# Lenses for Canon 40D



## oliverweagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Some time ago I purchased a Canon 40D kit, sold the kit lens and purchased a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. I am now looking for another lens - and am considering the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM to add. Others have recommended that instead of that lens go with the Canon EF 24 - 105 and and then get the Canon 100 - 400 and sell the 70 - 200. My novice concern in the f4 aspect as opposed to the f2.8 - but both the 24 - 105 and the 100 - 400 have IS. My goal is to have 2 lenses that will cover "most" sitiations. I realise that just about everything is a compromise - and I'm not looking to add a collection of prime lenses - rather a couple of lenses that will suit an amateur photographer's needs!

I'd certainly appreciate any advice or suggestions that you may have to offer.

Thank you,

Ollie


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

oliverweagle said:


> Some time ago I purchased a Canon 40D kit, sold the kit lens and purchased a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. I am now looking for another lens - and am considering the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM to add. Others have recommended that instead of that lens go with the Canon EF 24 - 105 and and then get the Canon 100 - 400 and sell the 70 - 200. My novice concern in the f4 aspect as opposed to the f2.8 - but both the 24 - 105 and the 100 - 400 have IS. My goal is to have 2 lenses that will cover "most" sitiations. I realise that just about everything is a compromise - and I'm not looking to add a collection of prime lenses - rather a couple of lenses that will suit an amateur photographer's needs!
> 
> I'd certainly appreciate any advice or suggestions that you may have to offer.
> 
> ...


Alot depends on what you like to shoot. Allthough I'm pretty new myself, I would go with the 24-70mm f/2.8L as my very first choice if I had the cash. I would sell the 70-200 and buy a cheap 55-250IS to cover that range and not overlap focal ranges too much.

Personaly, I wouldnt consider a 100-400 even if it is IS and an L. You allready have enough reach to cover up to 70mm and if had the Nifty Two Fifty, your good up to 250mm @ f/4, with a tripod.

Beyond 250mm, I dunno.

MT Stringer And Stargazer can help more than I can.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

If you are shooting indoors, the F2.8 will prove useful. There's a new version of the 24-70 coming out in a few weeks that will have IS. If you can live with a gap in coverage, the 17-55 EFs is a great alternative at about 1/3rd the weight of the 24-70 and equal image quality.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

OK, Now you know I have to put my 2 cents in:biggrin:. The 24-105 would be my choice if the requirement is only 2 lens. I just like having a bit more reach in a walkaround lens. 
All the above are great choices, Maybe think about and something to build on.
1. Canon EF-S 10-22, (600.00 used) Landscapes and such. Actually this is a "L" qual lens. Its made for a crop body. Has the same UD glass "L" lens have. Can not be classified as an L because its made for a crop body (L Lens are really made for a Full Frame camera per Canon)
2. Canon 24-105L IS, ( 800.00-900.00 Used) great walkaround lens, Good build, has IS.
3. Canon 70-200MM 2.8 IS, Very nice telephoto. You know the quality, and Takes a 1.4 teleconverter well extending it to 280mm.
4. A good quality teleconverter x1.4, I have a Kenko (115.00 Used) to me functions the same as a canon, at half the cost.
Now if you need more reach, Sigma 150-500 OS (OS, same thing as Canons IS) 850.00 - 900.00 Used) I really like mine and I also use the 1.4 teleconverter for a 700mm max reach.
You would have from 10mm all the way to 700mm covered.
All 4 of these I own, I have been happy with the quality of these. The only draw back is the 10-22, Only is compatable with a crop body, so If you think you may change to something other than a crop, it might not be a good choice.
I have that very problem. 1D MkII and the 10-22. I feel the 24 on the wide end is good enough, besides I have a 50D to fall back on.

Anyway, its really up to you and your budget , like Gary said, "what 
do you want to shoot?"


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

I think Fred summed it up nicely. One quick thought about the 70-200 f/2.8. It will go to my grave with me!  This school year, I have shot over 80 basketball games with than lens on a 1D MK3. It's heavy, but I got used to it. Especially after shooting 23 games in three days. So now, when I put the "Brick" (24-70 f/2.8) on the camera, it doesn't feel heavy at all! 

If you go to my Smugmug website and check out the drag races from a few weeks ago, all of the racing pics were taken with the 70-200 on a Canon 7D. All of the pics taken in the pits were taken with either a 17-40 f/4 or the 24-70 f/2.8.

www.mtstringer.smugmug.com
Click on the "Motorsports" gallery

Just depends on your budget. Those lenses add up in a hurry.
I also have owned a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and really liked it for landscape (mountain streams, etc). I sold it when I bought the MK3 because it isn't designed to work on that body. I was able to take pics with it, just not any wider than 15mm because of the vignetting. and I was afraid it would damage the camera.

Another lens to consider is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 It is a little noisey when focusing, and that bothers some folks, but it didn't bother me.


----------



## oliverweagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Thanks for the replies - a wealth of information to ponder. ... I forgot to mention that I have a trip to Alaska planned - and so my interest in the 400 - however the information below opens my eyes as to options. The full frame vs. crop camera is of course another consideration for the future ...

Thanks again for your help,

Ollie


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)

You might consider renting the 100-400 for your trip. They hold their value pretty well so finding a super bargain (used) might take a little time and patience. Time I had, patience I did'nt. .....so $1600 later.....yep, I like the 100-400L. A trip to Alaska sounds like a true blast. Post up on your return.....as mentioned the 70-200f2.8 is really versatile glass....and as soon as I can swing it , I'll get one,,,lol


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Aight, I may have to try the 100-400.  Just for birds yanno!


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

I might be selling my 100-400 in the near future to help fund a 300 f/2.8. I'll know more after I get home from shooting softball in fort Worth starting tomorrow.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

If you're going to Alaska, weather sealing to prevent internal fogging of the lens will become a factor. The L lenses have it, the EF-s lenses do not.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Y'all won't believe the dust we encountered today at the softball tournament here in fort Worth with all the gale force winds! I just finished cleaning my 1D MK3 from all the dust. I haven't taken the lens off the body yet. skeered!

Tomorrow looks like rain so we'll have to wait and see about that.


----------

