- This topic is empty.
Walk around Lens for Canon eos 40D
-
Hi All,
I’m going to the States in 3 weeks, and I will be buying a Canon eos 40D, I am wondering what people would recommend as a general purpose lens for walkaround, I normally take land and skyscape shots, along with some architectural pictures, and as I now have a baby son there will be a lot of family pics over the next few years.
I have been looking at 2 Canon IS USM lenses a f4-5.6 18-75mm, or a f3.5-5.6 28-135mm .
Which would be best.. or should I be looking at something else?
DaveI have a 28-135 is, it is a great walk around lens, i actually have mine up for sale inthe equipment for sale section. have only had it 6 months, but i bought a 17-40L so found it wasnt getting the use it should do
but i would again say its a great lens
Thanks for the reply Steve, I can get the 40D and the lens in a kit for about $1650, or the 17-85 for another 100$ so i’m trying to decide what to get, I’m leaning towards the 28-135 because of the f 3.5 instead of f4…. does it make that much of a difference ?
Dave17-40 f4 L is superglued to my camera – highly recommend it for image quality and useful range on a 1.6 crop camera. Only downside is f4 but since I mainly shoot outdoors, it isn’t an issue.
the big difference with the 17-85 and the 28-135 is that the 17 is a good bit wider
not sure theres enough difference between 3.5 and 4 to make any huge difference
but the extra width could be very good if your doing anything like landscape or something
mort wrote:
17-40 f4 L is superglued to my camera
Dodgy Canon lens mounts, eh?
28-135 is a great sharp lens and if you need a bit of zoom then its equal to 200mm on film camera terms.maybe the lower end is not that wide,but if you are going to take city scape’s then you will probably be back far enough anyways. Its a good portrait lens also and with the 40D the AF will be fassssttt.Believe me I have that combo.
Thanks for the responses, I’ll probably go for the 28-135mm f3.5 as my walk around.
if i’m feeling a bit flush i might invest in a 20-35mm f4 for dedicated landscapes they are pretty reasonable on e-bay at the moment.
another question, has anyone any experience of the 70-300mm f4-5.6 is usm lens, christmas is coming…. lol and I would have most things covered with those 3 lens.. i think….
also I am only just getting into the whole digital slr area from 35mm, and for landscapes I nearly always used a polarising filter, can you do this with a dslr, or is it a no no ?
DaveYep, polarisers work fine with digital.
If you’re coming from 35mm film, you might find not find a 28mm lens very wide on a DSLR. It’s the equiv of about 45mm focal length on a full frame camera – just so you know.
mort wrote:
If you’re coming from 35mm film, you might find not find a 28mm lens very wide on a DSLR. It’s the equiv of about 45mm focal length on a full frame camera – just so you know.
Yea waa, think you have it backwards, “on a full frame camera” should be “on a 1.5 crop Digital camera”
M
dave j wrote:
Thanks for the responses, I’ll probably go for the 28-135mm f3.5 as my walk around.
if i’m feeling a bit flush i might invest in a 20-35mm f4 for dedicated landscapes they are pretty reasonable on e-bay at the moment.
another question, has anyone any experience of the 70-300mm f4-5.6 is usm lens, christmas is coming…. lol and I would have most things covered with those 3 lens.. i think….
also I am only just getting into the whole digital slr area from 35mm, and for landscapes I nearly always used a polarising filter, can you do this with a dslr, or is it a no no ?
DaveI’d say the 17-85 is a more useful range on a dslr, the extra range at the wide end makes a huge difference. I don’t have either this or the 28-135, though I believe they’re both fine lenses, I’m just speaking from a general point of view. Regarding the 20-35, if you’re buying it specifically for landscapes I wouldn’t go there. At 20mm you’ll have the same field of view as a 32mm lens on a 35mm camera, which isn’t great, I frequently found myself wishing for more width when the widest lens I had was the 19-55mm kit lens. I’d really consider an ultrawide. I have the Sigma 10-20mm and absolutely love it. The Canon 10-22mm is supposed to be a fantastic lens as well, and you would be well served with either
John
Martin wrote:
Yea waa, think you have it backwards, “on a full frame camera” should be “on a 1.5 crop Digital camera”
MEhh no, I have it the right way round. 28mm on a crop camera is the equavilent of 45mm on a full frame camera.
Coffee? :wink:
mort wrote:
Martin wrote:
Yea waa, think you have it backwards, “on a full frame camera” should be “on a 1.5 crop Digital camera”
MEhh no, I have it the right way round. 28mm on a crop camera is the equavilent of 45mm on a full frame camera.
Coffee? :wink:
you’ve managed to phrase it the opposite way to the norm mort .. hence martin’s confusion :lol:
a lense that is 28mm on ye olde 35mm film SLR would be 45mm a modern new fangled digital SLR (assuming it’s not one of them super-duper full frame yokey thing digital SLRs)
Ahh, you just put the words in different places. I’ve never been one to conform to the norm :P
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
