30d 17-55 2.8 or 40d 17-55 IS?

[njoy_az]

I am thinking about getting a D-SLR to accompany my A70. As Canon just repaired my A70's sensor fault free of charge, I naturally looked to Canon first. So I went to the store a couple days ago and found the following kits on sale:

1. 30d with the renowned EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
2. 40d with the new 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Both fit very comfortably in my hands and were well reviewed. They are in the same price range, the Canon 30d kit being about US$ 250 more expensive than the 40d kit.

Which one would you recommend? What would be the better all-around kit?
Both stretch my budget a little bit, so I would not be able to buy another lens for the time being. I like landscapes, buildings, interiors etc with the odd portrait being thrown in.


Thanks for your advice

njoy_az

[coldrain]

So a 2nd hand 30D + second hand 17-55 IS or a new 40D + new 17-55 IS, price difference $250?

I would go for the new, for just that price difference. And enjoy the enhancements of the 40D.

[DonSchap]

I think that "new 17-55mm f/2.8" you mentioned on the second kit (40D) sounds more like the new "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS" ... better check a little closer ... just to be absolutely sure. That's a big difference in glass capability. Quick way to tell is that it has a black, plastic mounting ring. The lens is only $200.

31464

The EOS 30D with a used EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (this lens in nearly $850 - new) is an attractive offer, though. It is a much finer quality optic. Note the steel mounting ring and focus distance window.

31465

Good luck on your decision

[GaryS]

I think he means the 40D comes with the new 18-55IS.

If that is the case, I would get the 30D with the 17-55. Always get the better glass!

edit: Don jumped in with the same thing I meant.... But I still mean it!

[njoy_az]

Both kits are new and factory sealed. They are just clearing out the 30d's, and a couple of these kits (30d with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM) is all they have left. They have plenty of the 40d + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS combo, though.

So what would you do? Prefer better glass over better body? Or would the 30d kit be too bulky/heavy for a walk-around kit? :confused:


P.S.: I clarified my original posting and added the correct lens names

[DonSchap]

Sorry, Señor Dusty ... didn't see ya posting. :rolleyes:

[coldrain]

The 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is an awesome lens to have. And both cameras are very good. So... if you do not care about the live view and the other differences, the 30D + 17-55 f2.8 IS USM would be the best choice, I guess.

Great lens, which will still be a great lens when you in future might want to upgrade to a new APS-C sensor size body.
From what you describe what you photograph, the 17-55 f2.8 IS is of bigger value than the live view option (for my photography the live view would be more important).

[DonSchap]

Hey, you said a 30D "Kit", right?

Check that lens again ... it sounds suspiciously like the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

31466

Voted the "worst barrel distortioned lens" of the past 5 years ... opt to get the 40D. LOL. Using that piece of glass in no bargain. It was offered as the "high-end" kit on both the EOS 20D and the EOS 30D cameras. Once the word got out about the lens' poor performance ... most people didn't by the kit. That's probably precisely why the guy still has it sitting on the shelf.

I'm rather sure Rhys will weigh in on this.

Coldrain should support not making this choice of glass, but who knows? :rolleyes:

[coldrain]

Well, if the 17-85 was meant... it gets WAY too confusing. First get the numbers right! (and STAY AWAY from the 17-85 IS for your uses!)

[24Peter]

I'd go for the newer body. It's doesn't sound like an F2.8 is really necessary for what you want to do and the new IS kit lens is supposed to be quite good.

[njoy_az]

I just followed Don`s advice and went to the store to re-check the respective lenses. It definitely says "EOS 30D Digital SLR camera with EF-S 17-55mm IS USM lens kit" on the box. I also checked the local prices for the lens alone and compared it to the 30d kit. It turns out that the 30d kit is just an extra €210 compared to the lens alone. It is a good deal for sure. It being the last one I bought it. :) I now have 30 days to decide whether to keep it (or go the 40d route) ...

I have two more questions though: What kind of CF-Card would you recommend? Is a SanDisk Compact Flash Ultra II 2GB fast enough / big enough or should I go for a SanDisk Compact Flash Extreme III? What kind of filter would you recommend to protect the front element of the lens?

Thank for all your kind advice (and sorry for the confusion - I was not able to remember the correct lens names :o )

[michaelb]

I just followed Don`s advice and went to the store to re-check the respective lenses. It definitely says "EOS 30D Digital SLR camera with EF-S 17-55mm IS USM lens kit" on the box. I also checked the local prices for the lens alone and compared it to the 30d kit. It turns out that the 30d kit is just an extra €210 compared to the lens alone. It is a good deal for sure. It being the last one I bought it. :) I now have 30 days to decide whether to keep it (or go the 40d route) ...

I have two more questions though: What kind of CF-Card would you recommend? Is a SanDisk Compact Flash Ultra II 2GB fast enough / big enough or should I go for a SanDisk Compact Flash Extreme III? What kind of filter would you recommend to protect the front element of the lens?

Thank for all your kind advice (and sorry for the confusion - I was not able to remember the correct lens names :o )

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a very nice lens; good for indoors, outdoors, low light. I don't think you can go wrong with it. Supposedly prone to flare, however.

I think the first CF card you mention will be fine.

Some people are advocates of UV filters to protect their lenses and some are not. For an expensive lens like the 17-55 I would definitley use a filter. If you damage the filter you can replace it cheaply; if you damage your lens, even just a small scratch, its value will plummet!! Plus, I feel more comfortable cleaning a UV filter than the lens element.

I use either Hoya or B&W UV filters. Here is a 77mm Hoya UV filter for under $10!! I use this one and ordered it from this vendor in Hong Kong; I know many people who have ordered from him...

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-HOYA-77mm-HMC-UV-Multicoated-Haze-Filter-Japan-Made_W0QQitemZ290188071361QQihZ019QQcategoryZ15219 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[coldrain]

I do not use filters to protect, I only use a polarized light filter when i actually want to use that filter.I just find it a bit of a shame to put a flat piece of glass in front of the lens, introducing possible flare/reflection/ghosting problems to high quality lenses. A lens hood and lens cap are more than enough protection for me.

And if one of my lenses actually would get damaged.... they are just tools, according to me (and none has gotten damaged in many many years, i only know of one example of one guy on here that actually had a rock flying into his lens).

About the card speeds, the Ultra is fast enough for a 30D.

And I would love to have that 17-55 f2.8 IS USM myself, it is a very nice lens.

Enjoy exploring your camera :)

[DonSchap]

Sounds like you got a great deal ... with that f/2.8

Personally, I wound up using 4GB SanDisk Extreme IV with my EOS 20D. "Write" speed is most excellent when you are doing burst shots or RAW writes. It may cost a little more, but your performance will be as optimal as it gets. You've got a top drawer lens and camera to start out with, no sense now screwing around with low performance memory.

As far as electronic flashes go, the 430EX is nice, but the 580EXII is the one you want. It will offer "Master" control over subsequent flashes and is one f-stop brighter than the 430EX. (Yes, I measured it.)

Consider getting the vertical grip, also. It will provide twice the power source for that IS lens you now have.

As far as filters go ... I simply keep a UV-filter on for protection and not shooting through it. I carefully remove my lens cap and unscrew it ... then commence fire. I routinely throw the CP on for outdoor shots, during the day. I also have a bag full (and I mean full) of Cokin filters and adapters in the truck ...


My real "Camera Bag"

31472


but, they rarely get the use they did in my film days, when you could really enhance a B&W shot with red and yellow filters.

Good luck and congrats on a nifty purchase.

[aparmley]

I'd go for the newer body. It's doesn't sound like an F2.8 is really necessary for what you want to do and the new IS kit lens is supposed to be quite good.

Peter wise. Peter good. Peter speak truth.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that you remove the need/want of a constant f/2.8 lens, then I'd tell you, you don't need it at all.

If you don't need that speed and OOF ability - no sense paying for it.

A good photographer will take a kit lens and run circles around a photographer with the 17-55 2.8 IS lens.

Not to belittle what others have said here - the 30D + 17-55 IS is a fantastic combo and the one of the two I'd recommend you get. The camera makes very very very very very very little difference what-so-ever in the final image. That lens is kick-ass. But, should you not be of the ability to get the best out of that lens for quite some time, it'd be in your best interest to pick the best body you can afford right now - because, when you're finally ready for a better lens, you won't be tempted by a better body.

Funny how things work - The newb always wants the best lens and the experienced can do wonders with the kit. . . . Thats what I've learned so far about photography. (I used to shoot canon - I did have a 30D + 17-55IS). IF you don't have a professional demand for quality lenses you don't need them.

[RichNY]

Since he is just starting out why not share with him your experience and why you switched over to Nikon? This would be the best time to learn the differences.

[markchristenson]

I'd like to know why you switched, too. I have a Nikon F3 film camera that's been gathering dust for several years and was thinking about getting a Canon 40D. The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger is that I have a couple decent Nikon lenses that I'd be able to use if I went the Nikon route.

Best regards,

Mark

[coldrain]

Since he is just starting out why not share with him your experience and why you switched over to Nikon? This would be the best time to learn the differences.
Andy has said time and time again that the reason he switched was to just know what nikon was like, and he came to the conclusion that with both systems one is able to do the same. That is how he personally feels about it, and that does not make that a general rule of course. Some may be more happy in the Nikon system, some may be more happy with a Canon EOS system.

There is nothing fundamentally better about Nikon, and nothing fundamentally better than Canon.

[RichNY]

Andy has said time and time again that the reason he switched was to just know what nikon was like, and he came to the conclusion that with both systems one is able to do the same. That is how he personally feels about it, and that does not make that a general rule of course. Some may be more happy in the Nikon system, some may be more happy with a Canon EOS system.

There is nothing fundamentally better about Nikon, and nothing fundamentally better than Canon.

Coldy- Yes, those of us who have been on the forum for a long time have had the chance to follow lots of Andy's posts but someone new hasn't benefited from this knowledge/person perspective yet.

[njoy_az]

...
There is nothing fundamentally better about Nikon, and nothing fundamentally better than Canon.

That's how I feel about it, too. I tried the different brands at the dealership and both Canon and Nikon felt quite comfortable in my hands, but I liked the (to me) more intuitive operation of the Canon better. As to whether I would prefer the 40D over the 30D? The jury is still out on that one ...

Peter wise. Peter good. Peter speak truth.
...
Not to belittle what others have said here - the 30D + 17-55 IS is a fantastic combo and the one of the two I'd recommend you get. The camera makes very very very very very very little difference what-so-ever in the final image. That lens is kick-ass. But, should you not be of the ability to get the best out of that lens for quite some time, it'd be in your best interest to pick the best body you can afford right now - because, when you're finally ready for a better lens, you won't be tempted by a better body.


So your (and Peter's) argument is that, even though the 30D with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the far better bundle, I would gain more by the better body than loose by the lesser lens? So how much does the performance differ between the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS on the one hand and the 30D vs. the 40D on the other hand? :confused:


Funny how things work - The newb always wants the best lens and the experienced can do wonders with the kit. . . . Thats what I've learned so far about photography.

I would say that it is (for a DSL-R newbie like me) easier to evaluate the objective quality of a lens than to gauge the relative merits of two kits.


(I used to shoot canon - I did have a 30D + 17-55IS).

So what annoyed you so much about the Canon that you switched? Or did you just want to check out if the grass is indeed greener on the other side (as coldrain's post seems to imply)?

IF you don't have a professional demand for quality lenses you don't need them.

Imho need as well as utility is (largely) dependant on one's personal preferences. My problem is just that, as a D-SLR-newbie, I find myself lacking the expertise to evaluate the two combos properly. :( That's why I am asking you guys! :)

[coldrain]

Simple truth is, the lens is more important than the camera body (if we suppose that the camera bodies will be accurate in colour/contrast).

So, unless you need/want certain features one body offers over the other, the lens choice is much more important.

The two biggest difference between the 30D and 40D are the 40D's new AF system that is a bit faster/better, and the 40D's live view. And its dynamic range is a little better, due to its 14 bit engine.
The 30D is a very good camera all on its own.

So, unless you think the 30D will not do, just enjoy the lovely combo with your 30D and 17-55 IS USM. While the new 18-55 IS is surpeisingly good, it does not reach the 17-55 f2.8 IS in optical and build quality.

If on the other hand you find the new-ness or the new features of the 40D attractive, then yes, the 18-55 IS is quite a nice lens.

The choice can not be made for you, it is rather personal. I'd go for the 17-55 f2.8 IS, since the quality of the optics shows in every photo you make... and if you were to upgrade your camera body later on, the quality of the optics would still show in the photos you made up till then.

[24Peter]

I should have qualified my response by saying I've never shot with a 30D. I did shoot with an XTi which (I think) had the same AF system and was unimpressed (compared to my XT). The AF on the 40D, according to my own experience and almost all accounts I've read, is much improved over both the 30D and my old XT.

Ideally, you'd want the better body and better lens. Your original post states there was a $250 difference (more) for the 30D and 17-55 2.8. If you could get the 40D with the 17-55 for another US$250-300, it might be worth the extra change. On the other hand, if you don't plan on shooting in low light situations (where you'd want a constant apeture 2.8 lens) you might not miss it.

Also, you're coming from a Canon P&S, no? Why not rent both a DSLR body and lens before you make the jump. You may find you would like a better P&S rather than a DSLR.

[njoy_az]

Thanks for you your input coldrain, you insight will make my decision much easier, as it really boils down to whatever body I prefer in the end. :)


...
Ideally, you'd want the better body and better lens. Your original post states there was a $250 difference (more) for the 30D and 17-55 2.8. If you could get the 40D with the 17-55 for another US$250-300, it might be worth the extra change. On the other hand, if you don't plan on shooting in low light situations (where you'd want a constant aperture 2.8 lens) you might not miss it.

I have thought about that, too, but the difference runs about €800 (approx. US$ 1200).


Also, you're coming from a Canon P&S, no? Why not rent both a DSLR body and lens before you make the jump. You may find you would like a better P&S rather than a DSLR.

Well, I used my dad's old Retina until I got a Minolta 7000 SLR with the 35-70 f4 AF for my highschool diploma. A couple of years ago I switched to the A70 which I find subtly lacking these days. What annoyed me most though, was the lousy low light focusing of the Minolta. That is where the Canon really seems to excel.

[24Peter]

Well, I used my dad's old Retina until I got a Minolta 7000 SLR with the 35-70 f4 AF for my highschool diploma. A couple of years ago I switched to the A70 which I find subtly lacking these days. What annoyed me most though, was the lousy low light focusing of the Minolta. That is where the Canon really seems to excel.

Well perhaps not for you, but for others considering the jump to DSLR's, look before you leap. Cameras like the Canon G9 can give you great photos without the hassle/expense of a DSLR kit.

[RichNY]

Peter is right about not needing to go to DSLR to get good images. This was taken (by someone with talent-not me) with a $300 Canon S3IS and a DIY hot light setup. http://www.birnstillphotography.com/pics/Img_5072rts.jpg

[njoy_az]

Here's a short update:

It looks like I am going to keep the 30D (I already like the lens). :) Everybody and his brother must be buying gear though, I have a hard time finding a decent camera bag (thankfully I don't need a bag as big and nice as Don's - yet :D ). So I am using my old lumbar-support-pack for the time being ...

31600

[fractalgfx]

Nice bag, but are you aware that Kokopelli is a Native American god of fertility?

[njoy_az]

Yes, he has a prominent place in Anasazi mythology. As far as I remember he is a benign god who brought abundant rain and food to the people.