Value for Money

[Frankrsc]

Greetings,

I've just joined this forum as I'm about to take the plunge and buy a digital SLR (probably Canon 40D) to replace my trusty 35 year old Pentax ME outfit. In researching this it's become obvious that lenses are much heavier, and in real terms more expensive, than they used to be.

I would therefore appreciate your combined wisdom on the compromises between cost, weight and performance for IS vs non-IS Canon lenses to cover the (35mm equivalent) range of 28-200mm. In particular, what would be the pros and cons of buying a non-IS 28-70 and an IS 70-200?

Thanks for your help.

 

[mmcp42]

the IS flavour is excellent
means a you can use a shutter speed much slower than "normal" and get no camera shake
normal = 1/focal length
so @ 200mm you should use 1/200
with IS you can use 1/100 or even 1/50

I have 70-200 2.8 IS L - stunning piece of kit
and you can see the difference with IS turned on
even through the viewfinder

ps - welcome

 

[Yv]

cant really comment on Canon though I know 'L' glass is raved about round these parts as being significantly better than standard and worth the extra cost.

However, the real point of this post is to welcome you to digital and to the forum.

 

[RobbieW]

I don't use IS lenses on my camera (40D), I knwo the main benefit is being able to use slower shutter speeds, but with the 40D if you crank up the ISO to 500 or even 800 the noise appears very minimal.

Welcome to the forum

Rob

 

[Chillimonster]

I don't use IS lenses on my camera (40D), I knwo the main benefit is being able to use slower shutter speeds, but with the 40D if you crank up the ISO to 500 or even 800 the noise appears very minimal.

Welcome to the forum

Rob

Similar to me,

I went for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 (non IS) as it is on a par with the Canon L lens (according to most tests), is cheaper and is black so you're not advertising that you have an expensive bit of kit.

The money i saved over the 'L' got me a matched 1.4x Sigma TC for when i need more reach

 

[StewartR]

Welcome, Frank.

Don't forget that cameras like the 40D have smaller sensors than a frame of 35mm film. That means that, for any given focal length, the field of view will be smaller than you're used to with your Pentax. The multiplier is 1.6, so 28-200mm on your Pentax translates to 18-125mm on a Canon D40.

Here's what the effect looks like.

The 70-200mm zoom will feel much longer than you're expecting. That won't be a bad thing. And in any case Canon doesn't make any decent lenses that zoom out to around 125mm. (The 28-135mm IS is more of a "budget" lens.) All four versions of the 70-200mm have great reputations for image quality, but I can't comment on value for money.

However the 28-70mm zoom probably won't be wide enough for you: on the 40D, 28mm isn't far short of a "normal" lens rather than a wide-angle. Unfortunately it's not clear how best to fill this niche:
- The 17-40mm L has a good reputation, but it's only f/4.
- The 16-35mm L is f/2.8, but it would leave you with an awkward gap between 35 and 70mm. (Maybe the 50mm f/1.4? Great lens.)
- The 17-55mm IS goes to f/2.8 and might be worth looking at, but I don't know anything about it.
- Or there's the Sigma 17-70mm, which is f/2.8 at the wide end and has a reputation that belies its price.

Hope this gives you some food for thought. And welcome to TP!

 

[kingborris]

- The 17-55mm IS goes to f/2.8 and might be worth looking at, but I don't know anything about it.

This gets very good reviews, as its basically L glass quality, apart from perhaps the actual build quality (eg, no weatherproofing). I have just got one for my 40D, but havent tried it out in earnest yet. Not the cheapest or lightest bit of kit mind.

 

[Frankrsc]

Guys (and gals),

Thanks for your replies. You have raised a couple of points over which there are clearly a range of opinions:
1) Is it perfectly possible to live without IS, given the greater sensitivity of CCD over film?
2) Is there a significant difference in quality (ie worth the extra cash) between the better third party lenses and Canon L glass?

This has already given me food for thought - any other views to add to the mix?

 

[pxl8]

I've never really understood the value of IS on shorter lenses. For example, indoors with an 18mm lens you can hand hold without IS at 1/20s - IS gives you another 3 stops so that's down to around 1/2s hand held. Great, but what about subject blur?

IS on a longer lens makes much more sense.

 

[RobertP]

I'd suggest getting the camera with kit lens. Play with it for a month then decide on lens choices once you know the camera.

If you buy a used lens (ebay or the classifieds here) and don't get on with it you can always sell it again for the same money.

 

[StewartR]

2) Is there a significant difference in quality (ie worth the extra cash) between the better third party lenses and Canon L glass?

Significant? Hard to say. You need to look at each instance individually.

For example, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is reputed to be very good. Perhaps not quite as good as the Canon version (if you can still get the non-IS version) but still very good, and better than say 90% of the lenses out there. (That 90% figure is just a guess for illustration, BTW.) But different people will approach the quality/cost trade-off differently.