All rounder for canon 40d

gercam

gercam

Suspended / Banned
Messages
420
Name
Gerry
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a canon 40d and a 17-55 f2.8 lens. I am looking to trade this lens and get a more all rounder. I like to take portraits, landscapes, street photography and close ups. I need more reach.

I have been looking at 70-200 f4.0 and 18-200. Any thoughts/advice would be gladly accepted.
 
How much more reach are you thinking of for your chosen subjects?

Could try the 24-105mm, but might leave you short for landscapes, how about keep the lens you have and buy the 70-200mm

Don't really understand buying a DSLR with all the advantages that changing lenses brings, then want to use an all in one
 
Don't really understand buying a DSLR with all the advantages that changing lenses brings, then want to use an all in one[/QUOTE]

It is more from a cost reason that I only want one lens.
 
Get the 70-200mm f4L. I had one of these with my 40D, alongside a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6. All lovely lenses for the money, and all bases covered as far as I was concerned.
 
I had an 18-200 which is absolutely ideal for being an all rounder. When going on holiday and you are limited on the luggage you can take that lens was perfect for it. I had it with my 40D as well
 
I totally agree with that sort of choice Sarah, but the cost is nigh on a grand and the OP mentioned financial constraints

Think the quality of the 18-200mm would show a less than favourable comparison with your existing lens. There again the 70-200mm would very limiting as a single lens, think you might have to save a few more bob and use the very fine lens you already have for now.
 
Last edited:
If it's cost, sell it all and get a compact. As said, if you get a lens with a huge range you will almost definitely be sacrificing image quality. Might as well use a compact with a good optical zoom.

70-200 too cropped for an all rounder. Paired with an 18-55 or similar = much more like it.
 
I have a Tamron 17-50 and find this as a good all rounder . I've just added a 24-105 to give me that extra reach when needed . I'm sure that a 70-200 will come in time , but a can use what I have for now .
 
tijuana taxi said:
I totally agree with that sort of choice Sarah, but the cost is nigh on a grand and the OP mentioned financial constraints

Think the quality of the 18-200mm would show a less than favourable comparison with your existing lens. There again the 70-200mm would very limiting as a single lens, think you might have to save a few more bob and use the very fine lens you already have for now.
Click to expand...

The 70-200 f/4L costs under £500 new, it's the 70-200 f/4L IS (the stabilised one) which costs nigh on a grand.

My recommendation would be to get a 70-200 f/4L (the cheaper one) or an 80-200 f/2.8L if you can source a decent copy second hand, then trade your 17-55 f/2.8 IS down to something like a Sigma 30 f/1.4 or a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC
 
Get the 70-200mm f4L. I had one of these with my 40D, alongside a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
Click to expand...

The 70-200 f/4L costs under £500 new, it's the 70-200 f/4L IS (the stabilised one) which costs nigh on a grand.
Click to expand...

I was adding up the total of the three lenses mentioned that provide such a good coverage, so my figure was correct albeit slightly conservative in retrospect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top