Planning to pickup a 40D...lens combo?

tuck · Mar 3, 2009

Im taking the D-Slr plunge shortly. Graduating from the S3is

I think the usual path would be to pickup the kit lens (18-55is) and get another 55-200 for tele.

What if I went with a single Canon 28-135is as my first lens to save money?? Im mostly into landscape and the occasional birding (will add a telephoto for this in the future).

This way eventually I could work towards a 10-20 and 55-200 as time passes and my bank balance builds up.

Will I be losing out a lot if I dont have an 18mm? Considering the max iv had before in P&S was 28... ?

impressme · Mar 3, 2009

I love the 28-135IS however I don't shoot lots of landscape, I shoot mostly portraits. As far as lens range goes, you need to understand that the 40D has a crop sensor. You need to multiply the lens range by 1.5 to compensate for the crop. Ex- 28 x 1.5= 42mm

FYI, you can get an 18-55 lens for about 200. Not the best glass but ok for DSLR starters in my opinion.

usayit · Mar 3, 2009

Personally, I prefer the 28-135 IS over the kit lens. Then save up and give yourself time to decide which serves you best: wide angle zoom, telephoto zoom, or primes.

Big Mike · Mar 3, 2009

Will I be losing out a lot if I dont have an 18mm? Considering the max iv had before in P&S was 28

Yes, you would.

Your P&S wasn't actually 28mm...but they compare everything back to 35mm film...so it was equivalent to 28mm on 35mm film. Like most DSLR cameras, the 40D has a 'crop factor'....1.6 in this case. So with a 28mm focal length, you get the equivalent Field of View (FOV) of 49mm (on a 35mm camera).

That's not nearly wide enough for me...especially for shooting landscapes.

I would suggest the EF-S 17-85mm IS. It's basically the same lens as the 28-135mm but in a wider EF-S flavor.

JustAnEngineer · Mar 3, 2009

Would the $395 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II fit into your budget?

TUX424 · Mar 3, 2009

A budget would be a way for people to help understand what kinds of lens that you could get that would be good options

davebmck · Mar 3, 2009

I think the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS is a great starter lens. You can get one for about $400.

tuck · Mar 3, 2009

First a disclaimer, Im in Asia... even though some of the stuff is produced here it works out cheaper in the USA!!! Talk about being warped! For example there is a Nikon factory at Ayutthaya(Outside Bangkok) and we still pay ridiculously high prices.

If buying without a warranty (read no tax) then deals can be had for prices similar to that of the US resellers.

Big Mike said:
Yes, you would.

Your P&S wasn't actually 28mm...but they compare everything back to 35mm film...so it was equivalent to 28mm on 35mm film. Like most DSLR cameras, the 40D has a 'crop factor'....1.6 in this case. So with a 28mm focal length, you get the equivalent Field of View (FOV) of 49mm (on a 35mm camera).

That's not nearly wide enough for me...especially for shooting landscapes.

I would suggest the EF-S 17-85mm IS. It's basically the same lens as the 28-135mm but in a wider EF-S flavor.

Good suggestion, I might look into that based upon cost of course.

TUX424 said:
A budget would be a way for people to help understand what kinds of lens that you could get that would be good options

Point noted, I started out with a budget which has now multiplied itself by 2. Hehe. Giving you guys a budget wouldnt work well since prices here vary from the US market.

JustAnEngineer said:
Would the $395 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II fit into your budget?

davebmck said:
I think the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS is a great starter lens. You can get one for about $400.

Thanks for the suggestion, Will Look into these and the specs. Will have to check prices locally and read little about this lens.

Another option im toying with is the 18-55is kit lense and a Sigma 70-300 DG Macro.

Big Mike · Mar 3, 2009

Another option im toying with is the 18-55is kit lense and a Sigma 70-300 DG Macro.

A good starting kit for sure. However, when & if you expand your photographic horizons...you will find these lenses lacking and want to upgrade them. Just something to think about.

tuck · Mar 4, 2009

Big Mike said:
A good starting kit for sure. However, when & if you expand your photographic horizons...you will find these lenses lacking and want to upgrade them. Just something to think about.

So Mike, what would you suggest as an alternative starting package? I know you said the 17-85mm I will look into that too.

Priority would be beaches/landscape/pictorials/nudes

/portraits

Im not too deep into wildlife yet but I do moonlight as a birder at times.

davebmck · Mar 4, 2009

I suggest you look at the reviews here for the lenses you are considering. Camera lens tests, user reviews, camera accessory reviews - SLRgear.com!

bigtwinky · Mar 4, 2009

Priority would be beaches/landscape/pictorials/nudes /portraits

Beaches and Landscapes are usually associated with a wide angle lens. Some people like the 22-28mm range for this, some like wider. And thats on a full frame camera. The 40D equivalent is 14-18mm

Nudes and portraits are usually associated with a standard focal lenght, such as 85-105mm on a full frame. The 40D equivalent would be 50-65mm

Birds and wildlife require a longer telephoto lens, and if you want something quality, well, its much more expensive.

So if your priorities are landscapes and portraits, your ideal focal range would be 14mm - 65mm (give or take) which would fall into the 17-85 Mike recommended.

I did borrow a 28-135 for a few weeks and it was a great lens to walk around the city with. However, I was sorely missing the wide angle, but the extra telephoto helped capture people accross the street.

I would prefer the 24-105L lens over the 28-135, but they are in 2 different prices brackets.
10-22mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm
or
10-22mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm is what I'm aiming for as a set

I bought an XSI back in July. I went with Canon because I "inherited" some Canon lenses...older, but hey, they worked on digital. A 22-55mm and a 55-200mm. Both are ok lenses to learn, but within a few months, I stopped using both. I bought a 50mm 1.8 and a 10-22mm and these are pretty much the only lenses I use now. While the 55-200 gave me the focal range, I found the images I got were soft. Maybe with the extra months of knowledge I have now I should try again, but really, I think it was more the lens. I still do bring it along when I might need it, between getting an OK shot or no shot at all, I prefer the OK.

All that to say that I think the 17-85 would be an ideal choice as a starting lens. It has a good image quality, a nice focal range, and comes with IS (Image Stabilization)

Hope my ramblings help.

CxThree · Mar 4, 2009

I played around with the Canon 18-200 and was actually pretty impressed with it. The 28-135 is a solid lens for sure. It all depends on what you want to do. Single lens setup, or lens swap.

Hobbes · Mar 5, 2009

I didn't know that EOS 40D is even being sold with the normal 18-55 kit lens. It usually comes with either the 17-85 IS USM or 28-135 IS USM lenses. Well I am not sure the prices where you live but here in Canada you can actually get a 40D + 17-85 lens kit for only 200 bucks more than the body by itself which is a very good deal considering the lens by itself would cost more than 600 dollars. Price aside the 17-85 is a much much better lens too with much faster autofocus, image stabilizer, metal mount etc etc

tuck · Mar 5, 2009

The 40D seems to be out of my budget, I had a look around the market today. Somehow I dont see the justification in going in for the 450d (XSi).

So its either the 1000D (XS) or the 40D.

17-85 is also working out to be pricey so I dont think I can consider it.

Some parts of Asia have the 18-55 *non* IS lens shipped. The kits here are the same such non IS kits.

davebmck said:
I suggest you look at the reviews here for the lenses you are considering. Camera lens tests, user reviews, camera accessory reviews - SLRgear.com!

Thanks for the link, the user reviews are helpful too.

bigtwinky said:
Beaches and Landscapes are usually associated with a wide angle lens. Some people like the 22-28mm range for this, some like wider. And thats on a full frame camera. The 40D equivalent is 14-18mm

Nudes and portraits are usually associated with a standard focal lenght, such as 85-105mm on a full frame. The 40D equivalent would be 50-65mm

Birds and wildlife require a longer telephoto lens, and if you want something quality, well, its much more expensive.

So if your priorities are landscapes and portraits, your ideal focal range would be 14mm - 65mm (give or take) which would fall into the 17-85 Mike recommended.

I did borrow a 28-135 for a few weeks and it was a great lens to walk around the city with. However, I was sorely missing the wide angle, but the extra telephoto helped capture people accross the street.

I would prefer the 24-105L lens over the 28-135, but they are in 2 different prices brackets.
10-22mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm
or
10-22mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm is what I'm aiming for as a set

I bought an XSI back in July. I went with Canon because I "inherited" some Canon lenses...older, but hey, they worked on digital. A 22-55mm and a 55-200mm. Both are ok lenses to learn, but within a few months, I stopped using both. I bought a 50mm 1.8 and a 10-22mm and these are pretty much the only lenses I use now. While the 55-200 gave me the focal range, I found the images I got were soft. Maybe with the extra months of knowledge I have now I should try again, but really, I think it was more the lens. I still do bring it along when I might need it, between getting an OK shot or no shot at all, I prefer the OK.

All that to say that I think the 17-85 would be an ideal choice as a starting lens. It has a good image quality, a nice focal range, and comes with IS (Image Stabilization)

Hope my ramblings help.