Lens for 40D

[full auto]

Im sorting a 40D body only for my Dad for xmas, and I need to decide on the lens to go with it, just for general use. Hes not into anything particular like motorsport or wildlife photography.

I was thinking the 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L, but is it going to be wide enough?

would the 17-40mm f/4 USM L be a better all rounder?

I would like to get him the best all round lens I can. Whats your advice please people....?

[Chillimonster]

TBH, the bst lense may be the 17-87 IS USM kit. The range is good, the lense is very sharp when stopped down a couple of stops and the build / focus etc is spot on.

The Kite surfing pictures in this thread (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=37722)are taken with the 17-85mm

[andyitr]

Yea i agree.

I've just got the 40D + 17-85IS kit lens and its very impressive.

I hope to have a proper play this weekend.

Andy

[Galaxy66]

The same kit I have just taken "delivery"of, (see my other post!!) I am splitting and selling the 17-85 to my son.
When I bought my 30D I was advised that if I could stretch to a 24-105 ISL I would not regret it and as I agree the 17-85 is a good lens but the 24-105 is a whole lot better as a walkabout.

[marky_h]

Obviously it depends on what you mainly shoot, but do you not find the close limit of 24mm too long on the 40D?

[Galaxy66]

Marky h you shouldn't have said that as I might end up keeping the 17-85 for myself :thinking:.........
No, son is coming over tonight for the lens.
Short end of the 24-105 was wide enough for me on walkabout with the 30D and if I am ever in need of anything wider I have a Tokina 19-35 I can call on.

[George]

Don't buy s lenses, full frame will get cheaper and you'll regret it...but lots will disagree....

[oldgit]

Sorry if I poo a bit on the 17-85 but I've had one for a couple of years and dont really like it.

Sure its got a great range and IS, but for me it does not deliver.
It's never had that crisp sharpness that I want (the nifty 50 can and does deliver far sharper images), it distorts the image at 17mm something cronic and has quite a lot of chromatic aberration throughout the range.

Infact I did a mini review...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=16526

Infact for the last 10 months I've not used it. Instead I use the 17-55 f2.8 EFS and the 70-200 f2.8

This probably means I've got more money than sense, but the sharpness and crispness of the images that I get from either of these lenses is way and I mean WAY WAY above what I can achieve with the 17-85.

I think what I mean to say in conclusion is that if you have the ££ then you can do FAR better than the 17-85 IS EFS.
I got burned, no reason you should.

Anyway thats my tuppence worth.

[full auto]

thanks for the input so far :D

I have also been reading some reviews that say that although the 17-85mm is a really handy lens, with a good zoom range, i could do better if picture quality is my main priority, which it is.

George, I dont really know what you mean about S lenses and full frame lenses, I cant wait for anything to become cheaper, as Dad wont have a lens to put on his camera at christmas ;)

Oldgit - If I had the ££ then I can do far better than the 17-85 IS EFS.........by purchasing the....?......

thanks again for all your help