My Dream Kit - anyone see any glaring problems?

Jimmy_Lemon

Jimmy_Lemon

TPer Emeritus
Messages
12,090
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I have wanted a 40D since I first saw the specs, since then I have been trying to get some money together to buy one. I was going to get one with the 17-85 kit, but looking on here that lens isnt too great, so I though "I wonder how much it would be to get a 40D with accessories and some lovely glass"

I went on warehouse express and came up with the following:

Canon EF70-200 4.0L @ £418.00
Canon EF17-40 f4 LUSM 77mm @ £479.00
Canon EOS-40D Body with FREE Sandisk 2GB Extreme III CF Card @ £779.00
Canon BG-E2N Battery Grip @ £129.99
Canon BP-511A Lith-ion Battery @ £54.99
Total £1,868.93 (inc. £7.95 P&P)

Now I would love that kit, but would take me a good while to save for :( can anyone see anything that is stupidly wrong? and does anyone else do this to punish themselves? :p

P.S This was only priced at Warehouse Express as I was there at the time. Sure Kerso would be cheaper
 
I'd get myself a pair of batteries from 7dayshop for a tenner and spend the £40 saved on more CF cards. I'd also drop the 17-40 off the list and go for a 17-70 of some kind.
 
The 70-200 F4L can be had for £350 delivered from the UK. If you substitute the Sigma 17-70 (£190) for the Canon 17-40 then that's £360 off the total straight away.
 
Vertigo1 said:
The 70-200 F4L can be had for £350 delivered from the UK. If you substitute the Sigma 17-70 (£190) for the Canon 17-40 then that's £360 off the total straight away.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't that me a drop in quality as the 17-40 is an L glass? I use the Sigma and love it but just would of thought a Canon would be the monkeys nuts
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
I have wanted a 40D since I first saw the specs, since then I have been trying to get some money together to buy one. I was going to get one with the 17-85 kit, but looking on here that lens isnt too great, so I though "I wonder how much it would be to get a 40D with accessories and some lovely glass"

I went on warehouse express and came up with the following:

Canon EF70-200 4.0L @ £418.00
Canon EF17-40 f4 LUSM 77mm @ £479.00
Canon EOS-40D Body with FREE Sandisk 2GB Extreme III CF Card @ £779.00
Canon BG-E2N Battery Grip @ £129.99
Canon BP-511A Lith-ion Battery @ £54.99
Total £1,868.93 (inc. £7.95 P&P)

Now I would love that kit, but would take me a good while to save for :( can anyone see anything that is stupidly wrong? and does anyone else do this to punish themselves? :p

P.S This was only priced at Warehouse Express as I was there at the time. Sure Kerso would be cheaper
Click to expand...

It's Cannon and not Nikon:LOL:

Looks like a good set up as someone else said save the money by buying the batteries from 7dayshop and use the saved money for another memory card
 
Don;t forget to check out play.com the 40D body was cheeper there than WE last week
 
haha glad I did post this now as it has made me realise I do have that gap between 40 and 70mm I had been toying with the sigma 17-70 for forgot to remeber the gap when I priced it up with the 17-40 :(

I do have the Canon 50mm 1.8 to take up some of that gap however, but yeah might be worth a re-think.
 
Almost the set up I've got at the moment although I'm about to start a round of upgrades and add a second body. One thing that's missing for me in your dream list is a fast prime, they are life savers in low light.
 
on a side not I already have 8gb of 2gb Sandisk cards, so think I am set for them ;)
 
pxl8 said:
Almost the set up I've got at the moment although I'm about to start a round of upgrades and add a second body. One thing that's missing for me in your dream list is a fast prime, they are life savers in low light.
Click to expand...

haha so it is! as I posted (probably as you were posting) I have the 50mm 1.8 and it seems to do for me in very low light, and to be honest I very rarely shoot in low light, and with what looks like excellent noise handling on the 40D I should be able to crank the ISO up, thats one of the reasons I am not tempted by the 2.8 70-200 - though people say it will focus faster etc, its so much more money! and I prefer to manual focus large lenses anywho.

all helpfull stuff though people :) keep it coming!
 
I use my 70-200 f/4 in low light every now and then, this shot:

web_5943.jpg


was ISO 3200, 200mm, 1/80s, f/4, handheld but leaning both elbows on a table top for stability. I still wouldn't mind an extra stop of shutter speed tho. But I think I'll be getting a 200 f/2.8L and maybe the 135 as well rather than a 70-200 f/2.8
 
Depends what you are going to shoot.

Maybe swap the 17-40 for the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ? It's a lens I'm considering
 
rwotton said:
But wouldn't that me a drop in quality as the 17-40 is an L glass? I use the Sigma and love it but just would of thought a Canon would be the monkeys nuts
Click to expand...

Oh I've no doubt the Canon L glass lens would be superior, but it is £290 more and has less than half the zoom range which compensates a fair bit.

The Sigma is a damn good lens and is receiving a lot of praise for its performance at the price. It seems to be more than a match for the more expensive Canon 17-85 IS in many ways so Canon lenses aren't automatically better than a third-party ones, unless they're L glass of course :)
 
My main choice for going for the L glass was that I am sick of taking what I think is going to be a stunning photo, only to get home and see that because I had to use a high or low f stop its just come out a bit soft, and I am just getting sick of having to sharpen evey shot I take individually as it is never a consistent softness. So my theory goes that I splash out on some nice L lenses that will hopefull hold there value, give me the shots I am after and if I get serious with this photography lark will work on a full frame camera :)

So I put a bit of thought into it - now its just a case of doing some work to earn the money, hehe
 
Well everything's relative :)

I think it's fair to say that Canon's best is ahead of either Tamron or Sigma by some margin, what I'm saying is that the latter two can sometimes offer superior performance for less money compared to the "equivalent" Canon lens. I cited the 17-85 IS as this is pretty much the nearest Canon equivalent to the Sigma 17-70.

Getting back to your original question, yes the 17-40L is an uber-lens and will decimate most others but, as you obviously know, it costs. As part of a "dream" setup it's pretty much a no-brainer but then if this was a "money no object" type of dream setup then you'd have the 70-200 F2.8 IS in there. What I mean is that your setup is obviously tempered with a modicum of common sense, in which case there may well be better value-for-money alternatives to the 17-40L out there, the Sigma possibly being one of them. All depends on how much you value the extra IQ of the Canon really.

Sorry I'm starting to ramble now, I'll shut up :)
 
splash out on some nice L lenses that will hopefull hold there value
Click to expand...
Actually, that's a very valid point. Canon L glass does hold its value ridiculously well. Whilst this obviously makes it hard to find a used bargain, it does mitigate the pain of buying one new as you know it's not going to depreciate like a Skoda the second you bolt it onto the camera :)
 
Vertigo1 said:
Sorry I'm starting to ramble now, I'll shut up :)
Click to expand...

No please dont, that is all damn good stuff. I was just really just going with I want a lovely lens, I will go with some L glass (though I have used the 17-40 before and loved it). But maybe I should consider it more and go for more realistic.
 
chewyuk said:
Wooooahh - I have shot nearly all my landscape stuff with this lens and in my opinion represents great value for money.
Plus on a 40D with the 17-85 you will get the full focal range, not a portion of it like the 17-40 will give you.
Click to expand...

Sorry Chewyuk, yeah I have read you saying you recommend it, but reading the reviews it seems very similar to what I read about the Sigma 70-300 APO etc, along the lines of "you can get some great shots out of it" but then sometimes, and the time I find when I really need it to work, its utter s**t :( - the 17-85 range is what I would use a lot aswell, which is another reason against the 17-40 and for the 17-70 Sigma type thing :(
 
Jimmy, the 17-85 IS is a superb lens in the right set up!

Razor sharp, great colours and contrast - I would not dimiss it.

Pete.
 
Diego Garcia said:
Jimmy, the 17-85 IS is a superb lens in the right set up!

Razor sharp, great colours and contrast - I would not dimiss it.

Pete.
Click to expand...

Cheers Pete, but that is kind of my point, I think I need to (whilst I have a slim chance of being able to afford it) get away from the lenses that work in the right setup, as I find myself not often being able to shoot in the right setup. Maybe I should work on that and spend my money on a second flash and cables etc and work on my lighting skills to try and make sure I can get the right setup, but a lot of my shots I see and think "oooo must get that before it changes" its not often I am able to spend 20mins (or whatever) setting up a shot so I can get that sweet f stop :(
 
The thing is, so many people buy stuff straight away and then go out and learn what they want to shoot or indeed need to shoot - as such, it can be and often is an expensive start to the hobby with people selling kit on at a loss to fund other stuff. As you know, I cover some big events and I have at times only had a 50mm 1.4, my 24-70 and my 300mm f2.8 + TC as this covers everything I needed.

Example, why buy a 200mm F4 lens if you were the type of person who only shoots landscape?

See where I am going?

Pete.
 
I certainly do Pete :) and to be honest I wish I could settle on a form of photography I prefer and want to concentrate on, but I cant. I just enjoy taking the photography more than the subject (I know that sounds a bit odd). So that is why I am trying to think how to cover all possible ranges.

Not to be argumentative, but I have used my Sigma 70-300 for the odd landscape before, if it is something in the distance you want to pick out etc...but I get your point :)

From the "what I need to shoot" side of things the only paying photography I get is work for my dads Video/DVD Production company taking stills on shoots for covers etc or selling my own work (either as stock or to friends etc) which is something I want to increase, which again means that I could do with the kit to cover a large range.

I am loving this thread though. Has made me think a lot more about what I need compared to what I want, though it has got me more convinced I need to upgrade from my 350D :(

anyone spare any change ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top