see water drops it's so clear and fast.<br>

Another question, if you don't mind.<br>

What is the difference between the Canon 40D and 50D? The 40D is ranked higher and cost more on info provided by Consumer reports. I have never been able to figure that one out. I am interested in Image Quality, definitely. Just curious..hoping my "new" camera is at least equal.<br>

Saying that, the camera I purchaced looks brand New, incredible..every thing is included!</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>The biggest non technical differences is in the megapixels (not necessarily better!) and the Live View of the 50D along with a larger rear screen.</p>

 

[jaydesi]

<p>The 40D may have cost more when new, but it's definitely an older model compared to the 50D, and now cheaper.</p>

<p>Depending on your budget, consider also getting a hot shoe flash and diffuser, to stop the motion of your kids indoors, if you take pictures of them playing, not just portrait type pictures. A wide aperture and higher ISO help, but kids can move fast! This is especially true if you get the 18-55 IS lens recommended above...it doesn't have a fast aperture, so it will be hard to get non-blurry shots of moving subjects indoors.</p>

<p> </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>The 50D is the newer model of the 40D and the verdict is about 50/50 to which one is actually better. I have a 40D and would not trade even for a 50D. The 50D has more MPs as well as other things, but the 10MP of the 40D is plenty for me and I think it handles noise better. MPs aren't everything. My 20D was 8MP and I have images from it that are beautiful and you wouldn't be able to pick them apart from a 50D image at 8x10 print size. </p>

[randy_johnson5]

<p>For your long shots of deer you might consider the Canon 200mm f2.8 L lens. Your Canon 40D has a crop factor of 1.6x. Thus, a 200mm lens is equivalent to a 320mm on film cameras. That's not a bad telephoto and f2.8 helps with light and deer movement. You can always add the Canon Tele-Extender 1.4x. That would give you a 448mm telephoto but you will give up one f stop in speed with the extender.</p>

[cindy_rudasill]

<p>Thanks again......I'm "listening"!<br>

If you had to get the "must have" weekly user lens...that everyone needs...any answers?<br>

You guys are great....I love photography and done some pretty good pics..but I always use Picassa to get the effect I want. My sister's camera..there is hardly anything to do to it! Amazing! (I'm sure I'll figures out a way..lol.....I love B&W with Sepia on subject.)<br>

Cindy</p>

[matthijs]

Depending on budget:

 

low: 18-55 IS plus 55-250 IS

mid: 18-55 IS plus 70-300 IS

high: 17-55/2.8 IS plus 70-200/4L IS

[tom_cheshire]

<p>You might want to start out with a basic lens for shooting the kids and the tame deer that come near to you. A USM lens will be less noisy in focusing so that may help with the deer photos. Canon made some basic lenses that were reasonably good like the 28-80mm and the 28-90mm which I had them both but only the 28-90 was USM if I remember correctly. These should be easy to find at a reasonable price. </p>

<p>On your 40D, because of sensor size as some have mentioned already, there is an approx. 1.5x magnification factor so a 28-90mm lens would act more like a 42-135mm lens which will be handy around kids, pets, and generally all the usual photos people take. The deer photos will be best on the 135mm telephoto end of the zooming range. You can get the most use of a lens like this if you build a blind to hide in and photograph the deer without them knowing you are there. I'm sort of surprised no one has mentioned using a blind or camoflage to make up for not having a big, long expensive lens. </p>

<p>If you go for bigger, faster lenses later on then the 200mm to 300mm area will probably be what you want for deer farther away, etc. </p>

[michelle_armour]

<p>I have bought quite a few second hand lenses on ebay and I have been very pleased with each one. Make sure you ask these questions. Any scratches, fungus or dust/haze in the lens? Look at their feedback. I have only had one bad experience buying camera gear on ebay. The add stated very little, she forgot to say that the camera didn't work and the lens had a huge scratch on it. Don't take good condition as enough, ask the questions. If they have 100% positive they will try to protect that rating by being honest.<br>

I love my nifty fifty and on a small frame sensor it becomes a great portrait lens. It is also light and easy to take anywhere and provides a nice fast lens for darker scenes and if you want to play with low light photography. The canon L lenses are soooo much better than their consumer lenses. Do not waste your money on the "kit lenses" they are not worth it.<br>

I have a 135mm f2.8 Canon portrait lens off ebay looked brand new (was told it was an insurance replacement, I believe it was never used at about 1/2 price) I adore for the bokeh but it is a specialist lens I don't use that often unless I want that effect. I also have a 50mm to 500mm Sigma APO which I use for sports and when I need serious pull but if the deer are tame they are like taking pictures of kids so you don't need that kind of lens length. I like the glass and the flexibility it offers. It is big cumbersome and I only use it for very particular work. I also have a sigma 105mm macro off ebay, fantastic, as new, love it though it is a bit too sharp for older ladies portraits!<br>

Also a fan of the 70-200mm L lens F4 or 2.8 either Is or not according to budget (non IS is smaller lighter easy to take, F4 smaller lighter than F2.8) and would definitely recommend it over the 70 to 300. I have a 70-200mm F4 off ebay, perfect condition, pretty good price. If you can afford the L lenses they are worth it. Your camera will be obsolete in a few years, your lenses will last forever if you look after them. Buy the best quality you can afford.</p>