First time dSLR buyer needs advice; pls help

[MarkTan89]

I'm going to be joining the dSLR fray very soon and I would like to consult your opinion on whether I should spring for the Canon EOS 400D Kit II (17-85mm) or should I get the body alone and save for either a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or just any other lens which might be better than the 17-85mm. I'm open to third party lenses too.

Thanks a million

[lightning]

17-85 IS USM is an okay general purposes lens...(if you are not printing bigger then 8R)...If you have the cash...go straight to L....

[nakashimamika]

If you are using a crop body (400D in your case) and with the array of lenses you proposed. I will take the 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM anyday.

Im selling 1 BTW. PM me

[unseenshadows]

17-85 is a great walkabout lens. If you have the cash, get the 17-55 f/2.8. Don't bother about the f/4 Ls IMO. The 17-55 is more useful with its f/2.8 constant aperture (to me, at least). 17-40 f/4L is rather limited in focal length range for a walkabout. 24-105 is not wide enough on a 1.6x crop.

But I would personally much rather get the Kit II option. Especially since this would be your first DSLR camera. The 17-55 ain't cheap.

[Waz]

Have a feel of the body mate. If you like the 400D size, go for it.

As for me, I actually sort of downgraded myself from 400D to a 20D!
Just don't like the size (and feel) of the 400D even with battery grip on.

Not wanting to spend to much for my infrequent hobby, I bought a 20D off my mate (who upgraded to a 40D).
I am now with my 20D, and happy with it.

just buy the camera with the regular 18-55mm lens. Good enough lens. Save a bit more before upgrade to a 17-85mm IS. U'll be set after that.

Good luck.

[Buggy]

why not a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 when it's value for money?

anyway... the 17-85mm is a good range to work with.

[MarkTan89]

Thanks for all the help guys. Appreciate it !

I just made my purchase of a Canon 400D body with a EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens also with the advice from the kind people at John 3:16. I have a friend who is giving me his 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens so I'll be pretty set for the time being while saving for a better lens.

My next lens purchase would probably be either the EF 24-105mm f/4L or the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 to go with my body. Quite hard to choose though cause both lens are almost equally expensive and the 24-105 is a bit lacking in the minimum focal length.

[Buggy]

grats. have fun with your new toy

anyway the 50mm is a good buy for a start. the kit lens is capable to achieving quality photos are well.

[bernstein1234]

How about the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS? That lens is MUCH better than the original 18-55 (non-IS) and image quality is close to the 17-55mm f/2.8

[MRH]

Originally Posted by MarkTan89 Thanks for all the help guys. Appreciate it ! I just made my purchase of a Canon 400D body with a EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens also with the advice from the kind people at John 3:16. I have a friend who is giving me his 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens so I'll be pretty set for the time being while saving for a better lens. My next lens purchase would probably be either the EF 24-105mm f/4L or the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 to go with my body. Quite hard to choose though cause both lens are almost equally expensive and the 24-105 is a bit lacking in the minimum focal length.

Won't the 24-105 and 17-55 outsizes the 400D.
Anyone tried the combi?
Maybe those experienced with them can advise our friend here.
Kind of not very sure after seeing the sizes of the 2 lenses.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by MRH Won't the 24-105 and 17-55 outsizes the 400D. Anyone tried the combi? Maybe those experienced with them can advise our friend here. Kind of not very sure after seeing the sizes of the 2 lenses.

So what if it's outsized? Simply a matter of balance. Image quality would not suffer, would it?

[Buggy]

Originally Posted by MRH Won't the 24-105 and 17-55 outsizes the 400D. Anyone tried the combi? Maybe those experienced with them can advise our friend here. Kind of not very sure after seeing the sizes of the 2 lenses.

i think it's not really an issue as anyways, theses lenses can be used on the 400D body. maybe the gripping part... but with a grip attached, it does balance up the combi better.

[ditikolon]

Originally Posted by bernstein1234 How about the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS? That lens is MUCH better than the original 18-55 (non-IS) and image quality is close to the 17-55mm f/2.8

I vote Tamron 17-50! It's currently on my wishlist (:


Sorry for the apprehension, but is the 18-55 IS really as good as advertised, to the point of being compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 that can buy a couple of these?

[ditikolon]

Originally Posted by Buggy i think it's not really an issue as anyways, theses lenses can be used on the 400D body. maybe the gripping part... but with a grip attached, it does balance up the combi better.

GRIPPED 400D is very important I feel. I only remove the grip when travelling light.

[Buggy]

Originally Posted by ditikolon I vote Tamron 17-50! It's currently on my wishlist (: Sorry for the apprehension, but is the 18-55 IS really as good as advertised, to the point of being compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 that can buy a couple of these?

havent really tried it out. maybe we should get someone with that lens out for a test outing.

am now choosing between that or the tamron or even the 17-40.

[yehosaphat]

17-40 f4L cannot go wrong. Quality assured!

[calebk]

Originally Posted by ditikolon I vote Tamron 17-50! It's currently on my wishlist (: Sorry for the apprehension, but is the 18-55 IS really as good as advertised, to the point of being compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 that can buy a couple of these?

It is definitely a lot better than its predecessor, but I won't go as far as saying it's as good as the 17-55 f/2.8.

[zerartul]

Umm i own both the 18-55 IS and 17-55 IS. To say the aperature is alot of difference. Also in terms of sharpness the 17-55 is sharper. But all said, unless you blow the image up or pixel peep, cant really tell the difference at similar Aperature. That said, F2.8 is a huge advantage. Low Light and Isolation is better then the 18-55 IS. Also focusing speed wise, the 17-55 USM is way faster and slightly more accurate.

[bernstein1234]

Originally Posted by ditikolon Sorry for the apprehension, but is the 18-55 IS really as good as advertised, to the point of being compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 that can buy a couple of these?

18-55 IS is $2xx, 17-55 IS is $14XX

Got $$, and print 8R often, go for 17-55 IS. No $$ (I, for eg), and mostly print 3-4R, go for 18-55 IS

But this is not to say 18-55 IS is really bad, but its definitely value for tt kind of $$, for me at least.

[bernstein1234]

Originally Posted by calebk It is definitely a lot better than its predecessor, but I won't go as far as saying it's as good as the 17-55 f/2.8.

Yep, 2nd that. To say 18-55 IS AS GOOD as 17-55 IS is impossible, in terms of corner sharpness / pixel, contrast, color, AF speed, etc.