Decided on 40D - which lenses to buy $600?

[wh1ppet]

I have $1500.
After buying a 40D body, I should have around $600 left.

My goal is to get lenses that WILL NOT have to be upgraded later. In other words - good quality.

My subjects: sports, weddings, portraits.

I would prefer 2 lenses, but 1 good lens will be ok.
If you know a place to buy these, please mention it as well.

Thanks in advance!

 

[blash]

More like $700 - NEW~CANON EOS 40D SLR PRO DIGITAL CAMERA 10.1MP *BODY* - eBay (item 130305749582 end time May-20-09 18:05:03 PDT)

Sounds like you want a 24-105 f/4 L lens - $900 on eBay, with a little bit back on Windows Live Cashback.
Canon 24-105mm EF f/4 L IS USM EOS Zoom Lens 5D MKII - eBay (item 290315546009 end time Jun-05-09 19:56:25 PDT)
Review: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Review

Keep in mind you need to buy a memory card as well at the least, so I'd save another $150-$200 and you should be pretty set. Otherwise, best alternative is probably the 17-55 f/2.8 L for about $700 new after that $50 instant rebate that's going around now, (less on eBay), just doesn't quite have the same reach.

 

[Big Mike]

If you want to shoot weddings & sports, I would recommend lenses with a max aperture of F2.8 or better.
The EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, is a very good lens for that camera but rather expensive.

 

[cereal83]

Tamron 28-75 2.8 I have one of those and it works great. Sure it's not a Canon L but this is a hobby for me, not a career. If it was a career, I would get the Canon L 24-70 in a second as it's an investment.

 

[bigtwinky]

Tamron 28-75 2.8 I have one of those and it works great. Sure it's not a Canon L but this is a hobby for me, not a career. If it was a career, I would get the Canon L 24-70 in a second as it's an investment.

My thoughts as well. I have that same lens and think its a great lens and know some people who are more advanced in their photography than me who still use it.

Although if you do plan on making this a career, its well worth to spend the extra coin and get the Canon L series, they are an investment for the future.

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

You can get a EF 17-40mm F4L for pretty cheap especially if you buy used.

 

[samal]

I am a hobbyist as well and decided to go Sigma route - my 18-50 f/2.8 Macro and 70-200 f/s.8 cover all my needs. I only wish to have IS on my telephoto...

If I was making money off photography, I would probaby still stick with Sigma 18-50 - while not as sturdy built, it has nothing to loose to Canon L in IQ. but I would gladly trade up to Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS

 

[wh1ppet]

before, everyone said 50mm f1.8 is a must have

 

[samal]

before, everyone said 50mm f1.8 is a must have

I find it that i don't use it now after I got my 18-50 f/2.8 - there is virtually nothing that fifty can do that it can't.

my 50 f/1.8 MII is for sale if you want it, BTW

 

[JustAnEngineer]

How about the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II?

I can't say that you'll be keeping it forever, but the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is a decent starter telephoto for folks on a budget.

 

[itznfb]

before, everyone said 50mm f1.8 is a must have

imo, being stuck with a prime as your only lens is too restrictive as a beginner.
something like a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di would be good if you were only able to get one lens. however, i've never used this lens.

 

[Montana]

The problem is that you want to shoot weddins, sports, and portraits all for $600 and not have to upgrade later. If that is all you can spend, dicount the sports and go with a wedding, portraiture setup. Then add a long fast sports prime later. That lens will blow your budget clear out of the water anyways. Maybe look at the used market for some nice primes. Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8.

 

[blash]

before, everyone said 50mm f1.8 is a must have

Really, the f/1.4 variant is the must have, but we're not going to blow half your lens budget on something that, while definitely very nice and would work well with what you do, will not cover *everything* that you want to do, so we're skipping it in favor of 1 lens that will do what you want to do. Even if you went with the f/1.8 variant for only $100 or so, well... see my recommendations above, I was stretching your budget as it was. If you find yourself able to afford one though, you should definitely pick it up afterwards.

imo, being stuck with a prime as your only lens is too restrictive as a beginner.

Incorrect. Sticking with primes as a beginner forces the beginner to learn to compose with his feet instead of with his hand controlling the zoom focal length. It removes 1 of the options available for affecting composition (zoom) and thus forces the beginner to be more creative as well as making it easier to focus on other aspects of the photograph.

If the beginner wishes to do both landscapes and portraiture (for example), then he would be well advised (on full-frame) to buy a 28mm f/2.8 prime as well as a 85mm f/1.4 prime.

Zooms are for 2 groups of people: those too lazy how to compose correctly (stereotyped as the average joe who not only doesn't know better but also can't see the IQ differences between a prime and his kit lens), and those who know how to compose correctly (stereotyped as the professional, since professionals understand that both "zooming with your feet" and changing the focal length are key to getting proper composition.

Zooms are not for people who wish to learn.

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

^^^^ +1 on the beginners and primes comment.

 

[Mongoos3]

If your going to be doing sports photography you'll probably want a lens with longer range. maybe a 150-300mm lens?