D40 lens selection

[Sniper2075]

Hi all, just wanted to ask for some help.

First, I ended up getting a Canon 40D after I went to a local store and got one in my hands and I just loved it. Fits my hand perfect and then I decided not to wait for the Nikon D300 and just jump in as the 40D has everything I need and then some. Plus I have an extra $500 for some nice glass.

At the store I picked up the Canon 50mm F1.8 II because for the price you just can't go wrong. Only bad thing is it feels like a toy but the pics are pretty sharp so far.

OK, now for the help. I need a lens that I will use for shooting at night, of police type operations. I think a zoom would be nice but getting a faster prime lens might work better. I was already thinking of getting the 100mm F2.8 Macro but I'm not sure if that might be just a touch too long at 160mm with the crop factor. I think the 85mm F1.2 would be great but its too expensive, maybe the 85mm f1.8?. I will be with the police so I won't be shooting from a long distance. I see the canon 24-70mm F2.8L USM but wow expensive, maybe the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF, its price is in my range.

Anything else I might be missing?

Also, I don't really want to use a flash but I'm thinking that may be unavoidable. Day shots should be no problem but I wanted to try and get some night shots also without a flash as well.

Thanks again for all the help.

[TheObiJuan]

40D?



You'd be surprised how some of your day shots improved with a properly exposed flash.

[Sniper2075]

Uh, yeah sorry, changed my post to reflect the correct model. The Conon 40D. Its late and I've spent the last week looking at to many model numbers, I guess I got a little confused.

I know the flash can help, just depending on whats going on I may not have the ability to use a flash. Obviously if I can use a flash I will pickup a 580EX and be very happy.

[coldrain]

What kind of field of view will you be needing?

[Sniper2075]

Not really sure, thats another reason the zoom is looking very appealing. I can quickly get some wide angle shots and then zoom in and get some close up shots without changing lenses or moving around alot. The 24-70mm's would be about a 38mm-112mm which sounds like it should work well. Anyone with experience with the Sigma?

Also, for the flash, the reason I don't want to use one is that I want to be as unnoticed as possible. I don't want to distract any of the officers with a flash at a bad moment. If this means no night shots thats ok.

[coldrain]

I still am not clear about what kind of field of view you may be needing. Scenes may be wider than you think.
But, the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 does not cost a lot, so you can try out if it is something for you.

The heavy but gorgeous Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM will be faster, more quiet and more reliable in lower light with AF, but also weighs more and costs more. Still, this lens might be worth looking into.

[timmciglobal]

I'd deffinitly say look into the sigma 18-50 macro 2.8 lens. Good lens overall, nice "kit" lens replacement, runs about 400$

Tim

[Sniper2075]

OK, I think I've got the selection down to 2 lenses. Spending more than I would like but these are both quality lenses that will last a long time.

First,
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Costs around $1000 plus cost of lens hood looks like $1050. Can live without the soft case as my camera bag is well padded.
With 1.6x crop this is a 27-88mm

Second,
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
Costs around $1140 and includes a lens hood and case. Its not as wide as the first and doesn't have IS but is longer and its an L lens. Only really costs another $90 over the first once you add the lens hood. Has added advantage of not being an EF-S so it can still be used if I ever upgrade to a full frame camera.
With 1.6x crop this is a 38-112mm

Hard choice here as from the reviews I've read they are both high quality sharp lenses. Main question is how important IS and wide angle is over an L lens build and slightly longer lens.

[coldrain]

Depends on the usage of course... but with static scenes, the 4 stop IS can do wonders in low light.

[timmciglobal]

3 not 4.

The 17-55 IS doesn't impress me for the cost of it. Why not consider the sigma 18-50 2.8? It's about 600 cheaper and offers quite a nice lens. Combine with a 70-200 F4L for same 1K and have 18>200 covered.

Tim

[Sniper2075]

I saw a not so great review of the Sigmas low light auto focus so I think I'm going to go with the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8

This looks like it will be my ideal setup
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

Also, with the following depending on what I'm doing
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II - already have
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

I think this should cover most of my shooting. Not sure if the Macro will always be in the bag, probably just under 50% of the time depending on what I plan to shoot of course. Now looking at the price of all this is just a little scary but not that bad. The 70-200 may become the F/4 version depending on the funds available.

Also, the above is subject to change at any moment. lol :D

[timmciglobal]

Keep in mind the 24-70L weighs a metric ton. I honestly found it uncomfortable to shoot with for long periods of time. It's a great lens but it is really big.

Tim

[Gintaras]

Sinpper, I was in the same dilemma like you when I bought XTi. I thought WOW, I got a great camera, now I get best lens and YEAH… I put those lens on XTi and pull out great photos…HAHAHA.

Luckily enough I did not buy any expensive lens from the beginning but settled for Sigma 17-70 after reading reviews. OPS… I was completely disappointed. Simply I found that 17mm on that lens at 2.8 was soft, while increasing F number could solve the problem the limitation was you lose fast aperture as you zoom in and F number goes up…so I found not much use of this lens which otherwise looked like best universal package. I also did not like Sigma focusing IQ.

I then sold it (together with two filters which were not cheap), took a 50$ loss and moved back to kit lens… being not happy with kit lens then (because not having any idea how best use that) I decided to look for a good cheap alternative. I found 28-105 II USM lens, nice cheap lens. Yet, this improved my pix only little… later I read more and more and found that it does not matter what lens BUT it does matter if you know how this lens works best. So after using 28-105 and learning one day I re-attached kit lens, tweaked settings in-camera and WOW I got nice shots, nothing I could complain about.

I must say that besides being happy I did not commit all the mistakes with expensive lenses. My 28-105 (which is quite unexciting range as some say) helped me to understand better what I miss on the short end and on the long end. In fact this 28-105II sits in the middle of a range and is a good teaching lens to help you figure what you need. I do not mind throwing 250$ on this lens and if one day I decide for 24-105/4 IS L then I sell my little nice lens without much problem. Another similar budget lens (about 100$ more than my lens) with longer reach and IS would be 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS Canon, it has a stabilizer and slightly more reach on the long end.

Now having used my 28-105 a lot I know for sure I need a wide angle 10-22 Canon, I also know I need 17-55/2.8 IS, simply because this is not only a fast lens but also it has wider angle on 1.6 crop and a stabilizer which can be so handy in low light when handheld. In fact 17-55 is best walk around option on 1.6x IMO. I thought about 24-70 like you but decided not because of no IS, rather limited range (both short and tele) and reading this is too heavy to be a walk around lens. I also know I need 70-200/4 IS for telephoto to get more reach with crisp image while I am not to use 70-200/2.8 IS because its 2.8 factor is not worth extra money IMO in my case.

And I shelved my plans for primes for good… because I still have to understand how I will use primes… which can be very expensive.

At the end buying lenses is not such a simple task, rather it is more difficult than buying a camera.

NB:sorry for long post, but i thought i might have to share this experience of amateur with others.:eek:

[Sniper2075]

Thanks for the replies so far. I still havn't made up my mind. I thought picking out the camera was hard. That was easy by comparison.

I think I'm going to play around with taking some pics with my 50mm F/1.8 at night without a flash and see if its even possible at F2.8. If it isn't then I may reevaluate my choices and look at some of the cheaper options.

As far as the weight goes, I'm not really concerned. I'm young but it still is a concern. I don't remember having any problems shooting night football with my old Nikon N90s with a 80-200mm F/2.8 and that is a heavy lens to tote for an entire game, not the worst but still heavy.