I have decided to buy a Canon 40D.....

[Relayer]

.............but what two lenses should I buy?

This will be my first DSLR and I WANT but probably don't need two lenses. I will be taking portraits, wildlife and landscapes and have compiled a list but which two should I buy. My budget is £400-£600 ish


EF 50mm f1.8 ------------------£70
EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM--------£275
EF-S 17-85f4-5.6 IS USM----------£340
EF-S10-22 f3.5 4.5 USM-----------£490
EF 70-200 f4 L USM----------------£420 should I be worried about no IS.
EF 17-40 f4 L USM-----------------£475
EF 28-200 f3.5-5.6 USM------------£245
EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM-----------£350

Which TWO should I buy?

or should I blow the budget and buy a EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM (£710) plus the EF 50mm f1.8

Your help and ideas would be appreciated or suggestions of other lenses.

 

[puddleduck]

I'd add the 17-55 IS to your list.

Don't go for the 50mm + 70-200 option as first lenses, you definately want a zoom under 50mm.

 

[MarkEvan]

You could go with sigma or tamron, ie the sigma 10-20 at 300ish or the tamron 17-50 at 250ish.

 

[saxk]

yer why all the EF lenses

for a wide id recommend the tamron 17-50 2.8

to be honest, i had the same to spend, but not all at once, i got whats in my signature, and for about £500 i think its a great setup, not budget/noob gear, but a great set of lenses that i wouldn't change for anything.

unless i win the lotto

 

[markta]

By buying EF lenses, if the user wants to upgrade to a full frame body in future then they'll work, but EF-S glass won't.

IMHO, the 10-22 is too wide on a cropped sensor, and I'd personally go for the 17-40L for landscapes out of that lot, but that's just me Added to the fact that the 17-40 on a full frame camera is apparently wonderful.

As for wildlife, you really need the longest focal length you can get.

Now, here's the quandry....the 70-200L will take either a 1.4 x or 2x converter to make the longest focal length 320mm or 400mm respectively at an aperture of f5.6 or f8 respectively.

On a 40D, this'll mean that if you use a 2x on it, you will have to manually focus the lens

With the 70-300mm non l series, it won't take a converter IIRC, so you're left with maximum FL of 300mm..

Final tip, there's a trader on this site called Kerso who sells most if not all the lens you list at cheaper than you state, so if you do go for the 70-200L, the with the savings, you could certainly factor in a 1.4 x extender..

Hope that helps a little

 

[MJ Stebbings]

You could go with sigma or tamron.

Im with this guy.

That way you can probably get a Sigma 10-20 or 18-50 f2.8, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and a Siggy 70-200 f2.8.

You could also consider a Canon 70-200 F4 in that mix in place of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 too.

If i was in your position then these are the options id look at.

And as for the "If the user wants to go to Full Fram Eventually" i would cross that bridge when/IF it ever came to it.

Dont forget you can grab bargins here or from Second Hand Dealers. Dont go with Ebay!

 

[Craikeybaby]

The two that's I'd go for are the 17-40 and the 70-200, but obviously that blow the budget out of the water...

The 17-40 is spot on for landscapes, so I would get this. The 70-200 would be OK for portraits at the short end, and wildlife at the long end, although you might find yourself wanting something a little bit longer. But it is a useful range to have which covers both portrait and wildlife, I wouldn't be too worried about the lack of IS, just make sure that the shutter speed is faster than 1/focal length.

However if the budget isn't flexible enough to get both my advice would be to get the 17-40 as it is a great lens. Then get a 50mm for portaits, it is a nice focal length for this as well as having the wide aperture. The rest can then be spent on a 70/75-300 for wildlife. I have a cheap Canon one that has done me well, but the sigma version is also rated. You will end up wanting a 70-200 eventually though...