Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15, 2007, 8:21 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4
Default

I am about to buy the 400D (Body Only) and can afford around £800 for the lens. The only problem is I'm torn between about 4! I do know a reasonable amount about photography but need some advice on which lens will produce best results.

I've been looking at lenses with Image Stabillisers but do I really need this featureif I'm only shooting at an average focal lenght? Ideally I would like a lens that has amaximum aperture of2.8f and an Image Stabilliser but this doesn't seem to be available!

Lenses I'm toying between currently are:

EF 24-70mmf/2.8L USM / EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM / EF24-105mm f/4.0 LIS USM / 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM / EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 ISM USM

Lack of zoom isslightly less important to methan IS and aperture. Someone pleasehelp!

Matt
MattyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 15, 2007, 8:59 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Matt,

what is your intended use for the lens? What types of photography? That will help drive what focal length is appropriate, what shutter speeds you'll be using (that combined with focal length can help determine whether IS is essential).

For what it's worth, you identified the 17-55 2.8 IS USM - that fits your 2 stated criteria of 2.8 and having IS. But without knowing your intended uses it's impossible to know whether it's the right focal length.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2007, 4:16 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Hi John

Firstly, thanks very much for your help!

I normally take landscapeand potraitsplus a fewmacro shots (ie beaches, family,flowers, animals)but would like to be able to take decentshots at night without using a tripod as I find them a real pain! I probably wouldn't make use of a wide angle lens as Imainly shoot between 24-85mm.

I've reduced the choices by oneto:

EF 24-70mmf/2.8L USM / EF24-105mm f/4.0 LIS USM / 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM / EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 ISM USM

At the moment I'm favouring the EF24-105mm IS USM as it will probably give me the most scope (especially if I can't afford a telephoto for 12 months or so!!)My mate said not to bother with the 17-55mm unless I'm constantly shooting in low light.

What do you think?

Cheers, Matt
MattyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2007, 5:35 PM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Hi Matty,

Firstly you are unlikely to get night shots without a tripod even with IS as exposures generally are in the multiple of seconds not fractions there of.

Next I think you will find that 24mm is not going to be wide enough for landscapes due to the crop of the APS-C sensor in a 400D so the 24mm becomes 38.4mm which is quite long.

I would suggest you want two lenses to really do what you want..... thinking outside of the box for a moment you could go with something like the Sigma or Tamron wide zooms (no IS but still good) and then the Canon 70-300mm IS USM.

Hope that helps,

Mark.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 1:29 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Hi Mark

Perhaps I should reconsider theEF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM then!?!I don't really know how muchimprovementI'll get from an'L' Lensso I don't know whether I should be factoring this into the decision as well? Not so keen on going for a Sigma or Tamron Lens - not sure why though!

I get lost when in comes Digital SLRs and still don't really understand why the image is cropped - please can you explain? Maybe I should stick with film! (Ha ha) The camera is generally sold with an 18-55mm Lens so maybe the EF-S17-55mm f/2.8IS USMis still in the running as itticks most of the critera.

It's only the lack of zoom that may hamper me with the 17-55mmbut I guess I can always fix that with a zoomLensfurther down the road as you suggested. It probably isn't realistic to try and kill 2 birds with one stone!

Thanks for your help. Please let me know what you think.




MattyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 1:38 PM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

why image gets cropped:

OK, a lens creates an image circle designed to fill a 35mm negative. Sensors in most DSLRs are SMALLER than 35mm. So, the image falls off the edge of the sensor. Its like shining a flashlight on a 15" square table and the light just touches the edges of the table. Now, without moving the flashlight take that table away and replace it with a 10" square table - part of the light falls off the table. Similar here. The smaller sensor does not capture the image at the outer edge of the image circle. So the resulting image when viewed looks like it was cropped down.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 1:40 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

24-105 is a good lens on a 5D. On a 400D it shud be a great lens for the amount of light fall in a FF is not there on a cropped sensor.

ihave the 24-105 and atleast 90% of the time it stays except during low light portraits when the 85L sits on it. Its a very versatile lens. And since u have mentioned u wouldnt be going wider than 24, i would suggest 24-105 as a good walk around lens.

It also does some decent macro. Not 1:1 life size macro but decent enuff.

The other options 17-85 is also very good. I had that lens with my 30D. The lens is very versatile and does a decent macro too.

For night shots, there is a differene between portraits and landscapes. U can still get hand held portraits with a 17-55 IS. For land scapes as mark said u will mostly expose for like 2 or 3 secs to get a good snap. So there IS or F2.8 doesnt matter.


nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 7:06 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

John, good analogy.

Matty, personally I would not go for the 17-85 Canon as it is quite a dark lens the 17-55 would be much better. I use both Canon and Sigma lenses (4 Sigma and 2 Canon are in my bag.... well the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 does not fit but you know what I mean). If you check out reviews you will see for quite sensible money you will get some nice glass from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina but you won't get IS apart from some of the more 'general' lenses which are of lower spec than you are looking. However if you were to get a 17-50 (ish) mm f2.8 you will do pretty well in most lighting conditions with the high ISO that the Canon can work at. Obviously you can go quite a bit slower with the shutter speeds on top of this by having IS in the Canon lenses.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:21 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks very much for all your help guys.

I just need to ask each of you: If you were buying the 400D and you had to chose justone ofthe lenses on my list (irrespective of price), which one would it be bearing in mind that 2 of them are L grade leses?

Matt
MattyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:23 AM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

24-105. Of the lenses this provides the most useful range IMO while still providing high quality results and a respectable constant f4
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:03 PM.