Third party lens for Canon EOS 40-D

STINKY PICTURES · Mar 8, 2008

I`m trying to do my homework. I`m thinking of maybe getting a third party lens for a Canon eos 40d instead of the stock lens that comes with the kit. I really like the f/2.8 for the low light pics that I take sometimes. and i just want to keep that option if possible. Plus this seems to be a nice all around range for me for my first lens.
my shots will be indoors, low light and some with lamps if needed for other shots.

Something in the range of this. 24-70mm f/2.8 L .

I want to make sure that I get a lens that will work with the Canon correctly and will auto focus. I don`t know if there is a chart i can follow or if someone can just tell me. Should I just stick with Tamron, Sigma,Tamric, etc. I`m not sure I have all the names right. I`m really new to the third party lens so i need some help here. I just need to be pointed in the right direction with the correct name of the company I should be looking at. Thanks for any info you can send my way.

chinpokojed · Mar 9, 2008

You can either you get the 40D body for ~$1,100, or for $1,300 you can get it with the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. Keep in mind that since that lens has IS it will allow you to shoot at much slower shutter speeds in low-light.

Personally I think you'll end up with better glass, and better range if you just pick up the body, then pick out your lenses. If you're willing to spend a little more money then the kit check out the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ($400), and the new Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS ($300) in place of the kit.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm...5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1204904412&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250m...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1204909792&sr=8-1

STINKY PICTURES · Mar 9, 2008

Yes thats what I`m doing, getting the body only.... i really don`t want the kit lens. all of my shots will be indoors, and lots will be with low light. So i believe need the f2.8.

Warhawk · Mar 9, 2008

I currently have the EOS 40D with the 24-70 f2.8 L lens, a friend of myne has the 24-105 f4 L IS lens (also with a 40D) and when we take the same pictures, he has to use a ISO of over a 1000 when i can use f2.8 on ISO 800.

Most of the photos i take are of performances, like bands and concerts, so its rather low light.

Personally, i will go for the 24-70mm lens. Its a good all round lens for me and i have only needed more zoom on 2 occasions, also the focus is super fast and the picture quality is amazing!

chinpokojed · Mar 9, 2008

Warhawk said:
I currently have the EOS 40D with the 24-70 f2.8 L lens, a friend of myne has the 24-105 f4 L IS lens (also with a 40D) and when we take the same pictures, he has to use a ISO of over a 1000 when i can use f2.8 on ISO 800.

Most of the photos i take are of performances, like bands and concerts, so its rather low light.

Personally, i will go for the 24-70mm lens. Its a good all round lens for me and i have only needed more zoom on 2 occasions, also the focus is super fast and the picture quality is amazing!

Don't get me wrong the 24-70 f/2.8 L is an incredible lens, and has a really versatile range, unfortunately it's also over a $1000 in one piece of glass.

I think for what Stinky is looking for he'd be better served to start with the $400 Sigma, which also happens to be a macro lens as well.

Warhawk · Mar 9, 2008

Well, if quality doesnt matter to him, the Sigma is the ideal lens.

In my post i mainly tried to point out the differense between f2.8 and f4, because i know alot of the cheap third party lenses start from f4 and that might be to slow in the light conditions he wants to use it in.

STINKY PICTURES · Mar 9, 2008

Oh goodness quality does matter, (I`m a girl by the way) I work in a very competitive business and i need fantastic shots. Heads above the rest!

Natural lighting, done in my home in front of a window or full glass door is what I`m doing. I also shoot in a garden room with windows in 3 walls sometimes the sun is an issue so I need good white balance settings. but thats a different subject. Low light and quality are my first priority's. I have $1,000. to spend on a lens. so i`m thinking i should go for it before i spend the money on something else.

chinpokojed · Mar 9, 2008

:lmao: I'm no Sigma salesman, so I've got nothing at stake here promoting that lens, but it is a very well reviewed lens (by people far more experienced then myself), and if you read my post or followed the link you'd see that it is f/2.8 all the way through, not f/4.

As I said previously, that L lens is awesome, and if you've got the money to spend, and like the range of it, by all means get that. All I'm saying is that I don't know anyone who has actually used the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 who doesn't love it.

table1349 · Mar 9, 2008

STINKY PICTURES said:
Oh goodness quality does matter, (I`m a girl by the way) I work in a very competitive business and i need fantastic shots. Heads above the rest!

Natural lighting, done in my home in front of a window or full glass door is what I`m doing. I also shoot in a garden room with windows in 3 walls sometimes the sun is an issue so I need good white balance settings. but thats a different subject. Low light and quality are my first priority's. I have $1,000. to spend on a lens. so i`m thinking i should go for it before i spend the money on something else.

I own Canon's 24-70 f2.8 along with the 16-35 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8. All are fantastic pieces of glass and pretty much cover the entire range I need. None of them however will produce the sharpness of my 35 f1.4L, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 macro, 135 f2.0L or 200 f2.8L. With what it sounds like you are doing, you might want to consider primes instead of a zoom. Don't get me wrong, all three of the above mentioned zooms are fantastic. But when it comes to sharpness even these can't top a quality prime.

Warhawk · Mar 9, 2008

The quality on those lenses are amazing, but the price is to high for me

Mav · Mar 9, 2008

If your subjects are moving like a child, then even an f/2.8 isn't going to cut it for low light indoor subjects. If I want to shoot my 11 month old indoors at night in my EV3 to EV5 indoor household lighting, the only option I have is my 50mm f/1.4 lens at iso1600 to get 1/80s to 1/125s shutter speeds (just barely fast enough) and the results are at times noisy photos with reduced dynamic range, and extremely little in focus and a lot of tossed out of focus shots due to the tiny depth of field at f/1.4.

Short of buying a $5000 Nikon D3 that'll give me great results at iso6400, I've given up on natural light indoor shooting (at least for moving subjects) and just use a flash instead. Any cheap lens will work and look great if your lighting techniques are good. You also get a ton more in focus and don't have microscopic depths of field which I prefer (this is subjective), and I like having more control over my light anyways. You can also shoot at a much lower ISO which will give cleaner shots with much more dynamic range. So consider lighting too, before spending $1000 on a lens that might not give you the results you're looking for.