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

[itznfb]

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.

well, i took about 1000 shots today at gettysburg, giant open fields. however, probably 70% of those i had no where to backup while still have a decent lighting angle. if i was stuck with a prime i would have left with about 1/2 as many shots and would have been very disappointed.

 

[wh1ppet]

Thanks for all the suggestions! This forum is so helpful!

I started writing all these down on a sheet of paper, and now have 23 choices! Many of these will be eliminated once I look-up their prices, but it is still a little overwhelming.

I have a couple more questions:

1. Should my goal be to eventually have lenses that, when combined, will cover all focal lengths? Like 17-50, 50-125, 125-300 for example.?

2. There are hundreds of great lenses. It's probably better to ask what to avoid Mainly in terms of specs. Like: f/3.5-5.6, slow, low light, kit lens, etc?

3. How big of a difference in light/speed is there b/w 2.8 and f/4 ?

Thanks again!

 

[blash]

well, i took about 1000 shots today at gettysburg, giant open fields. however, probably 70% of those i had no where to backup while still have a decent lighting angle. if i was stuck with a prime i would have left with about 1/2 as many shots and would have been very disappointed.

Then you should've carried a wide-angle prime. I'm not saying zooms are worthless: being able to compose at a non-standard focal length of, say, 30mm can be very useful - but too many people use it as a crutch.

Thanks for all the suggestions! This forum is so helpful!

I started writing all these down on a sheet of paper, and now have 23 choices! Many of these will be eliminated once I look-up their prices, but it is still a little overwhelming.

I have a couple more questions:

1. Should my goal be to eventually have lenses that, when combined, will cover all focal lengths? Like 17-50, 50-125, 125-300 for example.?

2. There are hundreds of great lenses. It's probably better to ask what to avoid Mainly in terms of specs. Like: f/3.5-5.6, slow, low light, kit lens, etc?

3. How big of a difference in light/speed is there b/w 2.8 and f/4 ?

Thanks again!

1) No. As your self-education progresses, especially if you use primes, you'll find that you only need a handful of focal lengths to get the shots you want. I do recognize however, that the holy trinity of glass (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) is a continual focal range - but that's really just divided into wide-angle, normal, and telephoto categories. Most people therefore can get away with a wide angle prime, a normal prime, and a telephoto prime.
2) General rules of thumb: good glass starts at $200 (example: f/1.8 nifty fifty's are good, although I prefer f/1.4's better for only $300), also: f/2.8 and bigger is pro glass, anything smaller (like f/3.5) is consumer glass (again, with exceptions - 600mm f/4 being prime example). There are also exceptions on the negative side as well (though none come to mind right now).
3) That's about 2 stops (...right?) and that's a pretty big difference. One of the advantages of the 28mm f/1.4 over the 50mm f/1.4 is that it's 1 stop brighter (since it can be shot hand-held at 1/25th of a second rather than the 50's 1/50th of a second) and it makes a tremendous difference in the shots (of course, it also 5x as expensive )

 

[cereal83]

2.8 is 4.0 is pretty big in terms of low ligt but also blur. I have a 17-40 F4 and it's hard to make the background blur unless the object I am shooting is very close to the lens and the background is very far away.

With $600, you have quite a few choices in primes and zoom lenses:

Tamron 28-75 $400
Tamron 17-55 2.8 - $450,

Canon
50mm 1.8 - $100
50mm 1.4 - $300
17-40 f4 - $600 or less if used
85 1.8 - $360
135 2.0 $600 if your lucky used
200 2.8 - $650
70-200 F4 - $600

So you can see there are alot of options