Canon 40D — alternative kits

bigsnowdogbigsnowdog Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
edited January 29, 2008 in Cameras
I am going to buy a Canon 40D, but am agonizing a bit over which of two kits to buy. One has a 17-85 lens and the other is a 28-135.

I realize the literal differences, the 17-85 is better at the wide end and the 28-135 is better at the telephoto-ish end. I find appeal in each. I do some work that is close, and in the recreational sense, the 135 end has a lot of appeal, too.

I guess the real question is, for those who have chosen one, or own both, how have you found them, which did you prefer, any thoughts appreciated.

The 17-85 is supposed to be a better quality lens, I am told. That kit comes with an extra battery and a case [I don't care about the case, as far as that goes....], for $100 more than the 28-135.

I also consider, if I could afford it, the 100mm macro lens. Are there any good third party lenses that would approximate the 100 macro that would be significantly lower in price, or is that a bad idea?

Discuss....

Comments

  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited January 24, 2008
    It's almost impossible to buy a bad macro lens.

    The Canon 100mm/2.8 USM Macro has the advantage of
    very fast AF and that it doesn't extend when going in
    macro range. Otherwise the following lenses are opticaly
    on the same level as the Canon but alot cheaper.

    Sigma 105mm/2.8 EX Macro
    Tamron 90mm/2.8 SP Macro
    Tokina 100mm/2.8 AT-X Macro
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited January 24, 2008
    Personally, I would not recommend buying a "kit" unless it has the stuff that you would buy anyway and it's cheaper.

    I've used the 17-85 a few times and had the 28-135. I wasn't impressed by the optics of either one. I'm not a fan of IS on slow lenses. I'd prefer a fast lens or even better IS on a fast lens.

    Anyway, back to topic. out of those two, I'd get the 17-85mm b/c it's wider and it's range is more useful. The problem with the 17-85mm is that compared to a Sigma 17-70, at the 17mm end IIRC, it has more CA, more distortion, and softer corners. The sigma is also faster and has much better close focusing ability. Not only that Sigma is cheaper and includes a free hood. Canon has a nicer AF system and an IS though.

    Photozone.de has reviews on those lenses and many more.
    Jojo has direct comparisons of many comparable lenses here as well.
    http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

    definietly worth a look.
    My Gallery
  • darkdragondarkdragon Registered Users Posts: 1,051 Major grins
    edited January 24, 2008
    I bought the 28-135 kit because I didn't have any SLR lenses at the time and wanted to start shooting as soon as I got home. At first I was not impressed with the lens, but now that I understand how to use it better - i have been able to get consitently sharp photos with it.

    The 28-135 really needs a lot of light to get a sharp image, but if you give it light you will be impressed. You mention that you like to do closeup work - you will need something else for that. This lens has no macro mode and is nearly impossible to use for getting crisp shots of small things (like honeypot ants, etc).

    I can't comment on the other lens though as I have never used it.
    ~ Lisa
  • bigsnowdogbigsnowdog Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
    edited January 24, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    Personally, I would not recommend buying a "kit" unless it has the stuff that you would buy anyway and it's cheaper.

    I've used the 17-85 a few times and had the 28-135. I wasn't impressed by the optics of either one. I'm not a fan of IS on slow lenses. I'd prefer a fast lens or even better IS on a fast lens.

    Anyway, back to topic. out of those two, I'd get the 17-85mm b/c it's wider and it's range is more useful. The problem with the 17-85mm is that compared to a Sigma 17-70, at the 17mm end IIRC, it has more CA, more distortion, and softer corners. The sigma is also faster and has much better close focusing ability. Not only that Sigma is cheaper and includes a free hood. Canon has a nicer AF system and an IS though.

    Photozone.de has reviews on those lenses and many more.
    Jojo has direct comparisons of many comparable lenses here as well.
    http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

    definietly worth a look.

    Regarding what you would prefer, would you expand on that; offer examples? ....in the Canon line? I think you will mention other manufacturers, but I am also interested in what you would suggest in the Canon line.
  • ShorthairShorthair Registered Users Posts: 8 Beginner grinner
    edited January 24, 2008
    I have the 28-135 kit and I'm enjoying the lense personally. I also have the 50/1.8 and the 70-300 IS so I have a little experience with other lenses. I will tell you that you get a bargain for the lense at only 200 over the body price.
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited January 24, 2008
    bigsnowdog wrote:
    Regarding what you would prefer, would you expand on that; offer examples? ....in the Canon line? I think you will mention other manufacturers, but I am also interested in what you would suggest in the Canon line.

    IS will prevent handshake from camera movement but with a fast lens, you can have a shallower depth of field to better isolate things/blur out the background, focus faster on some cameras, and get higher shutter speed to freeze motion. If you have IS and a fast lens, then this is nice as you can get all the above and prevent handshake when you want to shoot at a low shutter speed and handhold without camera shake. Exmaple of fast Canon lenses with IS are like the 17-55mm, 70-200mm f2.8, 200mm f2, all with IS.

    If you are starting out, consider a "normal" zoom in the 17-50mm range first and get other lenses that fit your needs.

    You can do a search here and see similar posts. Consider the Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon 17-70, Canon 18-50mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS.
    My Gallery
  • jdryan3jdryan3 Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
    edited January 25, 2008
    bigsnowdog wrote:
    Regarding what you would prefer, would you expand on that; offer examples? ....in the Canon line? I think you will mention other manufacturers, but I am also interested in what you would suggest in the Canon line.

    What is your budget? When I started out with a Canon film camera, I got a Tamron, upgraded to the 28-135, and then to the 24-70 f/2.8 L. There are lots of threads here (so do a search), but if you need IS look at the 24-105 f/4. If you want wide, I hear lots of good things about the Tokina 12-24, I like the Canon 17-40, and there is an f/2.8 EF-S lens (17-55?) that gets a lot of good reviews.
    "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
    -Fleetwood Mac
  • jeffreaux2jeffreaux2 Registered Users Posts: 4,762 Major grins
    edited January 25, 2008
    The 17-55MM F2.8IS is a dream to use. I was scared I would regret spending that much $$ for a "normal" zoom, but it has impressed me every time I have used it. Definately worth every penny!!! For budget, I would consider this lens with the 30D instead of the 40D.

    Date Modified 2008-01-06 09:57:46
    Date Taken 2008-01-05 15:17:12
    Camera Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
    Exposure Time 0.01s (1/100)
    Aperture f/5.0
    ISO 800
    Focal Length 35mm (guess: 59mm in 35mm)
    Photo Dimensions 2592 x 3888
    File Name jcaps-82.jpg
    File Size 4.43 MB



    240312522-M.jpg
    Thanks,
    Jeff
    -Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
    -My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
  • bigsnowdogbigsnowdog Registered Users Posts: 55 Big grins
    edited January 27, 2008
    I got the kit with the 17-85, and also got a UV filter to protect the lens.

    It is like Christmas....
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited January 27, 2008
    Manfr3d wrote:

    The Canon 100mm/2.8 USM Macro has the advantage of
    very fast AF
    Very fast ? Mine was very very slow...maybe by comparison it is fast against the others ne_nau.gif If so then they must be unbelievably slow. Ive never tried the others you mentioned but man... i could make a sandwich whilst i waited for my 100 2.8.
  • TommyboyTommyboy Registered Users Posts: 590 Major grins
    edited January 27, 2008
    the 17-85 is a great lens and you'll love it. I have six lenses and use it 95% of the time. Maybe I got lucky and got a good copy, but mine takes great images.
    "Press the shutter when you are sure of success." —Kim Jong-il

    NEW Smugmug Site
  • NelsonChenPhotographyNelsonChenPhotography Registered Users Posts: 35 Big grins
    edited January 29, 2008
    Try 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2
    gus wrote:
    Very fast ? Mine was very very slow...maybe by comparison it is fast against the others ne_nau.gif If so then they must be unbelievably slow. Ive never tried the others you mentioned but man... i could make a sandwich whilst i waited for my 100 2.8.
    Try the 85 f/1.8, 100/f2, 135 f/2 or 200 f/2.8. They are all pretty fast in AF. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is extremely fast in AF for a zoom.
    Nelson
    http://NelsonChenPhotography.com
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited January 29, 2008
    NelsonChenPhotography wrote:
    Try the 85 f/1.8, 100/f2, 135 f/2 or 200 f/2.8. They are all pretty fast in AF. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is extremely fast in AF for a zoom.
    No...i know that ...i have the 135 f2.

    What i said in the post was that i had the ' 100 f2.8 macro ' & found it to be the slowest thing i have ever encountered.
Sign In or Register to comment.