New Camera - Would like some advice about lenses please

[chump1979]

Hi all,

This is my first post.

I am fairly new to photography. Last year i took a gap year and travelled the world and developed a love for photography. Sadly I only had an Ixus 55 but managed notheless to take some pretty good photos (from a technical not quality point of view).

Now i have returned I want to buy a DSLR. I have been reading around now for weeks and feel that I am almost ready to make a purchase.

I am opting for the Canon 40d. I know many people might say that this is way overkill for a first DSLR but I want to buy something that will last and that I can 'grow into' as i get better.

The big problem i'm having is selecting appropriate lenses for it.

Now money is not really a problem but i'm not going to be spending over £1000 on a single lens.

Some people say that the 'L' lenses are not worth it on a APS-C camera (due to the lack of full frame) and to stick with the 'EF-S' lenses. First i would like to know if this is true. Would i be wasting my money as I have my eye on the 1.6 24-105mm L which in the UK is just within what I'm willing to pay for a single decent quality lens. The focal range is appealing as is the large apperture it offers for dim shots.

My second question is that I presume i will also need a telephoto lens to accompany this lens? I think the lens above will give me the equivalent focal length of 105 * 1.6 = 168mm (if my reading has taught me anything?) so it would kind of give me an almost near telephoto lens as it is?

The types of photos that i'll be taking are wildlife, scenery (landscapes and buildings) and some portrait work (photos of animals at close distance).

Sorry for the essay but i wanted to tell you as much as i could so that it helped to assist me.

In a nutshell i would like to know which lenses i should go for and if the 'L' series lenses are worth buying for my choice of the Canon 40d?

Thanks
Marc

 

[2blue4u]

I have my eye on the 1.6 24-105mm L

I think you mean the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. I've recently acquired a 40D and that very lens. My thinking was that I can't afford a bag full of lens (unlike some on here) so what I do get will be quality items chosen with the long term view. To this end I also decided on EF just in case I happen across a full-frame Canon at some time in the future.

I bought a DSLR about 3 years ago and deliberated long and hard before opting for something other than Canon. I've now bitten the bullet and have started the ever so long and expensive journey collecting Canon glass.

 

[StewartR]

Some people say that the 'L' lenses are not worth it on a APS-C camera (due to the lack of full frame) and to stick with the 'EF-S' lenses. First i would like to know if this is true. Would i be wasting my money as I have my eye on the 1.6 24-105mm L which in the UK is just within what I'm willing to pay for a single decent quality lens. The focal range is appealing as is the large apperture it offers for dim shots.

Hi Marc, and welcome to TP. I hope you brought some money.

I don't know who these "some people" are, but they're idiots.

Canon only make a handful of EF-S lenses. They are basically designed to fit into two niches which the usual EF lenses can't serve:
(a) Inexpensive lenses such as the for people who have bought a 400D, want a couple of lenses to cover a decent range of focal lengths.
(b) Ultra-wide focal lengths that would be prohibitively expensive if they were made to fit full-frame cameras.

The new EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS and the new EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS "kit" lens are examples of type (a); Canon is putting a cheap version of IS into these lenses as a marketing gimmick to counter the in-body IS that Sony and Pentax offer, but these lenses aren't really aimed at the discerning enthusiast.

On the other hand the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM are examples of type (b); both have great reputations for image quality - I can vouch for the 10-22, it's superb - and might be "L" lenses if Canon allowed EF-S lenses to be "L". (But it doesn't.)

90% of the Canon range is EF, not EF-S. There are some very very good lenses there that aren't "L" either; the 50mm f/1.4 USM which I have is one of them. The 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is another. So don't get hung up about whether a lens is EF-S, EF, or "L". Just consider whether it meets your needs at a price you can afford.

The EF 24-105mm L IS USM has a very good reputation. However, on a 40D it won't be very wide, and I suggest it won't be particularly good for landscapes, buildings etc. And the long end of it isn't very long; I don't know what kind of wildlife you envisage photographing, but most wildlife needs a longer lens than this. It is a great focal length for portaits, but a maximum aperture of f/4 isn't particularly fast and it won't be great in poor light unless the subject is stationary where the IS will help you. (OK for people portraits; perhaps less good for baby or cat portraits!)

This lens is a sort of jack-of-all-trades, but probably a master of very few. For landscapes and buildings, an EF 17-40mm f/4 L or even an EF-S 10-22mm would give you many more possibilities. For portraits, the EF 50mm f/1.8 "nifty fifty" is stupidly sharp for its price and good in low light. (The EF 50mm f/1.4 is even better, but not so cheap.) For wildlife, you'd probably want to be looking at something that goes out to 200mm or even longer; all four flavours of 70-200mm L (f/2.8 or f/4, IS or non-IS) are very good, and the 100-400mm IS is also very good.

I hope that gives you some food for thought.

 

[chump1979]

Thanks for taking time to reply Stewart. You have definitely helped me narrow down the type of lenses that I am going to be needing. A wide angle, mid-range general purpose zoom lens and a telephoto.

It's funny as I was looking at the EF 50mm f/1.8 as it is very cheap and i have heard nothing but good things about it. So you have helped to confirm this.

I think the biggest expense will be the telephoto lens. I want to get a good one!

Just one final question - if I want to do macro work - without splashing out on a specific lens immediately (good knows the lot above is going to cost enough ) will any of them be suitable for reasonable macro shots?

Thanks again
Marc

 

[Galaxy66]

I have the 40D 24-105 IS L combination, the 24 -105 being my walkabout lens. I also have the 70-300 IS for longer range.
A good start for you may be the 40d 17-85 IS kit which I have just bought via Dixons online using, at the time a discount code, (the lens went to my son) you could add the 70-300 IS and if you buy the lens from KERSO the whole kit including the caskback would, at a guess not be much more than £1000

 

[andrewc]

I've got a 30D and a 24-105IS L. The L series lens is excellent. You won't be disappointed with it. 50mm f1.8 is also a good buy.

Landscapes may require a wider angle. Wildlife will need longer reach.

 

[WildWalker]

Hi Chump.

As has been mentioned, whoever said 'L' series are not really worth it, even though its a crop sensor, were really talking rubbish.

I just want to reiterate some of what has been said, so here goes.

1. Don't bother with EF-S lenses, when you upgrade your body (and if your love for photography persists, you will upgrade) then you will have a bunch of lenses you can not use on your new body.

2. For a wide lens you have the 17-40 F4.0L and the newer 16-35 F2.8, which is double the price. As you will be using the wider lens for (i'm guessing from your list) the landscape images, Speed on this lens may not be an issue, so F4 will be fine, although you'll probably never use F4 for landscapes anyway

3. Longer lens, for wildlife, longer is better, the 100-400 F4-5.6 will fit in your budget, or you can blow a few grand on a 600mm F4 Sigma do a sub £1,000 500mm lens, i've held one but not really used one so won't comment on quality. I have the 100-400mm F4-5.6L and it's a great lens, and it is image stabilised.

4. Portrait is an interesting one, you have so many options. I have used my 100-400 for portraits, the effect you get is brilliant. Don't use anything too wide and it can distort peoples faces/heads if you are quite close (they can get a sort of peanut shaped head). In the old days 135 was touted as the 'portrait' lens length. So on a 1.6 crop factor you are looking at about 85mm. Canon do an 85mm F1.2 and F1.8 (or is it 1.4, cant remember) which works at at 136mm The 85mm F1.2 is amazing, the DoF is superb at F1.2. Can be a bit of a nightmare to use with flash though, its smallest aperture is only F16. So maybe the 85mm F1.8, but it's not an L lens, so again I don't know about it's quality.

Happy shopping

 

[StewartR]

1. Don't bother with EF-S lenses, when you upgrade your body (and if your love for photography persists, you will upgrade) then you will have a bunch of lenses you can not use on your new body.

Mmmm. Lots of people say this. I'm not convinced. Yes, in time you may wish to upgrade your camera body, but how likely is it that you're going to want a 5D or a 1D? Most people don't. But also, even if you think you can see a 5D or a 1D in your future, I would suggest that there is one EF-S lens which is worth buying, regardless. That is the 10-22mm zoom. I find that 17mm, which is about as wide as you can go affordably in EF lenses, just isn't particularly wide on crop-sensor cameras like your 40D and my 350D. The 10-22mm is w-i-i-i-de and I love it for that reason. I figure that if I ever want to go full-frame, I can sell it for a reasonable amount, and in the mean time I'm getting a lot of use out of it.