17-85 can be a wonderful general purpose lens, if you're constantly feeling lacking inreach then a telephoto zoom (70-200) is next.
17-85 can be a wonderful general purpose lens, if you're constantly feeling lacking inreach then a telephoto zoom (70-200) is next.
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
That is exactly what I would do as well. 40D is a fine body and will serve you well. 70-200works on bothAPS-C and FF bodies.
Which 70-200 is the question
2.8 or 4... IS or Not?
Darn decisions! Expensive ones at that!
Ms. Secretary,
Check out what this lady does with a rebel..... http://saralondesworld.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=9
Doesn't look like she's spent a fortune on glass.
I agree with the other posters that you should "invest" in glass, "buy" bodies. Your 40D is a semi-pro camera and is more than enough.
"2.8 or 4"... IS or Not?" What are you going to do with the 70-200? I always ask myself what it is I will use that lens I'm getting ready to buy for. Do you have a specific idea or you just think you need it? I say this, because in your original post it sounds like your excited but not certain.
I carry three lenses with a used 5D. 17-35 f2.8 L, 28-75 f2.8 L, & 70-200 f2.8 L That is my "kit". I have a EF 50 1.4 and a EF 100 f2.8 Macro. I bought all these lenses over a period of two years while taking over 30,000 photos among three different camera bodies. My original lens was a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Dithat came on a used 20D and within two days I added a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The 20D is gone but I still have and use on occasion both of those lenses on my 40D. I bought the wide angle 17-50 f2.8 simply because we were heading to the state fair and I new in my mind the photos I wanted to take. It worked very well without breaking the bank at the time.
I am extremely happy with the IQ of the photos thatmy "kit" produces.I am left withno excuses. It all boils down to what I am learning and how I grow as a photographer. I still dream of one day owning a EF 200 f1.8 L but in the mean time I'll be very contentto shoot what I've got.
Chuck
Well, I want a nice Portrait lens as I've been doing a lot of those lately... of my niece, g/f and dog.
And I've heard good things about the 70-200 for Portraits, plus I do like doing some Zoo Trips every once in a while.
Just not sure if the 2.8L IS is worth double the price it is for the 4L no IS.
Plus of course the walk around lens, hence the 24-70mm ..to replace the EF-S Lens.
And I also loved doing Wide Angle shots of various landscapes, buildings, etc. But that's a later on purchase on my list, more concerned with Portrait and Walk around Lens.. plus I like to shoot Night Club shots too, hence picking up a Flash in the next month.
So that's my predicament! I'm stuck wondering where to drop my $$ first, hence the recent purchase of the 50mm as it was cheap and does the job for now for Portraits with "ugly bokeh"
This is all something I plan to purchase over the next year, not the next month sort of thing, unless I win the lotto or some rich relative I dont' know dies and leaves me something
Ms Secretary,
Sounds like you have some focused aspirations. It also sounds like you know what you want. Now "you" need to decide how much to spend and on what. The 50 is a pretty good portrait lens on the 40D at f2.8. The 100mm f2.8 macro is an absolute fabulous portrait lens on crop and FF. It also doubles as a close up "macro"lens. That coupled with a 430EX flash could scratch that itch for a few more weeks. Soon or later your going to want that 70-200. f2.8 IS is the best. I wouldn't knowI'vegot the non-IS version. But I still love it!!. For wide angle/standard walk around the Tamron 17-50or for 2.5X the price a Canon EF 17-55 IS. I hear the night club calling and you might not need to use flash with the Canon 17-55. Remember that both of these lenses are for 1.6X crop cameras like the 40D. When used the equivalent field of view is like a 28-75mm lens on a FF like the 5D.I think you know that. I ramble.
My vote would be for 17-50 f2.8 lens and a good flash. Learn how to bounce the flash and mix it with ambient. That will help your candid portraiture as much if not more than investing in a 70-200.
It goes on and on and on,
Chuck
Well, I want a nice Portrait lens as I've been doing a lot of those lately... of my niece, g/f and dog.
And I've heard good things about the 70-200 for Portraits, plus I do like doing some Zoo Trips every once in a while.
Just not sure if the 2.8L IS is worth double the price it is for the 4L no IS.
Plus of course the walk around lens, hence the 24-70mm ..to replace the EF-S Lens.
And I also loved doing Wide Angle shots of various landscapes, buildings, etc. But that's a later on purchase on my list, more concerned with Portrait and Walk around Lens.. plus I like to shoot Night Club shots too, hence picking up a Flash in the next month.
So that's my predicament! I'm stuck wondering where to drop my $ first, hence the recent purchase of the 50mm as it was cheap and does the job for now for Portraits with "ugly bokeh"
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Your starter lens will do well on the wide end. If you like portraits, there are lots to choose from. I'd suggest going to a store where you can try the 70-200 in both apertures - the f/2.8 is heavy, and for that reason my girlfriend prefers the f/4 version. Then, take an honest look at your shutter speeds in pictures you've taken. "Do the math" to see what they'd be if you were shooting at f/4, or perhaps at f/2.8 (if you spend the big bucks). If they're in the 1/112th (assuming you were shooting closer to 70mm focal length) to 1/320th (closer to 200mm focal length, or that's what you envision for the shot) range or faster, you're likely OK without IS. If they're more along the lines of 1/15th to 1/40th, you'll need IS to avoid shaky pictures (if your subjects can even keep still).
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
