Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe
17-55 on your 40D would be equivilant to 27-88 on FF. While the lens is actually a 17-55 the crop effect of your 40D essentially makes it a 27-88 effective lens. This is why most will tell you the 24-70 isnt wide enough on your 40D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe
While that does have some truth its not completely true. The 135/2 and a lot of macro lenses (Canon 100, Sigma 150 etc) work very well with a 1.4x TC. A good rule of tumb to stick to when thinking of TC's is that they will always perform worse on zoom lenses than they will on prime lenses.
When I was shopping around for the 40D there were 2 kits available and much to my brother's credit he told me to buy the body only. So today I got to finally use my new toy with a borrowed lens. It is a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. After shooting a few yard, petand walkabout pictures I was comfortable with the use of the lens. However with my past expeience with film SLRs I knew this isn't a lense I would buy. I viewed the photos on my laptop and was happy for the most part, then I viewed on my nice big monitor and while I am still learning about digital differences the big monitor will be my "go to" point as far as judging aperatii.... let's just say that I am learning the "code" in the reviews I have read on this site!!! It's nice to see that my misgivings for this lens seem to line up with reviews here and elsewhere. I'm liking all your lens suggestions more & more!![:O] Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoe
...actually: for the money it nowadays costs (~$375) it is a perfect lens [:)] When I bought it new for my 10D 5 years ago, it was still going for $575-$625...
But apart from the nice price/quality point it nowadays has, it indeed is an older design lens, it is the second consumer lens with IS - so IS is 1st generation, two stops, audible, and needs to be switched off when using tripod - but optically it performs above average and quite good for a 5x zoom [:)] Stopped down a little (do not shoot it wide-open as then it is pretty soft), 2/3 to 1 full stop, it delivers very acceptable images IMO...
[View:http://www.pbase.com/max_at_home/image/28609679.jpg]
[:)] ...but more modern designs better fitting or more in line with the Image Quality of your 1.6x crop camera (EF-S 17-85IS, EF-S17-55IS, EF24-105F4L IS) have indeed superseded it [:)]
...€0.02...
Kindest regards!
Max@Home
you like fast lenses.. 24-70 f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4. those are two lenses that you simply will not be disappointed with.
avoid the 70-300 at all costs. it's a piece of crap, and a waste of money, because you'll just want to replace it down the road.
if you want a greater focal length than 70mm, then get the 24-105. you'll trade some speed for the longer focal length, but you'll also get IS.
Anything the 70-300mm can do, the 100-400mm can do better - especially when it comes to wildlife. Therefore, I would recommend the 100-400. The 100-400 can be had for about $1100 used.
As for your wider end, if you're going to shoot landscapes with a crop sensor camera and not buy an ultra-wide zoom, you should probably consider a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. You can pick up the Tamron for about $320 used.
Between the two, you have about $1400 spent. If you are willing to add another $275 or so, you can find an 85mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 to your list and have great coverage.
I mention the 100-400 because reach is important for wildlife and because you were willing to spend that much on a standard zoom - which is not the ideal first choice to spend a large sum on. There are many options in that range, including EF-S and other crop sensor-specific lenses that cost less and do the job just as well, plus some fairly inexpensive fast primes.
I would go for EF17-40 L and EF135mm L take the advantage of crop sensor 1.6
So youre reach will be
1. 17-40 = 27.2-64
2, 135 = 216
If you're doing wildlife, I'd really second the feeling of going LONG. This was as close as I could get to the sea otter before he started swimming away, and it was at 400mm, and then cropped a little. It would have been a little tighter on a crop body, and I could have croped to match, but I decided that I liked both the gull and his reflection on the water :)
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.92/2009_2D00_02_2D00_10_5F00_MossLandingFriends_5F00_ 0009_2800_800x501_2900_.JPG[/img]
There is so much good advice in this thread, and it is just simply great to read!
Honestly when it comes to lenses it really boils down to when you are going to buy a certain L lens. This quest of capturing your sight, that glimmer of light, that serendipity that only God knew about, or that controlled portrait is indeed enhanced by having the best tool in your service.
For most people this lens choice is a matter of available funds/budget, or a willingness to use credit. Whatever your reason, from hobbyist to pro, the choice to buy the best lens for your need is the best and wisest choice indeed. I would rather have a Rebel XT and a 16-35 II, than a 50D with an 18-55 kit lens. It's all about the glass.
"Buy the best, cry only once."
In regards to your lens/budget question I think Sean Setters hit the nail on the head
70-200mm f/4 L and the 17-40mm f/4 L
You can't beat them for the money...and the 70-200 f/4L is an awesome portrait lens as well :)