Lens for Canon 40D

[R.Youden]

Well I have managed to get a Canon 40D 'cheep' from a friend who upgraded to a 5D (I think). Now he has kept all of his lenses so i now have a body with no lens.

I am not new to DSLRs (I have used the old 300D extensively) so I know my way around one and I am just wanting some advice on the best lens to get.

I have a sensible budget, if the proce difference between two lenses can be justified.

I will be shooting a bit of everything really, but I imagine most of the stuff will be mainly wildlife.

Really the aim of this camera is to use it as a stepping stone so I get comfortable using a more advanced camera and just have a good play around and experiment.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Everythingisnt]

Canon USM IS 200mm F/2 L!!

 

[Feverish Flux]

Well I have managed to get a Canon 40D 'cheep' from a friend who upgraded to a 5D (I think). Now he has kept all of his lenses so i now have a body with no lens.

I am not new to DSLRs (I have used the old 300D extensively) so I know my way around one and I am just wanting some advice on the best lens to get.

I have a sensible budget, if the proce difference between two lenses can be justified.

I will be shooting a bit of everything really, but I imagine most of the stuff will be mainly wildlife.

Really the aim of this camera is to use it as a stepping stone so I get comfortable using a more advanced camera and just have a good play around and experiment.

Thanks in advance.

Hard bill to fit, as there are not very many walk-around lenses that are good wildlife lenses.

The EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM isn't bad, though and probably a decent place to get started.

If you had the budget, the 24-70 2.8l and the 100-400l would be a nice rig.

Canon USM IS 200mm F/2 L!!

Not really good advice, considering what he wants to do with the lens.

 

[oblomow]

I am not new to DSLRs (I have used the old 300D extensively) so I know my way around one and I am just wanting some advice on the best lens to get.


I will be shooting a bit of everything really, but I imagine most of the stuff will be mainly wildlife.


Thanks in advance.

You still have the lenses of your old 300D? use them.
Otherwise, for wildlife, get a 70-200, or a 200 prime. They're not (really)
expensive, and great for wildlife. If it's the real big & shy wildlife you're after, you better save for a 100-400.

 

[R.Youden]

You still have the lenses of your old 300D? use them.
Otherwise, for wildlife, get a 70-200, or a 200 prime. They're not (really)
expensive, and great for wildlife. If it's the real big & shy wildlife you're after, you better save for a 100-400.

The 300D belongs to my girlfriend, but I borrowed it extensively

Yeah I was looking at a 70-200 range lens. I had also considered the idea of getting an extender at some point. Either the 1.4x or 2x but I have heard mixed reports about the quality and the 2x looses the auto focus.

 

[Everythingisnt]

Not really good advice, considering what he wants to do with the lens.

Jk

 

[oblomow]

The 300D belongs to my girlfriend, but I borrowed it extensively

Yeah I was looking at a 70-200 range lens. I had also considered the idea of getting an extender at some point. Either the 1.4x or 2x but I have heard mixed reports about the quality and the 2x looses the auto focus.

Ah. There's also the 70-300 if you don't like to use the extender. It's nice, but slower (in 2 ways) and not as robust as the other alternatives. I recently
got a (secondhand) 200/2.8 and really like it. Fast, sharp, build like a tank and not too large, heavy (or white....)

 

[ButtUglyJeff]

My primary lens is my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (Sigma has a similar lens), but its far from what a "nature lover" would want to use. I've recently been tempted by Tamron's 70-200mm f/2.8, but I know I couldn't hold it steady without a tripod or monopod. They are quite significant in size and weight........


I've seen some nice "primes" on eBay recently, a nice 135mm or 200mm might be up your alley............

 

[harcosparky]

The 300D belongs to my girlfriend, but I borrowed it extensively

Yeah I was looking at a 70-200 range lens. I had also considered the idea of getting an extender at some point. Either the 1.4x or 2x but I have heard mixed reports about the quality and the 2x looses the auto focus.

An extender may do well with the 70-200 2.8L, but that lens is probably more $$$ than you want to spend. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS, however if I want to 'kick around' in the woods with a hand carried camera, I put a 75-300 IS USM lens on my 40D, not the fastest lens ... but is is compact and lightweight enough.

If I am gonna get close to small things, like insects I use a Tamron 180mm f/3.5 Macro lens.

 

[R.Youden]

Thanks for your replies.

I have been looking around the t'initerweb and I like the look of the Canon 70-200 and 70-300.

Does anyone have any experience with these lenses:

Canon EF 70-200 f4.0

Canon EF 70-300 f4.0

I like the sound of the 70-200, a number of reviews comment on the build quality and if I am spending the good end of £350-400 on a lens then I want something that will last.

 

[Kebabselector]

I have the 70-200, not heard of any build quality issues? Anyway superb lens, it's never let me down. Nice and light, it lacks the IS of the 70-300 but personally I think for £400 you won't get a better lens.

Only problem your lens selection is the wide angle, you should really look at something in the range of 18-70 as well. Though this dent your finances a bit.

One lens to consider (as its cheap) is the new Canon EFS 18-55mmF3.5/5.6 IS (£115 from AJ Purdy). It's the new kit lens for the 450D, often kit lenses are derided as poor but this one seems to be getting more positive results. Alternatively you could even get the cheaper kit lens (18-55 - £59 from Purdy's - A lot of people do slate this lens, but for most it is fine.).

If you go this route then you might want to consider the Canon EFS 55-250mmF4/5.6 IS as well. You could get both the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS for less than £400

As for extenders, the Canon ones will only work with the certain lenses (the 70-200 being one of them). 3rd party extenders might work, but you'd need to check that out.

Oh, welcome to SLR ownership - it's the easy way to spend money

 

[harcosparky]

Thanks for your replies.

I have been looking around the t'initerweb and I like the look of the Canon 70-200 and 70-300.

Does anyone have any experience with these lenses:

Canon EF 70-200 f4.0

Canon EF 70-300 f4.0

I like the sound of the 70-200, a number of reviews comment on the build quality and if I am spending the good end of £350-400 on a lens then I want something that will last.

The 70-200 is f/4.0 continuous through the zoom range. It is the "L" lens, I had one, used it for a while until I upgraded to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.

The second one is what I mentioned in my post above - it is 70-300 f/4.0 - f/5.6. This is the one I use when I go hiking in the woods.

The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens - being the "L" series it has a lot of advantage. Just doesnt have the reach of the 70-300.

If you were to put both on a tripod, take some pics at 70mm and 200mm I think you'd jump on the 70-200 in a heartbeat.

Handheld, I don't know ... it depends on how steady you are.

I guess you need to decide if 200mm is gonna be strong enough for you. If it is then by all means go for the 70-200.

If you can swing the finances, I would hold out for the 70-200 f/2.0 - it is available WITHOUT 'IS'.

I think the 4.0 lens is about $600 and the 2.8 lens about $1200.

But to your question.

I had owned and used both you asked about. Still have the 70-300, I upgraded the 70-200 to the f/2.8 model.

EDIT - I have an older 70-300 without the IS - and when I say it is old, it is. My son uses it now, and he is tough on things. I am surprised it is still working well for him.

Build quality is important. You need to decide what your use level will be. If it will be used an awful lot, go for the "L" series lens. If you are a casual shooter, maybe 1-2 days a week, you may not need the "L".

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well, for large wildlife such as moose and bears that are not far from you, the EF 200mm f/2.8L prime is good, since you can use a 1.4x teleconverter when needed for smaller wildlife at closer ranges. It's a L lens, but not as water-tight as the "white" L lenses. However, it costs $660.00 or so.

You can also use a teleconverter on the excellent and more expensive (and heavier) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L, at a cost of approximately $1,664.

But the EF-300mm f/2.8L IS prime, coupled to a 1.4x teleconverter is even better, and costs more at $3,899.00. However, it closes the distance through top L glass by 100mm greater than the other lenses. This is my "dream baby," since i could not afford buying the "dream baby" of the rich, the EF 400 f/2.8L IS USM ($6350 ).

 

[R.Youden]

Well, for large wildlife such as moose and bears that are not far from you, the EF 200mm f/2.8L prime is good, since you can use a 1.4x teleconverter when needed for smaller wildlife at closer ranges. It's a L lens, but not as water-tight as the "white" L lenses. However, it costs $660.00 or so.

You can also use a teleconverter on the excellent and more expensive (and heavier) EF 70-200mm f/2.8L, at a cost of approximately $1,664.

But the EF-300mm f/2.8L IS prime, coupled to a 1.4x teleconverter is even better, and costs more at $3,899.00. However, it closes the distance through top L glass by 100mm greater than the other lenses. This is my "dream baby," since i could not afford buying the "dream baby" of the rich, the EF 400 f/2.8L IS USM ($6350 ).

Unfortunately there are not many moose or bear in the middle of England (for maybe fortunately depending upon your point of view). I am looking at the EF 70-200mm f4, I have found it at a good price and I can 'borrow' a smaller lens from my better half.

Thanks for everyone's advice, hopefully I will get the collection together soon and have some good photos to show you.

 

[scotthayes]

The 70-200 f/4 L was my first decent lens and it's a stunner. Until I bought it I didn't really understand just how much difference a lens can make. I'd say go for it over the 70-300.

Depending on your budget (and you can get the 70-200 f/4 L off ebay for at least £100 less than somewhere like Jessops) I'd also look at the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for less than £300 it's a cracker.

 

[seniorstinky]

I'd recommend reading the reviews on the 55-250 f4-5.6 lens. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543923-USA/Canon_2044B002_EF_S_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html

It's not particularly fast but has an excellent price point. Also, note that it is EF-S, which means it is only good with the 40D (and earlier) and Digital Rebel bodies.

 

[miloblithe]

I was really pleased with the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS that I got before a recent trip to Namibia. For the price ($280), it's a really impressive lens. Nothing is going to come close to it at its price in terms of IQ on a Canon mount. From the reviews I've read, it compares very well to the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, making the 70-300 not really worth the price (it's almost twice as much). Sure it's a far cry from the 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS, but it's 1/4 or 1/7 as much. On the other hand, it the 70-200 f/4 IS is within your budget, that lens sounds awesome. The non-IS version is also extremely well regarded. Again, it's a matter of budget. For half the price, you get IS and a little more reach, albeit with much much worse build and worse image quality.

I also have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 lens recommended above. I really like this lens. Definitely in a different class than the 55-250 in terms of build quality and having a constant aperture lens is definitely nicer than dealing with variable aperture lenses. On the other hand, 24mm is not at all wide on a Canon 1.6x crop camera. If you're not that interested in wide (I'm not), then it's a great lens. A disadvantage of this lens is that it's pretty big and heavy for a lens that covers a normal field of view. It definitely reduces my motivation to just throw my camera in my bag every day.

Another advantage of both of these lenses is that they are semi-macro lenses (around 1:2.5). The 55-250 is great for shots of butterflies and things like that (fast, skittish creatures). The 24-70 also great for things that don't require a lot of working distance.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Unfortunately there are not many moose or bear in the middle of England (for maybe fortunately depending upon your point of view). I am looking at the EF 70-200mm f4, I have found it at a good price and I can 'borrow' a smaller lens from my better half.

Thanks for everyone's advice, hopefully I will get the collection together soon and have some good photos to show you.

But you have animals that are nearly as large a moose, don't you? For example, red stag are found in Europe, bears are found in Russia as well as in some European countries, etc. There are horses in England, cows, etc. I mentioned large game like moose and bears, to give you an idea of what a telephoto lens can do for you. For example, I was approximately 50 yards from this subject when I took this photo through an EF 200mm f/2.8L prime, the the subject almost filled the entire frame.

A horse at the same distance would have still filled the frame at least by half.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Thanks for your replies.

I have been looking around the t'initerweb and I like the look of the Canon 70-200 and 70-300.

Does anyone have any experience with these lenses:

Canon EF 70-200 f4.0

Canon EF 70-300 f4.0

I like the sound of the 70-200, a number of reviews comment on the build quality and if I am spending the good end of £350-400 on a lens then I want something that will last.

The problem I see with these lenses is as follows: if you use an extender it will turn each lens into a f/8. Otherwise they are fine. A 70-200 f/2.8 is a much better lens in relation to light gathering, and win an extender it's still a f/4 lens. There are certain features on the camera that won't work with a f/8 lens in some instances. You can read the details somewhere in this web site:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=97056

 

[Kebabselector]

The 70-200 will be f/5.6 with the 1.4x and F8 with the 2x

Only Eos 1 and 3 series will autofocus at f8, the rest at f/5.6. There is a trick for other bodies, you need to tape over the some Lens contacts, but the AF will be very slow.

 

[R.Youden]

OK, well thanks for all your advice.

Anyway I took a few photos over the weekend with my new set up and I am pretty pleased for the first time with the camera.

Linky

Let me know what you think.

 

[Kebabselector]

Nice, I like this one.

 

[brendanryder]

200mm is not a whole lot of reach for wildlife.

if u could afford it you could get a used canon 100-400 and a sigma 24-70.