Best second lens for Canon 400D

threlly.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> Right,
> I've bought my 400D, I have the Canon battery grip with portrait
> shutter release etc, I have a Manfrotto 190 pro tripod and 222
> joystick mount.
> Now I need a lens with a longer focal length, and hopefully a bit
> sharper than the rather soft one supplied with the camera.
> I'm not interested in the anti-shake, but I wouldn't mind something
> with a decent F rating.
> Any suggestions ?
>
> Best regards,
> Threlly

Maybe if you could be more specific about what you want to do, we could
do a better job of making suggestions. As I recall the 400D does not come
with any specific lens, but may be sold in a package with any of many
lenses.



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D 

<threlly.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165493035.624638.273610@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Right,
> I've bought my 400D, I have the Canon battery grip with portrait
> shutter release etc, I have a Manfrotto 190 pro tripod and 222 joystick
> mount.
> Now I need a lens with a longer focal length, and hopefully a bit
> sharper than the rather soft one supplied with the camera.
> I'm not interested in the anti-shake, but I wouldn't mind something
> with a decent F rating.
> Any suggestions ?
>
> Best regards,
> Threlly
>

I'll second the first reply you got: The 70-200 f/4L is a no-brainer really
if you want (very) good image quality, reasonable weight, reasonable
aperture at a half-decent price. If you really, really want f/2.8 you could
go for one of its big brothers, 70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS - or even an
old 80-200 f/2.8 if you can find one - but they are really big, really
expensive and weigh 1.3 kilograms. You get tired of lugging one of these
around in a hurry.

There are various 75-300-ish lenses out there, but they are reportedly
really not very good in the 200-300 range and are variable aperture,
bottoming out at f/5.6 at the long end. If I were you I'd skip these and go
straight to the good stuff, ie a 70-200.
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D 

And lo, Ståle Sannerud <staale.sannerud.DeleteThis@bibits.no> emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
><threlly.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165493035.624638.273610@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Right,
>> I've bought my 400D, I have the Canon battery grip with portrait
>> shutter release etc, I have a Manfrotto 190 pro tripod and 222 joystick
>> mount.
>> Now I need a lens with a longer focal length, and hopefully a bit
>> sharper than the rather soft one supplied with the camera.
>> I'm not interested in the anti-shake, but I wouldn't mind something
>> with a decent F rating.
>> Any suggestions ?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Threlly
>>
>
> I'll second the first reply you got: The 70-200 f/4L is a no-brainer really
> if you want (very) good image quality, reasonable weight, reasonable
> aperture at a half-decent price. If you really, really want f/2.8 you could
> go for one of its big brothers, 70-200 f/2.8 with or without IS - or even an
> old 80-200 f/2.8 if you can find one - but they are really big, really
> expensive and weigh 1.3 kilograms. You get tired of lugging one of these
> around in a hurry.
>
> There are various 75-300-ish lenses out there, but they are reportedly
> really not very good in the 200-300 range and are variable aperture,
> bottoming out at f/5.6 at the long end. If I were you I'd skip these
> and go straight to the good stuff, ie a 70-200.

I do own the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, and I must say, for $350 (at
the time), it isn't too wonderful a lens. I suppose if you are really
strapped for cash you can make it work, but it doesn't have internal
focus, so the barrel is always turning, the AF is very slow, and it's
heavy to boot.

I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS on my wishlist; it's not cheap, that's
for sure, but any of the *four* EF 70-200 lenses could basically blow
the 75-300 out of the water in terms of image quality. The 70-200
f/2.8L (no IS) is still held in very high regard by studio
photographers for its outstanding bokeh.

The 400D is a great camera, but any SLR is only as good as the glass
you put in front of it. Keep that in mind as you shop around for the
best deal for your needs.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D 

Thanks for the advice everybody, I've been out of the hobby since my
early twenties, I'm now forty and seem to have forgotten all I ever
knew.

I'm very interested in HDR, not the over processed stuff, but where it
seems to just pull that little bit extra out of the light.
Also, I've been tasked by friends and family to take portraits, which
seems a whole discipline by itself.
Lastly, I always had a soft spot for unusual architectural shots,
hi-contrast B&W stuff and of course what ever comes along and I can
point the lens fast enough.

I always appreciated what a good piece of engineering could do for me,
but as I'm not made of money the mid-range 70-200mm f4 is sounding
worthy of investigation.

Many thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D 

<threlly.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165493035.624638.273610@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Right,
> I've bought my 400D, I have the Canon battery grip with portrait
> shutter release etc, I have a Manfrotto 190 pro tripod and 222
> joystick
> mount.
> Now I need a lens with a longer focal length, and hopefully a bit
> sharper than the rather soft one supplied with the camera.
> I'm not interested in the anti-shake, but I wouldn't mind something
> with a decent F rating.
> Any suggestions ?


What do you want to shoot?

What's your budget?

If you want long telephoto in the 200mm range and a bit sharper, look
at the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS which is fairly good, but soft when used wide
open. I think it's a bit over-priced for what you get, but it has IS
which is helpful for handheld shots. On a tripod you don't need the IS
feature.

If you want a lot sharper, look at the 70-200 f/4 L models which are
excellent, sharp wide open, and reasonably priced.

If you want sharp and large aperture look at the 70-200 f/2.8 L
models, but these are larger, heavier, and not cheap, but worth it for
their abilities.
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D 

<threlly RemoveThis @gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1165528013.707496.108950@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the advice everybody, I've been out of the hobby since my
> early twenties, I'm now forty and seem to have forgotten all I ever
> knew.
>
> I'm very interested in HDR, not the over processed stuff, but where it
> seems to just pull that little bit extra out of the light.
> Also, I've been tasked by friends and family to take portraits, which
> seems a whole discipline by itself.
> Lastly, I always had a soft spot for unusual architectural shots,
> hi-contrast B&W stuff and of course what ever comes along and I can
> point the lens fast enough.
>
> I always appreciated what a good piece of engineering could do for me,
> but as I'm not made of money the mid-range 70-200mm f4 is sounding
> worthy of investigation.
>
> Many thanks.
>

Go for it then. The 70-200 f/4 is , together with the 17-40 f/4, as close to
a bargain "L" as you can get. At the short end it is a very reasonable
portrait lens as well. Not quite as well suited for it as the 2.8 version,
but very respectable.
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D 

<threlly RemoveThis @gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1165528013.707496.108950@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the advice everybody, I've been out of the hobby since my
> early twenties, I'm now forty and seem to have forgotten all I ever
> knew.
>
> I'm very interested in HDR, not the over processed stuff, but where it
> seems to just pull that little bit extra out of the light.
> Also, I've been tasked by friends and family to take portraits, which
> seems a whole discipline by itself.
> Lastly, I always had a soft spot for unusual architectural shots,
> hi-contrast B&W stuff and of course what ever comes along and I can
> point the lens fast enough.
>
> I always appreciated what a good piece of engineering could do for me,
> but as I'm not made of money the mid-range 70-200mm f4 is sounding
> worthy of investigation.
>
> Many thanks.
>

Go for it then. The 70-200 f/4 is , together with the 17-40 f/4, as close to
a bargain "L" as you can get. At the short end it is a very reasonable
portrait lens as well. Not quite as well suited for it as the 2.8 version,
but very respectable.
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D 

<threlly DeleteThis @gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1165528013.707496.108950@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the advice everybody, I've been out of the hobby since my
> early twenties, I'm now forty and seem to have forgotten all I ever
> knew.
>
> I'm very interested in HDR, not the over processed stuff, but where it
> seems to just pull that little bit extra out of the light.
> Also, I've been tasked by friends and family to take portraits, which
> seems a whole discipline by itself.
> Lastly, I always had a soft spot for unusual architectural shots,
> hi-contrast B&W stuff and of course what ever comes along and I can
> point the lens fast enough.
>
> I always appreciated what a good piece of engineering could do for me,
> but as I'm not made of money the mid-range 70-200mm f4 is sounding
> worthy of investigation.
>
> Many thanks.
>

Go for it then. The 70-200 f/4 is , together with the 17-40 f/4, as close to
a bargain "L" as you can get. At the short end it is a very reasonable
portrait lens as well. Not quite as well suited for it as the 2.8 version,
but very respectable.
 >> Stay informed about: Best second lens for Canon 400D