Going to try Canon.

[djl4]

I have sold my Nikon gear for personal reason. Now that I'm given a Canon 40d, I just want to know what lens I should get for it.
I'm just going to be shooting landscapes, portraits. Nothing serious, but I still want to get great photos.

Now, coming from Nikon, I don't really know much Canon, especially when it comes to lenses. I've noticed that some are "L," which are supposed to be good and expensive...?
Anyways, all I'm looking for is a decent to great lenses without spending over $400.

How is the 40D by the way? I've heard it's decent. Please share any experiences.

Thank you.

[ohenry]

Take a look at the Tamron line. You won't find many L lenses under $700, with most topping $1000. One option to consider: Canon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS. It will be a bit more than $400, but a decent lens for the range it offers.

The 40D is a great camera.

[djl4]

Thank you. I'll take a look into the 18-200.
How is the 18-55? I've noticed there are some variations of that...

[ohenry]

I don't have that lens, so I can't say. It's fair, from my understanding. Better than some, not as good as others.

[motox424]

Originally Posted by djl4

Thank you. I'll take a look into the 18-200.
How is the 18-55? I've noticed there are some variations of that...

The newer version of this lens with IS(image stabilization) is a fantastic little lens, often refered to as, "Kit lens", as it comes bundled with alot of the Rebel series cameras. i had it, unfortunately sold it, and now am looking at picking up another!

[djl4]

Great! Thanks for your input. I'm actually considering that lens.

[Doug Johncox]

The 17-55 2.8 IS is a great walk around lens. I have owned it for 2 years, fast enough and very good image quality.

[swampler]

Originally Posted by Doug Johncox

The 17-55 2.8 IS is a great walk around lens. I have owned it for 2 years, fast enough and very good image quality.

So they say, but at around $1000, it doesn't meet the OP's price requirements.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the EF-S 17-85 IS. It has been packed as a kit lens, is decently sharp (though it has distortion and CA at the wide end), and costs between $400 and $500 online. It has the 17mm on the wide end which is need for wide angle on a crop camera, such as the 40D and the 85 on the long end is much more useful than 50 or 55mm of the 18-55 IS.

The reason I say that I'm going out on a limb, is that a lot of people will tell you the lens is horrible, but in reality it's a good walk around / general purpose lens. When you're ready to spend more on a specialty lens, then you can worry about constant f/2.8, macro, etc.

[Doug Johncox]

OOps, Yeah I didn't think about the OP's price limit. Get the kit as suggested above. If you don't like it, save up for the 17-55. There are plenty of prime lenses in your price range. 28mm is about normal for the 40D. The nifty 50 is a fun compact lens, light too. The 40D is a heck of a camera. A nice 10 meg camera. You can spend a small fortune on accessories and lenses.

[Elisha]

The 18-55mm IS is an awesome lens for the money.
My 7D shots are all taken with it if you wanna have a look on my Flickr page.

[Dirk]

HI I have the folowing cannon lenses on my Eos 300D : Canon ef-s 18-55 IS f 3.5-5.6

with this lens i have shot this





I have a Canon EF 24-85 USM f3.5-4.5 "goldfinger"

with that i shot this one



I use the 18-55 the most , the goldfinger is a special lens it is the silver/ champain looking version of the black 24-85 but the silver versions are better it is a lens designed for aps-c (eos IX) camera's and thus also working on the eos 300D since it has a red dot (ef lenses) and a white dot (ef-s)

don't know why you are swithcing , don't even know what gear you had and why you are not sattisfied with nikon (since i am a nikon shooter too (D50/ F 65 / D70) )
but then again you must be special to shoot both brands .. twisted like a

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by djl4

Now that I'm given a Canon 40d, I just want to know what lens I should get for it.
I'm just going to be shooting landscapes, portraits. Nothing serious, but I still want to get great photos.

Now, coming from Nikon, I don't really know much Canon, especially when it comes to lenses. I've noticed that some are "L," which are supposed to be good and expensive...?
Anyways, all I'm looking for is a decent to great lenses without spending over $400.

How is the 40D by the way? I've heard it's decent. Please share any experiences

Hi djl4,

The 40D is a very good body, with excellent low-noise in the higher ISO's, it is very fast and responsive, and, after you get used to it coming from Nikon, a very good button layout with all functions (but a few) you need at your fingertips.

As far as lenses go: Canon has basically three series: the lower consumer grade, recognisable by their max aperture (F4-F5.6), their better consumer grade line, with lenses with max aperture F3.5-F4.5, and the professional L-line, that have - for the most - even larger aperture (F2.8 ), excellent build quality (metal) and many come with weather sealing. they come at a price though: you won't find any L lenses within your suggested budget of $400.

Originally Posted by ohenry

Take a look at the Tamron line. One option to consider: Canon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS. It will be a bit more than $400, but a decent lens for the range it offers. The 40D is a great camera.

I agree on all three

Originally Posted by djl4

How is the 18-55? I've noticed there are some variations of that...

The 18-55 is the EF-S (1.6x crop bodies) Kit lens: it offers excellent image quality FOR THE PRICE. The 18-55 I and II Non-USM are the poorest performers, the 18-55 I and II with USM are a bit better, but if you want the best of them, go for the EF-S 18-55F3.5-F5.6 IS, that is optically the best of the bunch.

Originally Posted by swampler

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the EF-S 17-85 IS. It has been packed as a kit lens, is decently sharp (though it has distortion and CA at the wide end), and costs between $400 and $500 online. It has the 17mm on the wide end which is need for wide angle on a crop camera, such as the 40D and the 85 on the long end is much more useful than 50 or 55mm of the 18-55 IS.

The reason I say that I'm going out on a limb, is that a lot of people will tell you the lens is horrible, but in reality it's a good walk around / general purpose lens. When you're ready to spend more on a specialty lens, then you can worry about constant f/2.8, macro, etc.

If you really going to stretch your budget, then skip the 17-85 and go for the new 15-85: more expensive than the 17-85 it replaces, but a far better wide range (15mm = 24mm FoV, 17mm = 28mm FoV), far less distortion, and more decent build.

I wouldn't call the 17-85 horrible, but it has - as indicated - a lot of distortion both on the wide and the tele end (however easily correctable with DPP software), and it is also a weaker build lens, my cameradealer sees a lot of these lenses in need of repair: with both AF, IS and mechanical issues...

So: within your budget (and sticking to Canon) I would suggest 18-55 IS, if you can stretch the budget a little 18-200IS, if you can stretch it further: 15-85 IS.

And if you want to try 3rd party lenses: most here prefer Tamron over Sigma, the Tamrons are a bit more decent build and a bit better optically...

...*my* €0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[swampler]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

If you really going to stretch your budget, then skip the 17-85 and go for the new 15-85: more expensive than the 17-85 it replaces, but a far better wide range (15mm = 24mm FoV, 17mm = 28mm FoV), far less distortion, and more decent build.

While I agree with Max that the 15-85 should be a much better lens than the 17-85 it replaces, the 15-85 is about $300 more than the 17-85, which is why I recommended the 17-85. And as Max mentioned, my Dad had to have the AF repaired on his 17-85 and never treats it badly, nor has ever dropped it.

[aphotographynut]

Welcome fellow Canon shooter!

I am going to go out on a limb here: I recently had a "contest" with some buddies where we put away all our zooms and just got out a 50 prime. Had a blast and got some great shallow DOF shots along with low light shots, etc. My suggestion, since 400 is the budget, is to go with the 50 1.4 or the 35mm 2.0. I know I may get some flack here, but starting out this way will make you "think" more, set up your shot better, etc. I simply love walking around town with the 50. It is so light and I can use it in restaurants, etc without a flash.

Finally, these lenses hold their value quite well. You can always sell it later for an "L" series zoom, etc. if you want.

If you had to go with a zoom, I would suggest Tamron for the money. They make very good lenses (I had them in the past). An added "bonus" is they are "backasswards" in how they zoom, like the Nikons are!

[djl4]

Thank you all for your inputs. I really appreciate it.
I'm planning on going to a camera store nearby to actually feel the 40D in my hand. I'll also take a look at the menus and the buttons and all of that to see if I like it.

[felix.reichardt]

Originally Posted by djl4

Thank you all for your inputs. I really appreciate it.
I'm planning on going to a camera store nearby to actually feel the 40D in my hand. I'll also take a look at the menus and the buttons and all of that to see if I like it.

You can also download the manual as pdf and read in peace at home what function the 40D has to offer and how to operate it.

Lenses I can recommend for someone on budget:

1) EF 85 f/1.8
2) EF 50 f/1.4

[djl4]

I may consider the 50mm. Thank you.

How is the 28-135mm lens? It seems it's part of a kit...?

How is the image quality of 28-135mm when compared to the 17-85mm?

[FocusingOnFlorida]

Another lens not mentioned that is just above the $400 mark but worth the little extra is the Tamron 18-250. I believe it is f3.5 - 6.3

I had this one, but got rid of it because I like a constant f-stop. Drove me nuts shooting a sporting event in manual, zoom in or out, and have the photo under or over exposed. Hard to take the time to make adjustments when shooting fast action. The picture quality was very good though.

[djl4]

Thanks, but I think I'm going to stick to Canon lenses, for now at least.

Can anyone tell me their experiences with the Canon 28-135mm?

How is the lens compared to the 17-85mm? Which do you prefer?

[Loboes]

I can't comment compared to the 17-85 but I bought the 28-135 with my D60 and although the D60 is long gone I still have the 28-135. It is a very good lense for the money especially if you get a used lense from someone who doesn't want the kit lense. For an allround lense that may not be the best at anything but good at everything you can't beat it.