I'm thinking of getting the canon 40d for myself for christmas. I haven't quite decided if I want the kit lens or maybe just buy body only and hope to find a good cheaper lens. I don't want to spend much more than $1,000. The kit lens is a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens.This would be my first DSLR. Can you guys recommend a lens or is the kit lens good enough? I'm going to be using it mostly in a photojournalistic way.
The 28-135 is fine, it might be a bit long for your since its actually a 44-215 on a 40D thanks to crop sensor.
OP here.Shit, that sucks.
get the body only. then choose your lens.kit lenses suck arse, and are never long enough, wide enough, strong enough. good enough. fast enough, nice enough, expensive enough, fat enough, colourful enough.
Get a short prime. 28mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4 if you shit gold. It'll do it for 75% of your photojournalism stuff.
>>300316with the 28/2.8, you could chuck a 50/1.8 in as well without breaking the bankedit: i have not owned the canon 50/1.8, only used it when using a friend's canon
>>300285It's a fine kit lens, although the widest isn't all that ideal.
get the Canon 40D and the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and you'll be set.
OP Here again.How limiting is a lens like that? One that's I guess.. fixed? I understand that it probably does a good job at 28mm, but am I going to miss not being able to zoom?
>>300481Probably not. Worse case scenario it trains you into being a better photographer because you'll get used to the field of view and perspective.28 or 24, 50, and a 20mm later on/now if you can afford it seriously will do for almost all photography in a natural human range. Get a tele zoom eventually for stuff far away, and you're set.
>>300326what he said.
>>300326get the Canon 40D and the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and you'll be set.Wow, do you have hardon for the Tamron or what? Every thread asking about what camera and lens to buy, you come in saying that bullshit.
>>300605nah, just that lens. I currently have used the ef-s 17-85 and the 28-135 and I have found both of the soft and slow while the tamron is not too expensive and is sharp and fast.
>> tamron>> fasthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl6NY4tFcG0
>>300619>fastWould you like me to say let's in more light at all focal lengths?or that it makes noise when focusing? Seriously, unless you're shooting at an art gallery or in quiet places ridiculously often this isn't that much of a concern.
Crazy Norwegians!:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jshe65EE0So
>>300622It's slow as fuck and inaccurate because Tamron still believe it's okay to sell lenses with micromotors from the 1980s
>>300605anon doesn't have a hardon for tamron, but there are around a dozen different anon that have bought the 17-85 and raged about how soft and shitty it is...some have gone back to their 18-55some have upgraded to the 17-40most have upgraded to the tamron 17-50yes i said upgraded to the tamronthe 17-85 sucks that bad
Wow, I hope some of you can post your photos where your skills as a photographer obviously exceed the limits of your lenses.Buying a new lens just magically freed you from your equipment's limits!Christ, some of you read waaay too much into online reviews and fool yourselves into believing shit you read.Really, no one ever took nice photos with the horrible, horrible zooms they had in the 80s. We only started making masterpieces in 2005 with these aweome new Tamron zooms.Fucking gear idiots.
>>300642has nothing to do with reading online reviewsshoot a group photo of more than a dozen people with the 17-85 @17 and watch as the faces look soft and sometimes out of focusdo the same thing with the 17-40 or 17-50 and you get sharp faces
OP here.I think I'm going to settle for this..http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-II/dp/B000R96FP8/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1227645839&sr=8-2I don't want to spend much more than that.. but if someone could recommend something in that price range with the same mm range that's better let me know.
OP again.Changed my mind. Buying shit sucks.
>>30064217-50 > 17-85 in street photography when you are using hyperfocal at 17
This one: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1227646154&sr=8-1
>>300642butthurt canonfag is butthurt
I have the Sigma 18-200 DC OS with it and I'm quite happy. It's a great lens on a great camera.Pic relatedCamera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:30 16:44:17RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/9.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width683Image Height1024
>>300735cool leaf bro
>>300742That leaf is terrible.
>>300754leaf is cool, 40D made it terrible
>>300760Ok I can agree to that. Sorry leaf! I meant the picture, not you!
okay, i never bought a tamron. when i DO want to buy one about 2 months ago, the store employee told me this thing about tamron being fast and sharp when you buy it, but after some time it became more slower and more and more softer rapidly. I SHAT BRIX. is that true /p/ro???
>>300642why the fuck would you want to buy a worse lens for the same price?the tamron is fucking good quality, it just is. it makes noise yeah, but the AF isn't THAT slow as everyone is saying, and it's also not that inaccurate.it's just a kick ass entry-lens.if you have more money of course get an 17-55 2.8 from canon or so... but the tamron is just good value.
Don't was your time thinking!