New 40d owner - lens query

I initially bought a Sony A350 on the basis of reviews. Not the camera for me but thanks to Amazonn I was able to return it. I am now the very happy owner of a 40d (why did'nt you tell me what a wonderfull image maker it was !) Just a couple of questions on lenses. I have bought the 35mm f2 for low light ( can hardly believe even the 1600 quality ) would the 28 1.8 have been a better choice? and in particular would it match the 35 at f2?. I need another landscape/general p;urpose lens and essentially the choice is between a 24mm 2.8 or the new 18.55 IS kit lens. Could any lack of sharpness ect in the kit be compensated for in post processing? What would be your choice? Because of cost and especially weight I don't really want a f2.8 zoom.

Any views welcome

Regards

Willim

My choice for landscapes is 17-40L f4. This is one of the best lenses I own and it doesn't cost a fortune. It works best on full frame but it also works well on my 40D.

JMHO

Fred

Agree 100% with 17-40mm lens. Attached is shot taken this fall up north. Sharp from corner to corner.

http://picasaweb.google.com/home
--
Ryan

Willim said:

I have bought the 35mm f2 for low light ( can hardly believe
even the 1600 quality ) would the 28 1.8 have been a better choice?

Click to expand...

Only you can answer that question; it depends on your FOV preference.

Willim said:

and in particular would it match the 35 at f2?. I need another
landscape/general p;urpose lens and essentially the choice is between
a 24mm 2.8 or the new 18.55 IS kit lens. Could any lack of sharpness
ect in the kit be compensated for in post processing? What would be
your choice? Because of cost and especially weight I don't really
want a f2.8 zoom.

Click to expand...

For a general purpose landscape lens the 17-40 is darn tough (maybe impossible) to beat; it's sharp and reasonably light-weight.

FWIW the 28-135 is my general purpose walk-around lens when I have no advance clue regarding the photo opportunities I might run into. If I need a wider FOV and conditions are accommodating, then I shoot a pano sequence. The 135mm end has saved my "you know what" many times when I've been on cruises and wanted to travel light with only one lens and body.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

I'm going to risk making you mad and tell you what you need to know, rather than what you want to know. The thing to do is to save up and get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. There is no way on earth you would regret it. Nothing touches it for a standard walk-around lens. This lens has you covered for all situations (low light, image stabilization, sharp center to border, short to long, open to closed). It does cost more than what you are looking for. But, trust me; it is the thing to do for the best combination of image quality and versatility. It is the perfect lens for the 40D.

If you simply can't wait to save up for the best, then I've read that the new EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS series II is very good and sharp for the price.

-Tacksharp

Apoligies for late reply. we had visitors. Thank you to all for your views. The strong message is that I am going to find a zoom more usefull than a fixed lens, OK

Given my reluctance to carry the weight am I likely to be able to correct for some of the kit lens (18/55 IS) short cummings in PP?

Any views on the 35 f2 vs 28 1.8

Can anyone recommend a book/website to help me quickly come to grips with the 40d - shortcuts, foibles ect

Many thanks

Willim

If you like your current 35 F2 never buy a 18-55
You are spoilt already.
Any EF-prime-lens outperforms the ef-s or Ef zoomlens-lineup.

A 'L' zoom will get you somewhere, being it a 17-40 or 24-105.

The 17-55 is the lens to go and indeed will set you back in weight to carry.

100pk said:

A 'L' zoom will get you somewhere, being it a 17-40 or 24-105.

The 17-55 is the lens to go and indeed will set you back in weight to
carry.

Click to expand...

The 17-55 weighs 1.43 lbs. This is 0.33 lb more than the 17-40 and .05 lb less than the 24-105 while being f/2.8 vs. f/4, sharper, and more usable FL. Per Photozone ( http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos ), the 17-55 is far sharper in MTF resolution than the 35 f/2 prime (so be careful with blanket statements about primes vs. EF-S lenses while the 17-55 is around). Price is not horrendous now either ($850 vs. $620 for 17-40, and $962 for 24-105). Small price and weight difference; large performance difference. Think about it...

Also, a good site to compare lenses if you can find them tested with similar bodies is The Digital-Picture.com ( http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2 ).

-Tacksharp

Also, another good site is the following:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

There is a link on the bottom right of the page for all tested lenses.

-Tacksharp

Willim said:

Apoligies for late reply. we had visitors. Thank you to all for your
views. The strong message is that I am going to find a zoom more
usefull than a fixed lens, OK

Click to expand...

Yup!

Willim said:

Given my reluctance to carry the weight am I likely to be able to
correct for some of the kit lens (18/55 IS) short cummings in PP?

Click to expand...

Doubtful but it all depends on how soft that lens is (you can't make up for soft but things like CA and vignetting can be corrected if you use DPP to render RAW files).

Based on MANY comments on this forum the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a very sharp lens; note, I don't own one because it won't work on a FF or 1.26X format body (but I'm still thinking about it). The 17-40 does not come with IS but is a very sharp lens and reasonably priced; I love that lens and use it on my 1DmkII for nearly all of my landscapes.

Willim said:

Any views on the 35 f2 vs 28 1.8

Click to expand...

I don't have any but you might consider asking your question in the Canon Lens Forum.

Willim said:

Can anyone recommend a book/website to help me quickly come to grips
with the 40d - shortcuts, foibles ect

Click to expand...

Read the manual and ask questions on this forum.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

Willim wrote:
Just a couple of questions on

Willim said:

lenses. I have bought the 35mm f2 for low light ( can hardly believe
even the 1600 quality ) would the 28 1.8 have been a better choice?
and in particular would it match the 35 at f2?.

Click to expand...

I had and sold a 28 f1.8 - it wasn't as sharp at any aperture as my 17-40 or 24-105. As I didn't use the low-light abilities very often, I had no reason to keep it. If you don't mind the slower/noisier AF of the 35 f2 - I'd say keep it.
I need another

Willim said:

landscape/general p;urpose lens and essentially the choice is between
a 24mm 2.8 or the new 18.55 IS kit lens. Could any lack of sharpness
ect in the kit be compensated for in post processing? What would be
your choice? Because of cost and especially weight I don't really
want a f2.8 zoom.

Click to expand...

I would also add the 17-40, as others have said. I have some lovely 24" x 16" prints from images taken in London and Paris with a 20D and 17-40, and they are always well received. I'm sure the 17-55IS is as sharp as the 17-40, but if you don't need the f2.8 and aren't keen on the weight/cost, then it may not be the lens for you. I can't comment on the 18-55IS except to say I have seen some excellent images from it, and there was speculation here some time back that this lens bought by itself MAY have been better than those in a kit. I can't see that happening myself, but thought I would mention it.

Willim said:

Any views welcome

Regards

Willim

Click to expand...

--



My 24-520mm IS Superzoom with 1:1 macro

Many thanks indeed to all of you for your advice and resources for further lens information. I will just have to make the hard decision about weight/cost verses comprimised quality and whether I would br happy with the latter.

Again many thanks and happy new year.

Willim

If your budget conscious at all you might want to consider the Tamron 7-50mm f2.8.

This lens is a great lens if you get one that functions correctly. I will warn you that there is a common problem with some of these lenses, that being that they may not focus correctly at or near 17mm... It's not a design flaw, it's some sort of quality control issue it would seem Personally it required the purchase and return of three bad ones before I got one that worked as it should. The fourth that I got and still have is a very sharp lens at all focal lengths, it's darn sharp even wide open. I would put this lens up against ANY other lens in terms of the overall image quality I get from it. Even the build quality is quite good....

Now some have suggested the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS... it too is a great lens. However it comes at a pretty hefty price too... I personally do not really need IS in a lens of this focal length range and I am budget conscious.

I have compared the images I get from my Tamron to many that people have posted here taken with the Canon. I have absolutely no doubt that the Tamron produces images that are just as nice as those from the Canon.

Willim said:

Many thanks indeed to all of you for your advice and resources for
further lens information. I will just have to make the hard decision
about weight/cost verses comprimised quality and whether I would br
happy with the latter.

Again many thanks and happy new year.

Willim

Click to expand...

Hi Glen, thank you for your suggestion. I've had a similiar experience to yourself which has put me off third party lenses - two copies of Sigma 30mm 1.4 and even when returned for calibration still had major focusing problems. I am relucktant to go through that again.

Ki nd regards

Wi;llim

I think the newer aspect of the 17-55 is nicer than the 17-40.
The 17-55 is built for ef-s crop-factor bodies.
Has IS and a fixed aperture of 2.8

Now forget about the wantable red line of the 17-40 and try a 17-55 I would reccommend.

I think the OP has already said that the 17-55 was outside his budget. The suggestion of the 17-40 was to achieve similar IQ at a lower cost. .. hmmmmm L lens as a lower cost alternative - now there's a first !!
--



My 24-520mm IS Superzoom with 1:1 macro

PhillipA said:

I think the OP has already said that the 17-55 was outside his
budget. The suggestion of the 17-40 was to achieve similar IQ at a
lower cost. .. hmmmmm L lens as a lower cost alternative - now
there's a first !!

Click to expand...

Me thinks the lower IQ and versatility may be the reasons for the lower cost (not to mention it has half the max aperture).

-Tacksharp

I understand... I would say that the typical Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 problem is relatively easy to detect once you know it's symptoms. IF you had a local store that carried them (Which can be very hard to find in many areas such as mine) you could likely check it quite easily in a store if they let you put the lens on your body and try it. Here is how... If you can't then you could consider Amazon.com or another retailer with a 30 day return policy.. (they will pay return shipping on a defective item).

Use liveview at full zoom to determine correct focus (this is an amazing thing that the 40D has over the earlier model Canon cameras that didn't have liveview)

At 50mm the lens will focus correctly and if you focus at 50mm zoom out to 17mm without changing the focus (turn it to manual after your initial AF) the focus at 17mm will then be in focus and you will be able to see how sharp the lens is even at 17mm when you do this part of the testing

On bad lenses, at 17mm there will be horrible front focus. If you should try to focus on anything that is further away then about 10 meters, the lens will not focus on it.. it may try, but the focus will likely hardly ever, maybe never focus past 10 meters. So if you try to focus on something 20 meters away, the lens will focus to about 9 meters or so and never further.

At 17mm less then 10 meters away, the front focus will still be quite bad... easily noticeable when using full zoom in live view... Sit the camera and lens on something like the counter... shoot wide open, focus on some flat high contrast object say 5 meters or so away... Use AF, switch to liveview, zoom in fully... if the focus is not even close... it's a bad lens. If in liveview during this test, you find it relatively hard to get much better focus then it got with AF, then the lens doesn't have the dreaded front focus problem...

I could detect this common problem with this Tamron lens in about 15 minutes on a Canon 40D using the above description and testing methods...

But... I also understand why someone does not or would not want to have to deal with the issue at all too... The only reason I posted again on this, is... when working well... the Tamron is a VERY good lens and is at a decent price point.

Willim said:

Hi Glen, thank you for your suggestion. I've had a similiar
experience to yourself which has put me off third party lenses - two
copies of Sigma 30mm 1.4 and even when returned for calibration still
had major focusing problems. I am relucktant to go through that again.

Ki nd regards

Wi;llim

Click to expand...

Go to photozone.de the 28 1.8 does not get a great review imo. I have a 17-40 and am happy with it but for peronal stuff I use a 20mm 2.8 more often. A lovely lens on a 40D! Good build quality too, about the same as 85mm 1.8.

If you are buying a 17-40 for your 40D don't forget to pick up a EW-83J (or a clone) lenshood. It is smaller and more effective than the one that comes with the lens. On FF it will vignet but on your cropped sensor it is perfect.

Rob.
--
'Life is funny but not Ha Ha funny. Peculiar I guess'. (Mr. E.)