Canon 40D/50D what lens on a budget?

System

Hello everyone,

I am new to this amazing hobby known as photography. I do realize many of you probably have really expensive L lenses and nice FF bodies. I have used an Xti and 40D and have decided I want the size, durability, and weight of the 40D or 50D bodies. I have been shopping around and reading reviews for months now and as such have some of an idea what people will say to this thread but wanted to throw a question out there for those with experience. I hope that some people that have used the lenses I mention will comment, b/c I know I know, the more expensive ones are better, however, for my needs maybe not.

I live in China right now teaching English. My point and shoot doesn't cut it and I want some creative license with shots I take out here, as there are many beautiful photo opportunities. I don't know yet how and when to create certain shots but hope to learn quickly once I get my own camera. My situation is I dont' really want to spend more than 1600 ish, less if possible but want a good walk around lens. I know the 17-55 f/2.8 gets great reviews and the 17-85 does not. However, given the price difference, is the 17-85 acceptable. I know it has intense distortion, but haven't been able to find out if the 17-55 has distortion as well. I know it's way faster, and has better overall IQ, and contrast, sharpness, etc. However, for the bang for your buck situation, is a good lens? It is somewhat limited in zoom as well which if I had tons of money wouldn't matter b/c I'd just get a 70-200 f4L which I will have to wait on. Thoughts are appreciated. I've also considered the new 15-85 but it's variable which may be okay for me, though it is overcast much of the time in China. Is the 2.8 , if I'm not using this to make money, necessary? Should I consider the the 15-85 or 17-85? I've also consider getting the cheaper 17-85 and getting a 50 1.8 prime for indoors. Thanks.

Tim

Nikolai

tsneetz wrote:

Hello everyone,

I am new to this amazing hobby known as photography. I do realize many of you probably have really expensive L lenses and nice FF bodies. I have used an Xti and 40D and have decided I want the size, durability, and weight of the 40D or 50D bodies. I have been shopping around and reading reviews for months now and as such have some of an idea what people will say to this thread but wanted to throw a question out there for those with experience. I hope that some people that have used the lenses I mention will comment, b/c I know I know, the more expensive ones are better, however, for my needs maybe not.

I live in China right now teaching English. My point and shoot doesn't cut it and I want some creative license with shots I take out here, as there are many beautiful photo opportunities. I don't know yet how and when to create certain shots but hope to learn quickly once I get my own camera. My situation is I dont' really want to spend more than 1600 ish, less if possible but want a good walk around lens. I know the 17-55 f/2.8 gets great reviews and the 17-85 does not. However, given the price difference, is the 17-85 acceptable. I know it has intense distortion, but haven't been able to find out if the 17-55 has distortion as well. I know it's way faster, and has better overall IQ, and contrast, sharpness, etc. However, for the bang for your buck situation, is a good lens? It is somewhat limited in zoom as well which if I had tons of money wouldn't matter b/c I'd just get a 70-200 f4L which I will have to wait on. Thoughts are appreciated. I've also considered the new 15-85 but it's variable which may be okay for me, though it is overcast much of the time in China. Is the 2.8 , if I'm not using this to make money, necessary? Should I consider the the 15-85 or 17-85? I've also consider getting the cheaper 17-85 and getting a 50 1.8 prime for indoors. Thanks.

Tim

I've been using 17-85 as my workhorse lens for the longest time, untill I finally got enough funds for a better glass... And you can't get wrong with 50/1.8, it is the biggest bang for the buck ever...

ziggy53

tsneetz wrote:

Hello everyone,

I am new to this amazing hobby known as photography. I do realize many of you probably have really expensive L lenses and nice FF bodies. I have used an Xti and 40D and have decided I want the size, durability, and weight of the 40D or 50D bodies. I have been shopping around and reading reviews for months now and as such have some of an idea what people will say to this thread but wanted to throw a question out there for those with experience. I hope that some people that have used the lenses I mention will comment, b/c I know I know, the more expensive ones are better, however, for my needs maybe not.

I live in China right now teaching English. My point and shoot doesn't cut it and I want some creative license with shots I take out here, as there are many beautiful photo opportunities. I don't know yet how and when to create certain shots but hope to learn quickly once I get my own camera. My situation is I dont' really want to spend more than 1600 ish, less if possible but want a good walk around lens. I know the 17-55 f/2.8 gets great reviews and the 17-85 does not. However, given the price difference, is the 17-85 acceptable. I know it has intense distortion, but haven't been able to find out if the 17-55 has distortion as well. I know it's way faster, and has better overall IQ, and contrast, sharpness, etc. However, for the bang for your buck situation, is a good lens? It is somewhat limited in zoom as well which if I had tons of money wouldn't matter b/c I'd just get a 70-200 f4L which I will have to wait on. Thoughts are appreciated. I've also considered the new 15-85 but it's variable which may be okay for me, though it is overcast much of the time in China. Is the 2.8 , if I'm not using this to make money, necessary? Should I consider the the 15-85 or 17-85? I've also consider getting the cheaper 17-85 and getting a 50 1.8 prime for indoors. Thanks.

Tim

Tim, welcome to the Digital Grin.

The Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II is a very nice standard zoom at a reasonable price. It would compliment the Canon 40D or 50D nicely.

I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC (before the current "Macro" version) and it's also pretty good but I do think that the Tamron I mentioned is somewhat better.

I suggest that the constant aperture lenses are more versatile overall, compared to the Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 IS USM.

The Canon EF 50mm, f1.8 is capable of very high quality compared to the price, but focus is rather unpredictable. The 40D and 50D both have Live View which you can use to confirm focus, if there is time.

The Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is much more reliable for focus and I rather enjoy my copy much more than the f1.8 I also own.

divamum

What Ziggy said s and a big +1 on the Tamron 17-50. You can get the Mk1 (no vibration control) for around $300 used. Even though I have some pretty nice glass in the bag, that Tam remains one of the most reliable and definitely high on the "bang per buck" front!

paddler4

I have the 17-85 (on a 50D), and I agree with the previous comments. The variable aperture (read: slow speed) is a drawback. The barrel distortion is only a problem at short lengths, and it is easily corrected in post-processing, so I would not consider that a deal-killer. If you are more interested in the longer end of that range than the shorter, you might also consider the longer cousin of the Tamron lens mentioned, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (fixed aperture). I use that as my walk around lens rather than the 17-85 if I don't need the shorter lengths because the optical quality is better and the faster speed is very handy.

ssimmonsphoto

divamum wrote:

What Ziggy said s and a big +1 on the Tamron 17-50. You can get the Mk1 (no vibration control) for around $300 used. Even though I have some pretty nice glass in the bag, that Tam remains one of the most reliable and definitely high on the "bang per buck" front!

Ditto again for the Tamron. It is by far my favorite lens that I have. Not that I have a lot. But it's on my camera for 90%+ of my shots.

bigsnowdog

ziggy53 wrote:

Tim, welcome to the Digital Grin.

The Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II is a very nice standard zoom at a reasonable price. It would compliment the Canon 40D or 50D nicely.

I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC (before the current "Macro" version) and it's also pretty good but I do think that the Tamron I mentioned is somewhat better.

I suggest that the constant aperture lenses are more versatile overall, compared to the Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 IS USM.

The Canon EF 50mm, f1.8 is capable of very high quality compared to the price, but focus is rather unpredictable. The 40D and 50D both have Live View which you can use to confirm focus, if there is time.

The Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is much more reliable for focus and I rather enjoy my copy much more than the f1.8 I also own.

I may be the only person here who does not know, but....what is the meaning of constant aperture in the context of your lens discussion?

ziggy53

bigsnowdog wrote:

I may be the only person here who does not know, but....what is the meaning of constant aperture in the context of your lens discussion?

A "constant aperture" zoom lens maintains it's maximum aperture through the zoom range. Generally the optic construction of a constant aperture lens is higher quality throughout.

The vast majority of consumer zoom lenses are "variable aperture" designs and they vary the effective aperture because the physical opening remains constant even though the focal length changes. In a constant aperture design the effective opening of the lens changes at the same rate as the focal length using an internal diopter element or group (usually).

Nikolai

bigsnowdog wrote:

I may be the only person here who does not know, but....what is the meaning of constant aperture in the context of your lens discussion?

There are two types of zoom lenses - those with constant aperture, i.e. the one that doesn't change accross the zoom spectrum (e.g. 24-105/4, 20-200/2.8, etc.) and those with variablle aperture (e.g.. 100-400/4.0..5.6), exact value depending on the zoom (i.e. focal length) engaged.
Constant aperture lenses are typically better quality and (far) more expensive.
One of the advantages of the constand aperture lens is that the focal plane (at least, in theory) doesn't change if you zoom in or out. So you can zoom in, focus, zoom out and do not have to refocus.
HTH

Nikolai

ziggy53 wrote:

A "constant aperture" zoom lens maintains it's maximum aperture through the zoom range. Generally the optic construction of a constant aperture lens is higher quality throughout.

The vast majority of consumer zoom lenses are "variable aperture" designs and they vary the effective aperture because the physical opening remains constant even though the focal length changes. In a constant aperture design the effective opening of the lens changes at the same rate as the focal length using an internal diopter element or group (usually).

And of course Ziggy beat me to it (even if only by two minutes)

ChatKat

L lens for home but for travel
I use all L glass in my work, but, for Travel I have the Tamron 28-300 vr and so does my husband. It's $550 for the lens, is sharp, contrasty and has nice bokeh and is also a macro lens. I know several pros who use that lens frequently. If you have the budget for that with the 50 1.4 you'd have a nice lightweight kit that would cover low light, length and wide all in one.

bigsnowdog

Am I to understand that some Canon lenses, and some aftermarket lenses, are constant aperture?

I read in this thread mention of fixed focal length lenses. What is the attraction found in those? I have a 40D with the EFS 17-85 lens. Someday I would like to get a zoom telephoto for it.

What sort of shooting would you do with a 1.4 50mm? I am so used to zooms, primarly wide angle, that a fixed lens seems limiting.

Grainbelt

bigsnowdog wrote:

I read in this thread mention of fixed focal length lenses. What is the attraction found in those?

I don't know of any zooms faster than F2.8, as they'd be too expensive to make. Fixed focal length or 'prime' lenses offer an artistic depth of field and ability to shoot in lower light. I find primes to be a great tool, as they keep me moving my feet to change perspective rather than 'zooming' to it.

bigsnowdog

Grainbelt wrote:

I don't know of any zooms faster than F2.8, as they'd be too expensive to make. Fixed focal length or 'prime' lenses offer an artistic depth of field and ability to shoot in lower light. I find primes to be a great tool, as they keep me moving my feet to change perspective rather than 'zooming' to it.

Interesting perspective, if you will pardon the pun.... :-)

cmason

The reason that many zoom lenses do not have constant aperture, is because they are expensive and typically quite large. Very basically, think of it this way: as you zoom the lens, the aperture hole needs to physically grow larger to accommodate.

Aperture or the f-stop is just the ratio between the diameter of the aperture in the lens and the focal length of the lens. Therefore, when the focal length grows, the diameter of the aperture must also, if you wish to maintain a constant aperture. Most zoom lenses have aperture something like: 3.5-5.6. This means at the short end, the lens has a maximum aperture of 3.5, but at the long end it has one that is 5.6. This is because the lens diameter is not large enough to provide f 3.5 at the long end.

A lens that is, say a f 2.8 constant will need to have a diameter that is determined by the long end of the lens. Therefore a lens that is a 70-200 f4 is physically smaller in diameter than one that is 70-200 f2.8. And as you can imagine, a lens that is larger, is more expensive.

Non-zoom, or 'prime' lenses can be exactly the diameter required for the focal length, because the focal length doesn't change. Prime lenses also typically have fewer glass elements, and since they do not have as many moving elements, typically are marginally sharper and clearer than zoom lenses. This difference in sharpness and quality is usually more obvious in the cheaper end of a lens range, and a bit less differentiated in the expensive end.

So, you will find that a 50 1.8 lens usually offers noticeably superior sharpness over a 17-85 lens. The 50 1.8 is also usually cheaper as well in both Canon and Nikon lines.

One final point: You might notice a big price difference in a 50 f1.8 and a 50 f1.4. This is because an f1.4 requires a larger piece of glass than a f1.8 lens. Check out the Canon 50 f1.2 to see this a bit more dramatically, as that lens is a huge hunk of glass.

ziggy53

Large aperture lenses also allow more light for the auto-focus system. More light means faster and more accurate AF. Most lenses do their best at middle apertures, so if you start with a large aperture you won't have to stop way down to a tiny aperture for good image quality. Separating the subject from the foreground and background is also easier with large apertures.

System

Many things said have been insightful, I did want revisit the original question of the 17-55 2.8 vs 17-85 3.5-5.6. The latter gets hammered in all reviews just about, CA, Distortion, IQ, etc. However, nobody comments on the Distortion of the 17-55 2.8. Also, for the price difference, is the cheaper lens really that bad compared, especially for a newbie? Thoughts? And what about the new 15-85 3.5-5.6 , anyone have experience with that lens?

Thanks again for all your thoughts I hope to make a purchase before Christmas as I'm traveling in Jan throughout China and southeast asia and want to get some good shots of the locals as well as the scenery.

Tim

Nikolai

tsneetz wrote:

Many things said have been insightful, I did want revisit the original question of the 17-55 2.8 vs 17-85 3.5-5.6. The latter gets hammered in all reviews just about, CA, Distortion, IQ, etc. However, nobody comments on the Distortion of the 17-55 2.8. Also, for the price difference, is the cheaper lens really that bad compared, especially for a newbie? Thoughts? And what about the new 15-85 3.5-5.6 , anyone have experience with that lens?

Thanks again for all your thoughts I hope to make a purchase before Christmas as I'm traveling in Jan throughout China and southeast asia and want to get some good shots of the locals as well as the scenery.

Tim

Tim,
as I mentioned, I used 17-85 as my workhorse until I managed to save enough $$$ for the 17-55. I must honestly say: whatever bad things are said about this lens, they are not THAT horrific.
I didn't have experience with 15-85, so no comments there, but I loved 17-85 way more over 28-135, esp. on a crop body. Also, the previous kit lens (18-65 was it?) - 17-85 would kick its back mount all the way to Japan...
Bottom line: if you have the $$ for 17-55 - go for it. But if you don't - in my mind 17-85 is the next best thing ROI wise for the crop body.
HTH

ziggy53

tsneetz wrote:

Many things said have been insightful, I did want revisit the original question of the 17-55 2.8 vs 17-85 3.5-5.6. The latter gets hammered in all reviews just about, CA, Distortion, IQ, etc. However, nobody comments on the Distortion of the 17-55 2.8. Also, for the price difference, is the cheaper lens really that bad compared, especially for a newbie? Thoughts? And what about the new 15-85 3.5-5.6 , anyone have experience with that lens?

Thanks again for all your thoughts I hope to make a purchase before Christmas as I'm traveling in Jan throughout China and southeast asia and want to get some good shots of the locals as well as the scenery.

Tim

Unless you shoot a lot of architecture you probably wouldn't even notice the distortion on the wide end of the 17-85mm, f3.5-f5.6 IS USM. It is also largely correctable in software fairly easily.

A better reason to want the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is for the much better low-light performance and generally better potential image quality (one of Canon's best lenses optically.) It is a splendid lens by almost any measure. It does have a somewhat higher incidence of IS failure than the 17-85mm.

The 15-85mm is such a new lens that I don't know if would recommend it for a trip abroad. (It does appear that barrel distortions are slightly better in the 15-85mm than the 17-85mm, but still pretty strong.)

Best reviews of the lenses:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review

TheDuck

You may have already bought a lens....but I just saw this thread and thought I'd chime in.

I bought the Canon EFS 17-55mm f2.8 to carry as my only lens during our summer vacation in France (27-88mm equiv with 40D/50D). Great lens - the only drawback is that it won't work when/if I move to full frame. No regrets at not having a bagful of lenses....it was the right choice and I got lots of great images! You'll get LOTS more versatility with f2.8 lenses!

I don't remember if you were debating about a 40D or 50D. I've got the 40D and from everything I've read it produces better images than the 50D (too much noise esp at high ISO was the consensus on the 50D).

Be seeing you,
The Duck

RedSox

I found the 50mm on a crop is a bit too long. I have a 50mm f1.4, which is a fantastic copy. sharper than my 24-70L at 2.8. But in door, I prefer 35mm. Tried the 35mm F2, it is very nice, if you can get use to the electric screw driver sound. It can focus pretty close to the object. My biggest complaint is the focus accuracy. I found that it tends to overexpose compare to my other lenses. As with most old wide angle lens, probably due to the design, the corner sharpness is the weak point even on a crop body. But if you use it for indoor people/event/shallow DOF, it is not a concern. I end up returned it, because I already have the 24-70L and I a bit greedy towards the 35L, even though I still have not got the fund for it yet.


Eric