which lens to get for Canon 400D?

In article <slrneiumv0.roe.ren RemoveThis @murphy.redbrick.dcu.ie>, Stimp
<ren RemoveThis @spumco.com> wrote:

> I've recently acquired a new Canon 400D SLR camera, I'd like to see what
> y'all recommend in terms of a lens that matches the following criteria:
>
>
> - falls within my budget (less than 800 euro)
> - is small enough to tote around with minimal hassle (i.e. not TOO much
> bigger than the 18-55mm packed with the 400d)
>
> I want to take ONLY ONE lens with me.. I know I'll have to sacrifice
> quality of certain shots because you can't get one lens to do
> everything.
>
> I primarily like to take wide-angle shots, but will also want to be able
> to use the camera for wildlife close-ups and portrait photos. A good
> zoom is a distinct advantage.
> Image stabilisation (or equivalent) would also be good.
>
> I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
> ebay)
>
> Recommend any others I should look at?

Easy. 24-105mm IS L series. Almost always on my 400D (XTi) unless I
have specific needs for a different shot.


Oh, and buy a damn good polarizer. B+W or better/equivalent.
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

>> Keep the 400d and try a non IS Sigma 18-200
>
> I was looking at these. Is the quality range as good/better than the
> Canon 17-85 ?

When you increase the zoom range of a lens, you usually end up paying for it
one way or another. Image quality, size, weight, cost - any combination of
the above. There are good reasons why most zoom lenses that are universally
acclaimed as being good tend to have a zoom range of around 3x (Canon's
17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 "L" lenses, for example). A lens having a zoom range
of 10-11x, such as the Sigma or the Nikon mentioned earlier in the thread
are very likely to be either not very good (the Sigma) or pretty good but
quite expensive (the Nikon) - and even if it is good a lens with a shorter
zoom range is likely to surpass it in image quality in absolute terms.
Canon, for example, actually makes a 28-300mm zoom in its professional "L"
line, a 10x-plus zoom, it is a very decent performer but it is quite heavy,
has an unimpressive maximum aperture, and costs an arm and a leg. There is
no such thing as a free lunch!

The Canon 17-85 is not bad. Not stellar by any means, but not bad at all.
For the money, and with such a useful focal length range, it is probably on
of the better lenses you can buy.

Personally I used a Tamron 24-135 when I had a 300D/DigRebel. I lost quite a
bit at the wide end compared to the kit lens (18-55) but it made up for it
at the tele end. This suited my needs, but your mileage may vary of course.
I was quite happy with it. The build quality of this lens is medium, far
better than the kit stuff but by no means the tank-like quality of the pro
lenses. I'd say it's about level with the 17-85 in this regard.
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

Stimp wrote:
[]
> I'll be backpacking around South America and having a SLR with me is
> pushing it in terms of valuables I am willing to take.
>
> SLR is the absolute minimum I'm willing to accept now and if I'm
> shooting the Iguazu Falls with anything less I'll never forgive
> myself.

Your choice, of course, but why not take two non-SLR cameras, packed in
different parts of your baggage to avoid losing everything if the worst
happened? Some redundancy, some backup. If your single expensive DSLR
fails, where are you? The non-SLRS might include one wide-angle and one
long zoom. For the latter, I recommend the very light Panasonic FZ5.

David
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

> SLR is the absolute minimum I'm willing to accept now and if I'm
> shooting the Iguazu Falls with anything less I'll never forgive myself.
>

I am in exactly the same boat having done a safari with a digital ixus five
years ago.

I bought a Canon 300D as soon as it came out as I was so disappointed with
the results from the little snapper.

I am now about to take a year out travelling with my wife and the idea of
lugging about £1000 of SLR and lenses with me is scary.

However I know I would be bitterly disapointed if I don't have the
versatility to get the shots I want hence I am taking the SLR and three
lenses (the longest of which I have yet to buy).

With regard to my choice of tele-zoom I would go for the 100-400 IS L
without hesitation if not for the cost of the thing.

I am considdering the 70-300 based on recommendations from other newsgroup
readers as it is cheaper and I won't cry quite as much if it is damaged or
stolen during my travels.

Having said that is is far more likely to get damaged as the build quality
is far lower than the L series of lenses, and I will only want to upgrade
anyway once I get back.

(but the L glass would be far mor appealing to a potential thief.)

Oh decisions decisions.......
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

> Stimp wrote:
> []
>> I'll be backpacking around South America and having a SLR with me is
>> pushing it in terms of valuables I am willing to take.
>>
>> SLR is the absolute minimum I'm willing to accept now and if I'm
>> shooting the Iguazu Falls with anything less I'll never forgive
>> myself.
>
> Your choice, of course, but why not take two non-SLR cameras, packed in
> different parts of your baggage to avoid losing everything if the worst
> happened? Some redundancy, some backup. If your single expensive DSLR
> fails, where are you? The non-SLRS might include one wide-angle and one
> long zoom. For the latter, I recommend the very light Panasonic FZ5.

ah well I've got an IXUS with me too.. small and pocketsized "just in
case"
--

fiddlewidawiddum
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:
> In article <slrneiumv0.roe.ren DeleteThis @murphy.redbrick.dcu.ie>, Stimp
><ren DeleteThis @spumco.com> wrote:
>
>> I've recently acquired a new Canon 400D SLR camera, I'd like to see what
>> y'all recommend in terms of a lens that matches the following criteria:
>>
>>
>> - falls within my budget (less than 800 euro)
>> - is small enough to tote around with minimal hassle (i.e. not TOO much
>> bigger than the 18-55mm packed with the 400d)
>>
>> I want to take ONLY ONE lens with me.. I know I'll have to sacrifice
>> quality of certain shots because you can't get one lens to do
>> everything.
>>
>> I primarily like to take wide-angle shots, but will also want to be able
>> to use the camera for wildlife close-ups and portrait photos. A good
>> zoom is a distinct advantage.
>> Image stabilisation (or equivalent) would also be good.
>>
>> I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
>> ebay)
>>
>> Recommend any others I should look at?
>
> Easy. 24-105mm IS L series. Almost always on my 400D (XTi) unless I
> have specific needs for a different shot.
>
>
> Oh, and buy a damn good polarizer. B+W or better/equivalent.

hmmm... seems to be slightly out of my budget

will add it to my "possibles" list
--

fiddlewidawiddum
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

> I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
> ebay)

I have that lens and can recommend it.

However, it is too short for wildlife.
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

In article <086dnXzlcJ0yYrLYnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>, Charles
Schuler <charleschuler.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> > I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
> > ebay)
>
> I have that lens and can recommend it.
>
> However, it is too short for wildlife.
>
>

Hell, anything short of 2000mm is too short for wildlife for me - they
all have some sort of interactive neural network that they communicate
on that lets them all know when I am coming, so they can get in
fantastic poses in perfect lighting - until just before I get
focused... then they all fly/run/dive/burrow away with a snicker. <g>
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

> Hell, anything short of 2000mm is too short for wildlife for me - they
> all have some sort of interactive neural network that they communicate
> on that lets them all know when I am coming, so they can get in
> fantastic poses in perfect lighting - until just before I get
> focused... then they all fly/run/dive/burrow away with a snicker. <g>

Yup ... they smell us. Loved your post as this is exactly what I have
experienced. But, with persistence, I have ripped off some good ones.
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1057.jpg
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

Stimp wrote:
> I've recently acquired a new Canon 400D SLR camera, I'd like to see what
> y'all recommend in terms of a lens that matches the following criteria:
>
>
> - falls within my budget (less than 800 euro)
> - is small enough to tote around with minimal hassle (i.e. not TOO much
> bigger than the 18-55mm packed with the 400d)
>
> I want to take ONLY ONE lens with me.. I know I'll have to sacrifice
> quality of certain shots because you can't get one lens to do
> everything.
>
> I primarily like to take wide-angle shots, but will also want to be able
> to use the camera for wildlife close-ups and portrait photos. A good
> zoom is a distinct advantage.
> Image stabilisation (or equivalent) would also be good.
>
> I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
> ebay)
>
> Recommend any others I should look at?

17-40L. The only lens that will do justice to those 10 megapixels.
People don't seem to realize that buying one of these 10 meg bodies
requires you to go high grade with the lenses to maximize the benefit
to the image. With the Nikon, and will be with the Pentax, you will
really noticed the difference, 6-10 meg. With the Canon, not so much
because the Rebel already had 8 meg. But there is a reason FF Canon
users fanatical about image quality own hard to get Olympus and Leica
primes, because they want all the image quality the camera can deliver
and these relatively inexpensive entry cameras with 10 meg get very
close to the FF models, if they have the right lens.
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

Stimp wrote:
> I've recently acquired a new Canon 400D SLR camera, I'd like to see what
> y'all recommend in terms of a lens that matches the following criteria:
>
>
> - falls within my budget (less than 800 euro)
> - is small enough to tote around with minimal hassle (i.e. not TOO much
> bigger than the 18-55mm packed with the 400d)
>
> I want to take ONLY ONE lens with me.. I know I'll have to sacrifice
> quality of certain shots because you can't get one lens to do
> everything.
>
> I primarily like to take wide-angle shots, but will also want to be able
> to use the camera for wildlife close-ups and portrait photos. A good
> zoom is a distinct advantage.
> Image stabilisation (or equivalent) would also be good.
>
> I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
> ebay)
>
> Recommend any others I should look at?
>
Some suggestions in my suggested order of preference (yours may differ):
Trade in the 400d for a nikon D80 with an 18-200 VR.
Keep the 400d and be a crash-test dummy for one of these:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3277
Keep the 400d and try a non IS Sigma 18-200
Wait for Canon to release an EF-s 18 - 2xx IS lens.

All are compromises - no single lens will give perfect w/a and telephoto
zoom performance, The Nikkor 18-200 - if you desperately want only one
reasonably lightweight lens is possibly good enough to be worth changing
systems for.
200mm on a crop sensor dslr may still be too short for wildlife
close-up. F6.3 on the Sigma is getting very slow - f5.6 is already quite
slow so don't expect stellar AF performance in other than good light.
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> wrote:
> Stimp wrote:
>> I've recently acquired a new Canon 400D SLR camera, I'd like to see what
>> y'all recommend in terms of a lens that matches the following criteria:
>>
>>
>> - falls within my budget (less than 800 euro)
>> - is small enough to tote around with minimal hassle (i.e. not TOO much
>> bigger than the 18-55mm packed with the 400d)
>>
>> I want to take ONLY ONE lens with me.. I know I'll have to sacrifice
>> quality of certain shots because you can't get one lens to do
>> everything.
>>
>> I primarily like to take wide-angle shots, but will also want to be able
>> to use the camera for wildlife close-ups and portrait photos. A good
>> zoom is a distinct advantage.
>> Image stabilisation (or equivalent) would also be good.
>>
>> I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
>> ebay)
>>
>> Recommend any others I should look at?
>>
> Some suggestions in my suggested order of preference (yours may differ):
> Trade in the 400d for a nikon D80 with an 18-200 VR.

well I just got it, so I'll stick with for the mo

> Keep the 400d and be a crash-test dummy for one of these:
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3277

interesting, but can't seem find anywhere to buy it. Is it not available
yet?

> Keep the 400d and try a non IS Sigma 18-200

I was looking at these. Is the quality range as good/better than the
Canon 17-85 ?

> Wait for Canon to release an EF-s 18 - 2xx IS lens.

I need a lens this month

> All are compromises - no single lens will give perfect w/a and telephoto
> zoom performance, The Nikkor 18-200 - if you desperately want only one
> reasonably lightweight lens is possibly good enough to be worth changing
> systems for.
> 200mm on a crop sensor dslr may still be too short for wildlife
> close-up. F6.3 on the Sigma is getting very slow - f5.6 is already quite
> slow so don't expect stellar AF performance in other than good light.

interesting.. thanks!

--

fiddlewidawiddum
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D? 

Stimp wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:
>> Stimp wrote:
>>> I've recently acquired a new Canon 400D SLR camera, I'd like to see what
>>> y'all recommend in terms of a lens that matches the following criteria:
>>>
>>>
>>> - falls within my budget (less than 800 euro)
>>> - is small enough to tote around with minimal hassle (i.e. not TOO much
>>> bigger than the 18-55mm packed with the 400d)
>>>
>>> I want to take ONLY ONE lens with me.. I know I'll have to sacrifice
>>> quality of certain shots because you can't get one lens to do
>>> everything.
>>>
>>> I primarily like to take wide-angle shots, but will also want to be able
>>> to use the camera for wildlife close-ups and portrait photos. A good
>>> zoom is a distinct advantage.
>>> Image stabilisation (or equivalent) would also be good.
>>>
>>> I've seen recommendations for: Canon EFS 17-85mm IS (about 500 euro on
>>> ebay)
>>>
>>> Recommend any others I should look at?
>>>
>> Some suggestions in my suggested order of preference (yours may differ):
>> Trade in the 400d for a nikon D80 with an 18-200 VR.
>
> well I just got it, so I'll stick with for the mo

Fair enough - my suggestion was tongue in cheek.
>
>> Keep the 400d and be a crash-test dummy for one of these:
>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3277
>
> interesting, but can't seem find anywhere to buy it. Is it not available
> yet?
Only just released - perhaps you can test it and report back to us
>
>> Keep the 400d and try a non IS Sigma 18-200
>
> I was looking at these. Is the quality range as good/better than the
> Canon 17-85 ?

The zoom range is much greater of course - 200mm vs 85mm is a huge
difference. The reviews are mixed - for sure it's slow (f6.3 at 200mm)
and a bit soft at the 200mm end, and as usual for these superzooms,
distortion is pretty bad, and a bit of CA and light fall-off thrown in.
With f6.3 widest I really would think that IS would be a great help -
so perhaps find out of the new OS Sigma will be available. It shouldn't
be any worse than the non OS version optically. Tamron make one of
these 18-200 lenses too - and AFAIK it's about as good/bad as the Sigma.
I'm no fan of non-EX series sigma lenses, so despite recommending it
only as a compromise, I'd pass on it myself.
For image quality, in the 17-85 range the Canon lens is almost certainly
going to be much better, but forget your wildlife shots unless you are
at a zoo.
>
>> Wait for Canon to release an EF-s 18 - 2xx IS lens.
>
> I need a lens this month
>
>> All are compromises - no single lens will give perfect w/a and telephoto
>> zoom performance, The Nikkor 18-200 - if you desperately want only one
>> reasonably lightweight lens is possibly good enough to be worth changing
>> systems for.
>> 200mm on a crop sensor dslr may still be too short for wildlife
>> close-up. F6.3 on the Sigma is getting very slow - f5.6 is already quite
>> slow so don't expect stellar AF performance in other than good light.
>
> interesting.. thanks!
>
Although it was tongue in cheek, don't completely abandon the idea of
trading for D80 / 18-200VR. Even a second-hand D50/D70 with that lens
might serve you better than other compromises. I wouldn't ever buy the
18-200 myself, as I'm always prepared to carry two lenses minimum. But
if you want a one-lens does all dslr system, there is nothing better at
present - by quite a margin.
 >> Stay informed about: which lens to get for Canon 400D?