lens for canon 40d

hoganpoly

just bought 40d body from jessops and am looking for a good all round lens for general shots including some sports like gaa,olf and soccer cheers

Placebo

general all round lens would be a 50mm 1.8 and its cheap, around 80 euros, but to get soccer and gaa photos, you might need a zoom lens so it fits all purposes

AnimalRights

24-105L IS would be an excellent all round lens.

challengemaster

For shooting golf, a 24-105 would be useless. Golfers do not like hearing shutter sounds. :pac:

Also you're not really gonna get much stretch for soccer or gaa with that.

It'd be a decent walk-about lens alright, although in recent tests on the 5DmkII, the 50mm f/1.8 is a better lens than the 24-105L. Goes to show! Lens thats 20+ years old is still better build quality

Thing is with DSLR's is, there's no magic one cover-it-all lens.

bmcgrath

You're going to need a few lenses...

Canon have a nice 17-55 or 17-85 for crop cameras. They do the trick. Tamron and Sigma have their own offerings too.

For the sports. Well to freeze action such as GAA and soccer you will need a 70-200 f/2.8.
Or blow some serious cash on a 300 f/2.8

Suppose the question we really should be asking is. How much do you wanna spend?

AnimalRights

challengemaster wrote: »

For shooting golf, a 24-105 would be useless. Golfers do not like hearing shutter sounds. :pac:

Also you're not really gonna get much stretch for soccer or gaa with that.

It'd be a decent walk-about lens alright, although in recent tests on the 5DmkII, the 50mm f/1.8 is a better lens than the 24-105L. Goes to show! Lens thats 20+ years old is still better build quality

Thing is with DSLR's is, there's no magic one cover-it-all lens.

OP said for General use with some...bla bla and as you pointed out later on in your post there is no magic cover it all lens. (Infact I assume Op is not a serious sports photographer he may only be photographing nearside for footy games at club level etc, these are all taken with a 24-105L and I was actually in the stands so if OP is on the touchline at a club game he will get a lot closer than these shots)
http://pix.ie/punkrock/album/330488


OP also has a 40D and not a 5DII
I find my 50mm 1.4 better for certain shots but get far more keepers with the 24-105L which is a more consistent lens, Goes to show eh..
Also link to the 1.8 story plz..

ps you will wear the :pac: out so go easy with it this New years.

challengemaster

AnimalRights wrote: »

OP said for General use with some...bla bla and as you pointed out later on in your post there is no magic cover it all lens.

No, the OP said for general use and to cover sports aswell. Not bla bla.

OP also has a 40D and not a 5DII

Yes, I know. But go figure, It's still a lens test, isn't it. If something's better quality on something that shows up more defects (the 5DmkII with its 21 megapixel), then it's surely better quality on a lower resolution camera. No? Seems logical to me.

I find my 50mm 1.4 better for certain shots but get far more keepers with the 24-105L which is a more consistent lens, Goes to show eh..

If it were a pc, I'd say PEBKAC. Figure that one out.

Also link to the 1.8 story plz..

Was in a magazine. Jan 2009 edition of Professional Photographer. The 5DmkII is on test, and they're comparing crops from the two lenses. Pg 93 if you get it. To quote

Professional Photographer, pg93 wrote:

The 5D MkII delivers, but it's important to use good lenses and shoot Raw as the above comparison shows. Disturbingly, a 50mm f/1.8 EF from 1987 turned in a better performance than a new L-series 24-105mm f/4 zoom.

Borderfox

I read about the 50mm f1.8 too, think it was Professional Photographer or Digital Photo Pro

Sigma 70-300 would be grand for sports in decent light

bp_me

There is always http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18270_vc.asp

Though it's truely a case of jack of all trades and master of none.

Calina

A 24-70L is, in my view, likely to be too expensive for the vast majority of people looking for a general all round lens.

OP, the 17-85 that ships with the 40D is not a bad lens. I'd recommend the 50mm as a decent enough general lens - hey, fixed focal length primes were the bread and butter of amateur film photographers.

For the sports you'll need some kind of zoom. As the 70-200 2.8L while desirable costs about double what the 40D costs, I dare say you may not necessarily want to rush out and buy it. Photographs I took with a Sigma 70-300mm DG APO were published in the Irish Times, and on a double page spread on one occasion. I realise that there are a bunch fo people with 50mm 1.8s who will not agree but for me that Sigma is the best value for money lens bar none. You'll get it in Dublin for 200E and falling, whereas the 50mm will set you back around 120E in Dublin but less on line.

These are good starting lenses and what's more they don't cause bankruptcy which in this day and age makes them attractive.

___________________

General note to other users: bear in mind that lenses cost real money and a lot of it. I realise that it is almost certainly not intended, but frankly, anyone who really needs an L glass lens will not be asking for advice about general lenses.

Note: local list price for the 24-70L is 1300E, and for the 2.8 70-200L is 1999E. I'd like a little more reality offered to people looking for advice. Not everyone has 3000E to fling away on lenses.

I'd also add - and surely to God I don't need to remind people of this - ownership of L glass is no guarantee of producing good photographs whereas if you've got talent you'll produce them with lesser lenses, all the same.

Ricky91t

A magic "cover it all lens" is the 28-300 is usm,i'v seen videos filmed by canon for thier site and the professional photographers were using these,the fact its a long range and at the shorter end has a higher aperture than the 24-105...

hoganpoly

thx for all replies ,as im new to this coming from a bridge camera, might be best and just get a sigma 70-300 and a 50mm 1.8 then take the plunge with a 70-200 2.8, will i get decent shots in good daylight with the 70-300 as this is what i will be using most for the sports like golf,soccer and gaa where i will be mostly sideline ,can get 50mm and the 70-300 for around 200 euro/pound also what filters should i get thx and new new year to all:)

ThOnda

70-200/4 or 70-200/2.8? Of course, Canon.
Without Image Stabilisation.

Is it worth going for 2.8? There is some price gap inbetween those lenses.

hoganpoly

is image stabilisation an issue with some lenses?

Mycroft H

hoganpoly wrote: »

is image stabilisation an issue with some lenses?

Na as long as you dont use it while its turned on while on a tripod but they cost a fair bit more.........
Now if you had bought a minolta/sony/olympus you would have been laughing cos I.S is built in to the body on those brands.

Calina

hoganpoly wrote: »

is image stabilisation an issue with some lenses?

Image stabilisation is available on some but not all lenses. It reduces the impact of handshake at low shutter speeds.

In my life I have had one lens with IS, and that is the 17-85mm that came with my own 40D.

Some people rave about IS. I really actually couldn't care less about it - if you're using a very heavy lens, such as the afore mentioned 70-200mm 2.8, you'll probably buy a monopod although it's possible to take good photos with that lens handheld, it just weighs a tonne after about 20 minutes. I don't have IS on my own long zoom (which incidentally is a Sigma 50-500mm) and I don't miss it and I never used it on my 17-85mm anyway. I believe the few times I've used oether people's 70-200mm 2.8s I haven't bothered with the IS.

I'm open to correction but IS lenses I think will also drain your batteries a bit faster. In many ways, it's a trade off. It makes a difference at low shutter speeds (say below 1/100 of a second) but if you're not going to be down there all that often...

for me it's not a nobrainer to get it.

hoganpoly

Calina wrote: »

Image stabilisation is available on some but not all lenses. It reduces the impact of handshake at low shutter speeds.

In my life I have had one lens with IS, and that is the 17-85mm that came with my own 40D.

Some people rave about IS. I really actually couldn't care less about it - if you're using a very heavy lens, such as the afore mentioned 70-200mm 2.8, you'll probably buy a monopod although it's possible to take good photos with that lens handheld, it just weighs a tonne after about 20 minutes. I don't have IS on my own long zoom (which incidentally is a Sigma 50-500mm) and I don't miss it and I never used it on my 17-85mm anyway. I believe the few times I've used oether people's 70-200mm 2.8s I haven't bothered with the IS.

I'm open to correction but IS lenses I think will also drain your batteries a bit faster. In many ways, it's a trade off. It makes a difference at low shutter speeds (say below 1/100 of a second) but if you're not going to be down there all that often...

for me it's not a nobrainer to get it.

thx for info calina will let you know how i get on thx

ThOnda

I would go for the bigger aperture first, than the IS. If I could afford it, definitely IS.
It makes big difference, especially with longer focal lengths.

AnimalRights

IS especially for beginners is invaluable..
If I had a choice of identical lens with or without IS I know which one I'd pick every time.

Borderfox

IS pro lenses are also weather-sealed, this would account for the extra cost as well as the IS mechanism.