40D + which lens?

A

Albedo

Messages
363
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
I think I'm going to take the plunge on a 40D.

But I am trying to decide which lens to get with it.

I think I will get a nifty fifty just because I've heard nothing bad about it.

But I feel I would be limited with just a prime lens.

I have four vague ideas in mind.

1. The 17-85mm.

2. The new 18-55 with IS (apparently it's a big leap from the kit lens for the 400D).

3. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8.

4. Canon 55-250mm IS

I've heard very mixed things about the 17-85. But it has the best range... The Sigma has good reviews (anyone here got one?), but it's got a limited range. The 55-250 obviously has nothing at the wide angle, but I've used it and it's a really good lens (and not bad value either).

Also, the 50mm might be superfluous with some of those... (especially the Sigma which is pretty quick anyway).

Basically, I am after some thoughts on the issue! So any comments/ideas/suggestions would be very welcome!

Adam
 
Of those the Sigma - hands down! Speed is everything and that f2.8 aperture will allow shots no others can capture. That "limited range" you note is not a bad thing. For IQ the higher the zoom ratio, the lower the IQ will be.

With a crop camera like the 40D, I'd look at the 17-50 f2.8 lenses too from Tamron/Sigma and also then add a longer lens at a later date - A 70-200 f4L would be a very good choice.

Oh and the 50 f1.8 is a no brainer - buy it :)
 
Thanks, that's helpful!

The 17-50 f2.8 Sigma is a Macro lens. I probably wouldn't be using it primarily for close up shots; it would be more of a daily walk-about lens... Is that an issue?
 
I think you'll find the 17-50 f2.8 is a walkabout lens, the macro on these lenses is just an extra feature, not like the 105mm macro which is primarily a macro lens :)
 
Ok, I've checked out the Tamron vs. Sigma... it seems that the overall consensus is that the Tamron's the better lens.

One more question then: would the nifty fifty be worthwhile given the speed of the Tamron (especially at the 50mm mark)?
 
I have a 40D and the following lenses:

- nifty 50 - I love it. Had it with my film EOS and it server me really well. Even better if you are in circumstances where it might get a knock (e.g. kids or some outdoors places). At £50 it is a great lens.

- Canon 24mm prime. Got this for a song on e-bay - hardly used. Primarily wanted it as a replacement for the 50 with the crop factor on the 40D. Lovely sharp images.

To be fair, I don't use these "primes" a lot, but they are really fast (apertures) and they are great.

- 17-85 kit lens. Great to get started with. I found it to be great for outdoors work in the wet - heavy spray beside the sea and the likes. It comes relatively well priced with the camera and is worth getting. I tried using it for a bit of indoor sports work and, despite the IS, it is just doesn't let in enough light. On the whole,. I found too many compromises in the pay-off between reach (17 to 85) and overall sharpness and speed.

- Sigma 24-70. This is a great lens. f2.8 and razor sharp. I'm well happy with this lens and find I use it a lot - portrait, general walk-about and for some landscape work where I need a bit of reach. In fact, some of my favourite landscape shots are with this lens.

- Sigma 17-50. Another great f2.8 lens that I love using. Simple, light and very functional. Don't have it long - got if on e-Bay for a great price. But I think I will use it for general walk around - given the crop factor of the 40D - and it's light and fast.

- Sigma 10-22. use this for landscapes and it is great, especially with the crop factor on the 40D. Some distortion at 10mm that you need to be careful with for horizons, but on the whole this is a great fun lens.

Typically I buy Sigmas because of the places I find myself in - beside the sea, up mountains, generally outdoors in any kind of weather. They are robust, perform as well as Canon (in most regards and as best as I and most mere mortals can tell) and are easier to replace given the inevitable knocks they get with the uses I put them to. And they are great value 2nd hand.

- 80-200 f2.8 Canon - the old "drainpipe" that I use for sport. It's just great - razor sharp with great bokeh and excellent for atmospheric sports shots. Got this 2nd hand with a lot of scratches and dings that give it a lived-in look!

Look on the bright side, you have some great lenses to choose from and no shortage of opinions. With the exception of the 10-22 which has some very specific uses, I now prefer fast lenses for their versatility and overall IQ. I am glad to have the 17-85 kit lens in my bag, but I rarely reach for it - I have a great selection of alternatives after all. But I am glad that I got it with the camera - for a great price, considering the build, quality and brand.
 
How about a sigma 18-200?
Its about £300, and I've heard good things about it.
Alternatively, I would go for the sigma 24-70. Excellent lens.
Get a Canon 10-22 and a 70-200 of some sort and you'll have everything covered.
 
Heres my slant Sigma 24-60 would be another option
1. It has a smaller filter size than 24-70
2. Its cheaper than the Sigma 24-70(Warehouse Express £199 or Ebay £167 new with warranty)
3. Its optical quality is excellent
4. Its wider than the tamron, which is also a good lens

Check these links out you may need to join the forums
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=392699&highlight=sigma+24-60

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=283&sort=7&cat=37&page=2
 
Albedo said:
Ok, I've checked out the Tamron vs. Sigma... it seems that the overall consensus is that the Tamron's the better lens.

One more question then: would the nifty fifty be worthwhile given the speed of the Tamron (especially at the 50mm mark)?
Click to expand...

That f1.8 aperture on the nifty fifty is large and fast. When your f2.8 is not fast enough (very low light), the 50 1.8 is very useful. Also the very shallow depth of field (although hard to learn to use) can create some great oof background shots.
 
I've now thrown the 17-40L into the mix... is that a better option than the Tamron? Argh - so many decisions!
 
The nifty fifty is an "add on" after you've settled on a good zoom, I would suggest. It can be picked up for under £60 nowadays so it's not a "big spend" for mostpeople, and it's a lovely lens to have if you feel like being creative!

Of the others you mention, the only one I have personal experience of is that sigma 24-70 f2.8. I've had mine for about 18 months now, and can only say good things about it.
 
17-40 is a fantastic lens. L quality all the way., One downside is it's only got a max aperture of f4 and the Tamron 2.8.

To be honest if you are looking at that lens, the 17-55 f2.8 IS must be in reach and that would be my choice.
 
Nah, genuinely can't afford the 17-55 at the moment... :(

Despite the f4, I am going with the 17-40mm I think (which is pushing my budget anyway!). I can always add a nifty fifty in a few months to compensate in low light...

Thanks for all the advice everyone.

If anyone wants to post some 17-40mm pics (or offer advice on it) that'd be great also!
 
Wow! The list of lenses mentioned and recommended in this thread so far is amazingly long:
  • Canon 50 f/1.8 (nifty fifty)
  • Canon 17-85 IS
  • Canon 18-55 IS
  • Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
  • Canon 55-250 IS
  • Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
  • Sigma 17-50 f/2.8
  • Canon 70-200 f/4L
  • Canon 24 f/2.8
  • Sigma 10-22
  • Canon 80-200 f/2.8
  • Sigma 18-200
  • Canon 10-22
  • Sigma 24-60 f/2.8
  • Canon 17-40L
  • Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
You know, I can't help the suspicion that if Albedo had given us some clue as to (a) what he tends to photograph; and (b) his budget, then this might have been a shorter and more helpful list.
 
I don't mind a long list, thanks! I've got the time and patience to go through them.

But ok, what I want is a good walkabout lens for everyday use. I am going to go for the 17-40L I think. Then, in a few months, I might get the nifty fifty for lower light situations. Between them I think they'll cover quite a lot of my photo needs.
 
Aha! There you go... "a good walkabout lens for everyday use". Personally I think the 17-40, great lens though it is, is nowhere near long enough for that use. Unless your "everyday" use doesn't involve taking pictures of people, animals, small objects, distant objects, ...?
 
If I was going to choose, I would go for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 instead of the Canon 17-40.

Reasons are:
1. Price
2. 2.8 apperture
3. extra 10mm reach
4. if I'm not yet very sure of what focal lengths I will really use
5. I've read good reviews about this lens

I know that the Canon is an "L" so no question about build quality. But I think the Tamron is more versatile for everyday use. My 2 cents worth...
 
StewartR said:
Aha! There you go... "a good walkabout lens for everyday use". Personally I think the 17-40, great lens though it is, is nowhere near long enough for that use. Unless your "everyday" use doesn't involve taking pictures of people, animals, small objects, distant objects, ...?
Click to expand...
Bear in mind it's on the 40D so there's the 1.6x increase anyway. I think for street scenes it'll be pretty good. I agree, I might feel the 40mm end is not long enough to isolate people shots (which is something I am interested in) but I want to get used to the lens and then I'll consider the 55-250mm IS (which isn't too pricey at all). From what I've read about the 17-40L, it's a fantastic lens in good light and the 17mm end will give me a pretty good wide angle.

Add the 50mm f1.8 and the 55-250mm IS and I reckon I'll have a pretty good range, no?

I've also been trawling the Amazon.com reviews of the lens, and a lot of people DO use it as a walkabout lens. If the images are good enough, I can always crop them down a bit anyway without losing too much IQ.

What does anyone else think about this matter out of interest?
 
might want to consider the sigma 17-70 covers a great range and isn't to big for walk about.

If you buy a 17-40L I think you'll be dispaointed with the qulaity of the 55-250IS once you've got L glass you'll probably only want more L glass
 
For what it's worth I got a 60mm macro for mine and it is brill, especially for the money!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top