Canon 40D - Need new lens
Discussion
It's what I've got.Lostprophet said:
I have a 17-85 and was thinking of getting the following
The top 2 are well thought of - 10-22mm
- 24-105mm L series
- A lens for upto 400mm. Not sure what one yet.
but if you like wildlife then the 400mm sounds like a good idea....All depends on what you like to photograph
Cheers.
The top 2 are good lense, and well worthy of consideration.
Up to 400mm, you have a choice of the 400mm primes and also the 100-400 zoom which I and several others on here own. Great all-round lens, though it does take a little bit of getting used to as it's a push-pull zoom. Focussing in low light at the long end isn't super fast, as it drops down to f5.6, but you can work around this with experience. It all depends on what you want to photograph?
Another option is to get one of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses, and either a 1.4 or 2x convertors to give you more flexibility. Note that using a convertor (especially the 2x) can have a slight impact on picture quaility, and will drop the light coming onto the sensor by 1 or two stops (ie your 2.8 lens becomes 5.6 if you use a 2x convertor).
John
Up to 400mm, you have a choice of the 400mm primes and also the 100-400 zoom which I and several others on here own. Great all-round lens, though it does take a little bit of getting used to as it's a push-pull zoom. Focussing in low light at the long end isn't super fast, as it drops down to f5.6, but you can work around this with experience. It all depends on what you want to photograph?
Another option is to get one of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses, and either a 1.4 or 2x convertors to give you more flexibility. Note that using a convertor (especially the 2x) can have a slight impact on picture quaility, and will drop the light coming onto the sensor by 1 or two stops (ie your 2.8 lens becomes 5.6 if you use a 2x convertor).
John
I have a 40D and a variety of lenses and have probably considered buying most of the Canon ones!
The short answer to what lens to buy depends on what you shoot the most of. Multiple lenses are a pain, they take up more space in your bag, they are heavy and you always have the wrong lens attached for a particular situation. But that is all part of the fun right? ;-)
I used to have the 17-85mm but was looking for alternatives. I had narrowed it down to the 17-55 f2.8 and the 24-105 L. I tried out the 24-105 in a camera shop attached to my camera and found it to be large and heavy and did not take radically better shots than the 17-85mm. I rang another camera shop and the guy on the phone gave me some good advice. He said that the real world difference between the 17-85, 17-55 and 24-105 are negligible and to look at the EXIF data from my favourite shots and work out if I like shooting wide (meaning the 17mm would be a slight advantage) more that tight (making the 105mm a better fit). He also said than a faster lens (lower f number) is generally a better buy because you get more out of it (better in low light, more creative focusing, etc).
So I bought the 17-55mm f2.8 and have never ever regretted it.
So looking at your choices:
* 10-22mm - I have this lens and it is bloody good, I don't use it a huge amount but when I do I like the results. Here are a few examples from my collection.
* 24-105mm L series - if you buy this then it would be a replacement for the 17-85. Personally I went for the more versatile 17-55mm instead (same price more or less)
* A lens for upto 400mm - I have the 70-200mm f4 with the 1.4x extender (making it a 98-280 f5.6 when attached). This is my favourite lens. Yes it could be longer but I rarely miss the extra zoom I just get closer!
The first question you need to ask yourself is what do you want the lens for? Landscapes, cars, city views all point to the 10-22. Sport, wildlife, candid street photo, track days, detail abstracts all point to a 200mm+ tele zoom.
Fred Miranda forums are a good place to start to get real world opinions of lenses - though people tend to be very love or hate about things.
I always check http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk before buying anything too!
Hope that all helps.
The short answer to what lens to buy depends on what you shoot the most of. Multiple lenses are a pain, they take up more space in your bag, they are heavy and you always have the wrong lens attached for a particular situation. But that is all part of the fun right? ;-)
I used to have the 17-85mm but was looking for alternatives. I had narrowed it down to the 17-55 f2.8 and the 24-105 L. I tried out the 24-105 in a camera shop attached to my camera and found it to be large and heavy and did not take radically better shots than the 17-85mm. I rang another camera shop and the guy on the phone gave me some good advice. He said that the real world difference between the 17-85, 17-55 and 24-105 are negligible and to look at the EXIF data from my favourite shots and work out if I like shooting wide (meaning the 17mm would be a slight advantage) more that tight (making the 105mm a better fit). He also said than a faster lens (lower f number) is generally a better buy because you get more out of it (better in low light, more creative focusing, etc).
So I bought the 17-55mm f2.8 and have never ever regretted it.
So looking at your choices:
* 10-22mm - I have this lens and it is bloody good, I don't use it a huge amount but when I do I like the results. Here are a few examples from my collection.
* 24-105mm L series - if you buy this then it would be a replacement for the 17-85. Personally I went for the more versatile 17-55mm instead (same price more or less)
* A lens for upto 400mm - I have the 70-200mm f4 with the 1.4x extender (making it a 98-280 f5.6 when attached). This is my favourite lens. Yes it could be longer but I rarely miss the extra zoom I just get closer!
The first question you need to ask yourself is what do you want the lens for? Landscapes, cars, city views all point to the 10-22. Sport, wildlife, candid street photo, track days, detail abstracts all point to a 200mm+ tele zoom.
Fred Miranda forums are a good place to start to get real world opinions of lenses - though people tend to be very love or hate about things.
I always check http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk before buying anything too!
Hope that all helps.
Wow, Thanks folks for all your feedback! It's certainly makes for a good read.
I suppose I am not in need of a 24-105mm L so that one I can give a miss to. I think the 10-22mm is a good way forward. That is for landscape pictures.
The 400mm lens was to shot wildlife, when out and about... I do not know what a 400mm is even like to zoom!
I suppose I am not in need of a 24-105mm L so that one I can give a miss to. I think the 10-22mm is a good way forward. That is for landscape pictures.
The 400mm lens was to shot wildlife, when out and about... I do not know what a 400mm is even like to zoom!
10-22mm is a good choice. If you are desperate for a long tele then make sure you do your research and if you go really long make sure you try one out before you buy one. A 400mm is a *really* long zoom and is therefore pretty pricey and heavy. I seriously recommend the 70-200 f4 or the 70-200 f2.8 either with the 1.4 extender rather than the 100-400 lenses. Really sharp and fast focus which is exactly what you want for wildlife. Of course it is up to you, check the reviews and try one out first...!
Lostprophet said:
What about the 10-20 vs 10-22 debate? Price difference is £250!
Lots of people using the 10-20, it seems very popular. Might not quite have the edge on the 10-22, but as you say, the price difference is almost another lens...I'd most probably be tempted with the 10-20 or if I needed more light look at the Tonika 11-16 f2.6( £539).
Cheers.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff