Lens choices

[elspedo]

Hi all I’m starting a photography degree in September and having bought a canon 40D while the cash back offer is on I’m now faced with the choice of buying my first lens/lens’, as I’m a student I’m not on the best budget maybe £1500 for two good solid lens’. Firstly I need a good standard zoom lens my thoughts on them were:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI LD ASP

Have read some good reviews of this lens when compared to others in its class and at only £240 it’s a great price!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens

This lens is almost triple the price BUT does have IS and is a canon L lens so obviously better build quality etc, is the image quality any better? I is also double 55mm longer but I think I would miss the 7mm at the other end quite a bit more.

They are my first choices for standard zoom, if anyone has any thoughts please feel free to add them.

As a second lens my first thoughts draw me towards a telephoto lens as I enjoy wildlife/bird photography probably more so than anything else, my thoughts for this are:

Canon EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM

This is small and lightweight compared to others but I feel it is lacking the range I need, but maybe with a 2x TC?

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Have been told this is the best all in one wildlife lens you can get at a sensible price?

Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

New one just released from sigma, an extra 100mm at the long end but some reviews say it gets a little soft past 400, is it worth having the extra 100mm if it’s soft?

Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM

Range very similar to the canon L lens but at £400 cheaper! Both the sigma offerings are relatively new so I am unable to find to much information on them to get a good picture on if they are worth it.

If anyone has got any thoughts on any of these lens’ then please help me out

Jak

[prinothcat]

Between the 24-105 and the 17-50, I suspect you will miss that wide end. The 40d is a 1.5 crop DSLR is it not? If so 24mm is going to be like the 50mm lens you shot on 35mm, not wide angle at all. You will probably also like the faster f-stop on the Tamron. In general lenses are a (if not the) primary influence on image quality aside from technique. Be willing to pay a bit more and you will likely get better results.... (Your mileage may vary and others will argue opposing views).

A point to remember is that unless you are purchasing lenses designed for 1.5 crop factor camera (usually they will have some indication that they are designed for digital cameras...) the lenses will actually functionally be 1.5 times longer than the stated focal length. Therefore your 100-400 becomes a 150-650. In these focal ranges IS becomes a really necessity in low light or you will be forced to shoot wide open often the least sharp apertures, and/or at very high ISO which can lead to image degradation, or visual noise. Perhaps you will even find need for a tripod or some other support.

Many folks shoot sigma stuff and it works just fine while others have problems with quality control and mechanical performance. They seem to be very hit or miss. I avoid them. For wildlife shooting to me f/5.6 is going to be too slow. Again you will be often shooting those lenses wide open (see above).

The 70-200 f 4 is supposed to be a very good lens, and then remember the 1.5 crop factor..... personally I think if you can swing this and a good 17-70 (or 17-85) you ought to be set to start out. In my shooting I rarely find I need to get longer than 200mm on a Nikon 1.6 crop body. I actually find I want more wide end than my 18 gives me. Theres an 11mm or 12mm something in my future. Feel free to look at my stuff here (linked at bottom) to see. Most of the shots I have uploaded are full frame, shot on a Nikon D200 which is approximately the same sensor size as your 40D i believe.

Final thought, write to the institution you plan to attend and see if they have a set of guidelines for equipment. You may find they expect you to cover a certain range of focal lengths. You may want to see if there isn't a way to get what you need through the program at perhaps a better then street price.

[dougj]

Prinothcat (Chris) made some vergy good recommendations, I'll add to his comments.

On the 40D IMO you need a decent zoom in the 17-xx range, this is a good general purpose walk around lens. The 24-105 is good on a full frame body, but 24mm on a 1.6 crop body provides an equivalent field of view of 38mm which I don't think is wide enough. Although the difference is only 7mm, on the wide end this is a lot. I don't have experience with Tamron, but the FL range and aperture look OK.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is probably the best zoom that Canon makes today - it gets excellent technical reviews and users seem to almost worship it. I shoot with the older 2.8L IS version, which is a very good lens but at a much higher price. Generally, if someone does not absolutely need f/2.8, the f/4L IS is the one to use. Having said that, it is rarely long enough for birds & other wildlife unless they are captive in a zoo, your backyard, or relatively close in some other setting. The birders I know spend their time usually at 500mm and longer.

The f/4 IS will take a 1.4x TC with minimal loss of image quality, you end up with a 98-280mm lens & a f5.6 maximum aperture. The auto focus will be a little slower, but should be OK. Adding a 2.0xTC is a problem as the maximum aperture now becomes f/8 and the camera will disable its auto focus. There are tricks that can be used to make the camera believe the TC is not mounted, but the AF will usually take a serious hit as there is just not enough subject contrast and light, and the IQ will not be as good. I suggest you avoid this lens if you want to / need to shoot at a FL greater than 280mm.

The 100-400 was introduced 10 years ago and a heck of a lot have been sold. It has an early version of IS and seems to have a wide range of lens to lens variability in terms of IQ. A lot of people really like this lens, I've seen some really excellent nature photography and some not so good stuff as well. You may have to try several copies and pick the best. This lens is overdue for an update or replacement by Canon based on its age and the general trend for improved IQ. Most manufacturers announce/introduce new stuff at major trade shows, the next one is Photokina in Sept. There are rumors and speculation if Canon will introduce a replacement for this or some of their other lenses at this show, only time will tell.

The 2 new Sigmas look interesting. I haven't seen too much on the 120-400, but there are more and more photos & reviews on the 150-500 and it looks like a decent zoom lens. You can check the Canon Lens forum on DPreview.com, there is some good information, examples and a few comparisons.

As Chris suggested, it's a good idea to contact the school and see if they have requirements or recommendations.

I hope this helps, good luck!

[moffetb]

I've settled on two basic lenses, a telephoto zoom and a walk-around zoom. For the telephoto zoom, I use the 100-400 mm IS Canon. it does a really nice job but can be a bear to hand-hold in some lighting situations. I've done a lot of nature and air-show work with it. This is on a Canon Digital Rebel XT. I've had the 100-400 since around 2001 or so I think. I bought it originally for my Canon Elan IIe.

I also use a Tamron 18-250 mm zoom for a walk-around lens. It has pretty much a great range for standard photos. I mostly use the lower 2/3 of the range, but do go out to 250.

This one was taken with the 18-250 mm zoom



this one with the 100-400 mm zoom. I also have a 1.4 tele-converter for this lens, which works well. But use a tripod or monopod.



The big issue will be, are you willing to take the camera and lens out and shoot with them. Shoot enough photos so that you start knowing the system intimately, so you can really see how luck favors the prepared...

Oh yes, one last thing (this is an additional edit). Be careful with the lens/tele-converter combinations. You could very easily end up disabling the auto-focus. A lot of auto-focus systems will only work at faster than f.8. On my Rebel Xt (350D I believe), a 1.4 tele-converter on the 100-400 means I have to manually focus it. When you consider it's at around 800 mm (in 35-mm equivalent), it gets really hard to just hold the thing still enough to focus. Once you get out there, make sure you have a tripod (or at least a strong monopod) to keep things still. A 2x tele-converter gets you out in the 1100 mm 35-mm equivalent. Perhaps someone with lots of experience like Frans Lanting can pull that off, and maybe you can, but I certainly can't.

Brian

[elspedo]

Hi thanks for all your help, reading your comments I believe the best thing to do would be to get the tamron 17-50mm as my standard zoom and maybe wait until September to see if there is a successor to the 100-400 L lens, my main interests are in wildlife photography (why I feel I need the range of the 100-400mm, on my film body I shoot with a 130-250mm and sometimes without a 2x TC this is nowhere near close enough for pictures of small birds etc) and in buildings (which is why I think I would enjoy the extra 7mm at the wide end over the 24-105mm L)

[toosnvetts]

I don't have enough experience to help much. I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM that I absolutely love and it works flawlessly with a Canon 1.4 TC. With that said, I also love birding and am in saving mode for a 500 mm.

For the wide end, I use a Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM. To be honest, I don't use it much but the quality seems very good and it is wide enough on my 1.3 crop camera.

Good luck to you and have fun!

[sheila]

You have been given excellent advice here. Now here is mine The Canon 17-40 is a superb wide angle lens. I did have the 24-105 but, for an unknown reason especially to me, I was never happy with its performance. I sold it and bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS. The earlier non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4 was my first L lens. And, as you can see from my signature, it wasn't the last! Canon L lenses rarely lose their value but bodies do, unfortunately. Having both the non-IS and the IS version of the 70-200, I found no difference in the sharpness between the two. So unless you have a very shaky hand, I would look at the non-IS version as its far cheaper.

Here is a link to images taken with various lenses with my Canon 20D

http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_20d__first_images

Cheers
Sheila

PS Don't rely too heavily on TCs. IMHO, they are not a good substitute for tele lenses! But if you want a TC, buy the Canon 1.4 rather than the 2.0

[jniemann]

I also have the 70-200 f/4L IS. It is probably my favorite lens (along with the 50mm f/1.4). Its small (relatively), very sharp and the autofocus is fast. Also, according to Canon's literature, it has four stops worth of Image Stabilization.

An excellent lens. It also works fine with the 1.4x,as others have pointed out.I have also tried it with 2x, and it is still useful although obviously, you forfeit your autofocus.

The focal length is too short for birds (except for very tame ones), but it is just right for going to the zoo...

[elspedo]

Thanks for all your help think i have decided to get the tamron 17-50mm lens as my walkaround and then add the 100-400mm for my wildlife photography as i will be shooting from a tripod or bird hut most of the time anyway. Thanks again