Good D-SLR or good lens???

[djdalibor]

4 years old 350d + EF-S 17-55 mm 2.8


or


brand new 40d + EF-S 17-85 mm 4-5.6


or


brand new 40d + Tamron AF 17-50 mm 2.8

[Mark Elberson]

brand new 40d + Tamron AF 17-50 mm 2.8

[Vlad Xp]

Is getting a brand new 40D body only + EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS not an option?

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

always go for good lens.

[Oren]

Hard to tell, you'll need to tell us more.


I had a similar decision to make few months ago. I decided to go with a xxD body at the end and had to choose between 40D or 50D. I chose 50D and then had to decide either 17-85 or Tamron 17-50 - I chose the 17-85 at the end because of its faster AF. So as you see, it depends what is more important to you - fast lens (f/2.8) or fast AF.


Never had a xxxD body but I hold one and it felt so small after I got used to my 50D. The viewfinder also seemed so small - I really recommend on a xxD body.


Many people here will tell you to buy a good glass and when you are ready, upgrade the body. I personally did the opposite - I went with a good body and cheaper glass. I did that as I know that the body will stay with me for few years and I can later sell the lens and get a better one, or even keep it and simply get other (and better quality) lenses in different ranges when I can afford them.

[djdalibor]

I will use it for everything, people and portraits, landscapes and architecture ..., but the weddings are that what should get me some money! I already have tripod and Canon Speedlite 430EX flash!


And this would be my first SLR!

[Benjamin]

Brand new 40D + Tamron 17-50/2.8, hands down.


Always go for good lenses first is a correct approach. I'm getting the Tamron because it's as good optically as the Canon 17-55/2.8 but costs only a half. It's small and light to bring around. I just got back from LA and my set up for the trip was 50D + 16-35/2.8L II - I don't see any compromise would be made if I have the Tamron mounted on my 50D instead. I may get less hit rate in low light that's all.


I need the Tamron desperately for travel and general use.

[Chuck Lee]

Brand new 40D + Tamron 17-50/2.8


or, since you have the 420EX........buy the


40D plus EF 28-135 f4-f5.6 USM IS kit. My wife uses this with great results.


I too love the Tamron and own one, but if your shooting weddings to pay for it you'll be better off with the versatility of the 28-135. I don't think Canon makes a better kit lens.


Order now: http://www.adorama.com/ICA40DKR.html?searchinfo=Canon+40D+28-135 ("http://www.adorama.com/ICA40DKR.html?searchinfo=Canon+40D+28-135) Can't beat this one with a stick.


My2Abes,


Chuck

[Chuck Lee]

BTW..... at that price the 28-135 lens is basically free which leaves you plenty of extra moola to spend on a decent prime like the 50mm 1.4. Or buy the 17-50 f2.8!!

[piiooo]

I used tohave 40D and Tamron 17-50 2.8, and let me tell you something, this combo rocks.

[djdalibor]

What do you think about Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro?


Is it good for low light (weddings) photo?


How good is Canon 17-85 for low light (wedings) if i use 430EX?

[Chris White]

djdalibor,


Food for thought, Adorama has a "recertified" 40D for $699.99.Check it out:


http://www.adorama.com/ICA40DR.html?sid=20090711192020433qa&searchinfo=re certified


My experience with Adorama "recertified" is that once you separate it from the Canon box, and if you had a new unit out of the box, you would have to look for the small sticker indicating refurbished or use the serial numbers to get the unit back in the proper box.


Then I would add the 17-55 2.8, love it with my 50D!


Good luck choosing,


Chris

[clemmb]

"recertified" 40D from Adorama + Tamron AF 17-50 mm 2.8. With the money you save buying the "recertified" 40D, buy an extra battery or two and/or memory cards. you'll need them doing weddings.


Mark

[Colin]

I too love the Tamron and own one, but if your shooting weddings to pay for it you'll be better off with the versatility of the 28-135. I don't think Canon makes a better kit lens.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



What about the 24-105??? [:)]

[Chuck Lee]

Colin,


Truefor xD series not xxD series. At least, I don't think I've ever seen a "Canon" kit with the 40D plus 24-105 L. I could be and sometimes are wrong.


Chuck

[peety3]

If the weddings are what will get you some money, I hope you plan to not make money for a while, while your wedding fees go into rental gear. None of the combos above are "safe" for a wedding, unless you're second-shooting or doing the work for free. As they said in the movie GI Jane, "two means one, one means none".

[peety3]

How good is Canon 17-85 for low light (wedings) if i use 430EX?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Not good enough. First time you have a wedding where you can't use flash, you're toast.


I shot some events lately with a two-camera/two-lens combo, the 40D with 16-35/2.8 and the 400D with 85/1.2. Great stuff, but I had to decide for each shot how to make the noise/shake (ISO/shutter) tradeoff. I prefer not to run the 40D at ISO 1600, but was often there or at H. I prefer not to run the 400D at ISO 800, but was often there or at 1600. I like the results on-screen, but don't know if I'd like them printed.

[clemmb]

If the weddings are what will get you some money, I hope you plan to not make money for a while, while your wedding fees go into rental gear. None of the combos above are "safe" for a wedding, unless you're second-shooting or doing the work for free. As they said in the movie GI Jane, "two means one, one means none".
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






I shot weddings for a couple of years with an XTi and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and an XT with a Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 as backup. My only advertisment was word of mouth and each year I would be turning customers away because I had plenty of work. Made enough money to upgrade to a 5D and 2 Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L's. Its not who has the most expensive high tech gear that takes the best photos. It is knowing your tools and using them. A 40D + Tamron AF 17-50 mm 2.8 is a great tool for taking great wedding photos. Before shooting weedings, practice, practise, practise. Know your tools and how to get the most out of them.


Mark

[peety3]

If the weddings are what will get you some money, I hope you plan to not make money for a while, while your wedding fees go into rental gear. None of the combos above are "safe" for a wedding, unless you're second-shooting or doing the work for free. As they said in the movie GI Jane, "two means one, one means none".
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>







I shot weddings for a couple of years with an XTi and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and an XT with a Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 as backup. My only advertisment was word of mouth and each year I would be turning customers away because I had plenty of work. Made enough money to upgrade to a 5D and 2 Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L's. Its not who has the most expensive high tech gear that takes the best photos. It is knowing your tools and using them. A 40D + Tamron AF 17-50 mm 2.8 is a great tool for taking great wedding photos. Before shooting weedings, practice, practise, practise. Know your tools and how to get the most out of them.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





The camera that this person is looking to buy is a first DSLR. You had two DSLRs for your wedding work. If this person is doing wedding work for a fee and their one and only DSLR should fail, they will have no spare DSLR unless they have rented a spare. That was my whole point, as evidenced by the "safe" reference and the movie quote which referred to redundancy in another setting.


Hopefully you'll notice that none of my comment relates to expensive high tech gear, and none of my comment relates to skill and/or practice. Expensive gear can fail (my 1D Mark III did, 16 shots after a trip to Canon, and it needed a new mirror box), and there's no amount of photography skill or practice that can fix a failed or broken camera.


You're right about knowing your tools, at least with regard to knowing that your tools can fail.


I shot a wedding once, for free, with a single camera. I knew that I had a battery "issue", which turned out to be yucky off-brand batteries, but the camera did freeze on me once. I shouldn't have done the gig with one camera, period.