Printable View
How about a double-L option. This is what I had during my Digital Rebel days - 17-40mm F4L and 70-200mm F4L. Since you have a cropped sensor, the 17-40 is equivalent to 27mm-64mm which is excellent as a standard lens. You miss 40mm to 70mm which is equivalent to 64mm to 112mm which isn't too bad. You get F4 straight across the board and depending on final pricing, you may be able to pick up IS on the 70-200.
For all those recommending the 17-40/4 and the 70-200/4...why? The OP stated he wants something fast, which f/4 is not and something for wildlife, which the 70-200/4 is too short for, at least for anything outside a zoo. Just because it has an red ring around the barrel doesnt make it the best tool for the job.
For what he has right now, the 70-200 f/4 is a decent long range option (especially since he owns a 1.6 crop factor camera). Also, the 40D has very good high-iso performance that can make the f/4 very usable at the ISOs needed to obtain the proper exposure. Also, he did give us his budget...and for his budget, in my opinion it's the best option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
The 70-200 will not cut it for most wildlife, hell my 100-400 doesnt...even on a crop. From expeience with the 40D, I can tell you high ISO performance is not the bodies forte, and using it as an excuse to shoot at f/4 is a poor one. Remember, the higher the ISO, the more IQ is lost (wouldnt you rather be able to shoot at ISO800 rather than ISO1600?). Another thing to consider is bokeh quality, which the 17-40 isnt known for. Now, if the OP was going to make a jump to FF within a year I'd say the 17-40 is a decent bet, but there are much better (sharper, faster) performing lenses built for use on crop bodies. The same applies to the 70-200 for wildlife use...there are better choices.
If it were me, I'd rather get a lens that was a little short for wildlife (but still usable) that was a much better overall lens the can be used in many different situations. However, you're right...there are lenses with longer reach. However, your long-range zoom suggestions aren't any faster than mine. And personally, I prefer a constant aperture to a variable one.
I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and love them both. However, for my uses, the 17-55mm lens stays on my camera about 85% of the time. I made my suggestions based on his budget and the fact that he might be upgrading to a full-frame body in the future. With the 24-70mm f/2.8 L and 70-200mm f/4 L, he'd be well set for alot of his uses (upon re-reading his original post, I think the 24-70 f/2.8 would be better for indoor sports). That said, how can you say that my 70-200 "is not fast" when you suggested two long-range zooms that are even slower? I mean you're right, f/4 isn't all that fast...but it's faster than f4.5 and f/5.6!
Now that you have edited your post to add budget and usage scenarious, I would change my recommendation. [:)]Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe
The first two usage scenarios benefit from long telephoto and IS. The last two require very fast apertures, and don't benefit from IS. Only landscapes require (most often) a wide angle lens. Here is what I would recommend:
$70? Used 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens: for landscapes
$355 85mm f/1.8: for indoor sports
$200 Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro: for wildlife and outdoor sports
I know that only comes to $625, even though your budget is $1500. There's a reason for that: I think you should save up until you have $1800 in order to get what I would really recommend:
$70? Used 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens: for landscapes
$355 85mm f/1.8: for indoor sports
$1100 70-200 f/4 L IS: for outdoor sports and wildlife
$290 1.4X teleconverter: for outdoor sports and wildlife
Since telephoto is going to be one of the most frequent and significant usage scenarios for you, I think it would be a mistake to buy the 70-300, which, while nice, can't touch the quality of the 70-200 f/4 L IS at any equivalent focal length, even with the 1.4X teleconverter (which will still autofocus).
I think the 24-70 f/2.8 is a poor choice for the 40D or any crop camera. That lens has a lot of expensive glass designed to create a very wide angle image circle. Why pay the premium if you're not even going to use it as wide angle? Of course, no one makes a 24-70 just for crop cameras, but if they did, it could match the performance of the 24-70 for a much lower price. If you really want those focal lengths at f/2.8, it's much more cost effective to get a Tamron for $450. But you don't need those focal lengths for sports, so the kit lens will do just fine for your only "wide angle" usage scenario: landscapes.
The 85mm f/1.8 can focus ultra fast, and the focal length is just right for a lot of indoor sports on the 40D. You could also get the 100mm f/2.0 for $50 more, if you think you'll use that focal length more often. Don't underestimate the importance of aperture. The 1 and 1/3 advantage over f/2.8 is the difference between ISO 3200 (usable 6x4 print) and ISO 8400 (not printable at all).
I also think that the 17-40 f/4 L is another poor choice for a crop body. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro cost a third less, have a stop faster, more focal length, and better image quality at all equal apertures. The reason is that the 17-40 is an *ultra* wide lens. Using is as a "normal" is, again, wasting the glass on something it was not built for. The purpose-built tool does it faster, better, and cheaper.
Alternatives / other ideas:
$1200 300mm f/4 L IS: outdoor sports and wildlife. If you can live without a zoom.
$325 50mm f/1.4: for indoor sports (so-so AF)
$90 50mm f/1.8: for indoor sports (poor AF)
$400 100mm f/2.0: for indoor sports (fast aperture is vital!)
$550 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: for wildlife, outdoor sports. Cheaper, but worse quality.
$935 135mm f/2 L USM: for indoor sports, if you need more reach than the 100mm.
$700 200mm f/2.8 L II USM: fast and cheap aperture indoors, plus 2X TC outdoors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I never said the 70-200 wasnt a faster lens--I was speaking about the 17-40 vs 17-55/Tammy17-50. A fast lens for wildlife within the OP's budget does not exist, therfore I didn't mention one. The 70-200 may be faster than the 100-400, 400/5.6 and the 70-300IS but its not going to do wildlife anywhere near as well, and so its pick your poison. Either choose a lens thats way to short or a slower, longer lens thats better suited for the job. Like I said there are several routes the OP can take to get there, but the 70-200/4 is not a good choice for wildlife photography no matter how good a lens it is. 200mm's is simply too short.
Since the OP has edited his OP, I'm going to go ahead and change my recommendation. I'd say go for the EF-S 17-55, 85/1.8 and a 70-300 which comes to $1671.85 flat via Abes Of Maine (use loyalty10 as a promo for $10 off).
Ok, I'll go along with most of your recommendations now. The 17-55 is an absolutely fantastic lens...if he's keeping a crop body for a good length of time, it's one of the best choices you can make for a wide-angle portrait lens (in my opinion). The 85 f/1.8 is another very sharp lens (I owned one, but decided I liked the convenience of a zoom better) and also very reasonable. However, I like Daniel's idea of the 70-200 (I'd go without IS and get a monopod or tripod) and the 1.4x teleconverter. Of course, that still puts him way overbudget if he got all three lenses and the teleconverter.
MVers, what's your opinion on the 70-200 f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter?
I have a 40D and the following: 10-22, 24-105 and 70-200 F4. Of these, I use the 24-105 most of the time. (I know it is possible overkill for a crop camera, but I will upgrade to FF sometime in the future, so I count it as a good investment.)
I would suggest a 24-105 combo plus the 70-200 F4 (non IS) as a pretty good lens arsenal for the 40D. This is also within your price range I imagine. Save up for the 10-22, or borrow one if you are photographing architecture etc.
Hope this helps.
Wow! Many great suggestions! Since I mentioned $1500 +/- 200, going to 1800 is not a stretch.
So why not the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L in lieu of the 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4X ?