Canon 40D or 400D- different lens


Status
Not open for further replies.

ronoholics

New Member
Aug 20, 2007
25
0
0
#1
Hey guys, though i have did alot of researach and all, i cant help getting confused becos some of the lens are quite similar.

Im thinking of getting 400D with 17-85mm IS USM + 70-300mm for i feel it would be enough to cover what im shooting. 250mm since it is out now. How??! They are like almost the same range, or am i wrongBut again, i had another choice of 40D with 18-55mm + 55-250mm since it's out now! :cry:

what do u think?
 

coolsigg

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
2,473
0
0
#2
i would go for the 40D setup since it is a newer body and the lenses had received quite good reviews...
 

Buggy

New Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,139
0
0
Woodlands
#3
if you're looking for a smaller body with tighter budget, the 400d does the job as well.
 

xunjas

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
6,494
0
0
Singapura
www.isaackiat.com
#4
if u have plans to upgrade in future, better go for 40D.. save on upgrading.. as for lens, depends on wad u plan to shoot.. 250mm versus 300mm makes not much difference.. it's yr choice on the lenses. i would go for 17-85mm and 70-300mm, since longer range coverage for me..
 

ronoholics

New Member
Aug 20, 2007
25
0
0
#5
i realise my words were cut off and jumbled up. ehh sorry! just to rephrase:

" Im thinking of getting 400D with 17-85mm IS USM + 70-300mm for i feel it would be enough to cover what im shooting. How??! But again, i had another choice of 40D with 18-55mm + 55-250mm since it's out now! They are like almost the same range, or am i wrong?"
 

ronoholics

New Member
Aug 20, 2007
25
0
0
#6
thanks guys! actually the budget is around the same as im contemplating between 400D kit II and 40D kit I. but my concern would be 40D's size and weight cos i have reeeeally small hands. im quite keen on its 6.5fps compared to 400D's 3fps, but the weight holds me back as im afraid it might not be advisable as a walk-about cam.
 

flipfreak

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2007
7,030
0
36
Singapore
www.rogerchua.com
#8
thanks guys! actually the budget is around the same as im contemplating between 400D kit II and 40D kit I. but my concern would be 40D's size and weight cos i have reeeeally small hands. im quite keen on its 6.5fps compared to 400D's 3fps, but the weight holds me back as im afraid it might not be advisable as a walk-about cam.
aiyo. how small can ur hands be? u are a girl ah? why dun u go n feel the cameras at canon vivocity.

then make ur decision based on how u like the handling.
 

cibs

New Member
Aug 6, 2005
223
0
0
Brunei
www.davidcheok.com
#9
The 40d is the way to go. IQ is better than my mk2s at certain ISOs and you'll appreciate the slightly larger sensor when you're shooting high ISO and/or blowing up images. The 17-85 kit lens that comes with it is not too bad either.. the focal length range is quite usable for everyday use and for still images. There are distortions that are non-rectilinear at 17mm and can cause some problems but its a kit lens.. dont compare it to an L lens. Some images taken with the 40d and 17-85.

EOS40d+17-85IS

Taken during the 1dsmk3 launch here in Brunei

and what the 40d is capable of at ISO3200 with proper cleanup techniques..
 

Apr 19, 2007
267
0
0
Alexandra
#10
I think you need to decide on a camera seperate from your lens.

my opinion - maybe not a popular one - is that the 18-55 kit lens is good value for money, while the 17-85 is not. I'm not saying that the 17-85 does not produce good photos.. its jus that it is not worth 3x - 4x the money.

Consider the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 instead
 

ronoholics

New Member
Aug 20, 2007
25
0
0
#11
flipfreak: yup, im a girl. if size of hands can be determine from height, sad to say im only 155cm. yup, i think i will definitely try out the cameras before i make any decision.

cibs: If im getting 40D, i'll probably get 18-55 to go with it. cos budget ah. haha.

ballwackers: ya! recently im reading more and more good reviews on 18-55. but now i read that tamron not so good leh. and i didnt see any good deals on 40D body.
 

flipfreak

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2007
7,030
0
36
Singapore
www.rogerchua.com
#12
flipfreak: yup, im a girl. if size of hands can be determine from height, sad to say im only 155cm. yup, i think i will definitely try out the cameras before i make any decision.

cibs: If im getting 40D, i'll probably get 18-55 to go with it. cos budget ah. haha.

ballwackers: ya! recently im reading more and more good reviews on 18-55. but now i read that tamron not so good leh. and i didnt see any good deals on 40D body.
oic. if tats the case, then i think u shld get the smaller camera. my friend picked up my 40D and she complained its heavy. she is a 400D user herself. easier to pop it into the handbag n go out too.
 

falconite

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2007
2,203
0
0
AMK | Tang Shooters
www.falconite.com
#13
I was lucky and using both 400D and 40D now. The lens that I also use : 70-300mm IS USM, 18-55mm, 17-85mm IS USM.

Agree that 40D is heavier and most female colleagues just love the 400D. I started with 70-300 and 18-55kit and learn to appreciate the capability of the lens and camera.... and today, i still think they are very capable setup! BTW I am a man ... So if the weight works for your on 400D and price is alright, you have a decision already. Cheers!
 

ronoholics

New Member
Aug 20, 2007
25
0
0
#14
hmm. does the kit lens 18-55 comes with IS? if not, is 17-85 IS USM better?
 

cibs

New Member
Aug 6, 2005
223
0
0
Brunei
www.davidcheok.com
#16
flipfreak: yup, im a girl. if size of hands can be determine from height, sad to say im only 155cm. yup, i think i will definitely try out the cameras before i make any decision.

cibs: If im getting 40D, i'll probably get 18-55 to go with it. cos budget ah. haha.

ballwackers: ya! recently im reading more and more good reviews on 18-55. but now i read that tamron not so good leh. and i didnt see any good deals on 40D body.
Actually, if I would get a 40d and the 50mm f1.4...
 

xunjas

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
6,494
0
0
Singapura
www.isaackiat.com
#17
hmm. does the kit lens 18-55 comes with IS? if not, is 17-85 IS USM better?
18-55 IS is a gd basic lens to start with, can cover landscape and portraits for this focal length range.

17-85mm give u extra coverage and usm provides faster focusing and slience.. I would get this piece when i have extra budget, to get more range, IS is an added feature as well. on a cropped sensor, this lens would give u extra reach as well. =)
 

falconite

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2007
2,203
0
0
AMK | Tang Shooters
www.falconite.com
#18
Actually, if I would get a 40d and the 50mm f1.4...
I have a 40D and a 50mm 1.4... no doubt good but if someone comes along and want to do landscape... or macro... its really a different story. How does one know where he or she want to develope? I would say the 18-55mm is good to start with... :) (just my take..)
 

cibs

New Member
Aug 6, 2005
223
0
0
Brunei
www.davidcheok.com
#19
I have a 40D and a 50mm 1.4... no doubt good but if someone comes along and want to do landscape... or macro... its really a different story. How does one know where he or she want to develope? I would say the 18-55mm is good to start with... :) (just my take..)
Most ppl have the misconception that shooting landscape requires a wideangle lens.. most of the landscapes out there are shot with teles. Wides are normally useful for altering the perspective of small areas so it seems bigger or to do creative distorted looks.. landscapes using wides usually have too little detail because the subject is usually too small..
A true macro lens by definition is one that produces an image magnification of 1:1 against the sensor. Most lenses with 'macro' functions simply allows close-up focusing and does not produce macro scale images. Only the specialised ones like the EF100mm f2.8 macro, EFs 60mm macro, EF180mm and EF65mm MPE are true macros.. i.e. macros require special lenses.

My recommendation for the 50mm 1.4 is because of the following reason:

1) I am assuming that she is relatively new to photography so a 50 mm prime helps to hone her composition and learn how to use the camera.
2) The ability to go f2 at ISO3200 allows her to shoot in almost any light situation.. and the sharpness and contrast of the prime will always outshine that of any zoom..

I've shot an entire wedding before using nothing but the 50 1.4 so depending on how its used, you can cover anything from scenery to close-up of rings.

Anyway, just my 2 cts..

(I've sold my 50 1.4 btw.. hoping to get the 50 1.2 when i can afford it ;p)
 

falconite

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2007
2,203
0
0
AMK | Tang Shooters
www.falconite.com
#20
Most ppl have the misconception that shooting landscape requires a wideangle lens.. most of the landscapes out there are shot with teles. Wides are normally useful for altering the perspective of small areas so it seems bigger or to do creative distorted looks.. landscapes using wides usually have too little detail because the subject is usually too small..
A true macro lens by definition is one that produces an image magnification of 1:1 against the sensor. Most lenses with 'macro' functions simply allows close-up focusing and does not produce macro scale images. Only the specialised ones like the EF100mm f2.8 macro, EFs 60mm macro, EF180mm and EF65mm MPE are true macros.. i.e. macros require special lenses.

My recommendation for the 50mm 1.4 is because of the following reason:

1) I am assuming that she is relatively new to photography so a 50 mm prime helps to hone her composition and learn how to use the camera.
2) The ability to go f2 at ISO3200 allows her to shoot in almost any light situation.. and the sharpness and contrast of the prime will always outshine that of any zoom..

I've shot an entire wedding before using nothing but the 50 1.4 so depending on how its used, you can cover anything from scenery to close-up of rings.

Anyway, just my 2 cts..

(I've sold my 50 1.4 btw.. hoping to get the 50 1.2 when i can afford it ;p)
I am aware that some master shoot landscape at 100mm or 200mm lens.... haaa.. and its impressive u shoot an entire wedding at 50mm 1.4F set-up.

But a tele givea good intro of shoots attainable between 18mm and/or 55mm... and it has a little space for creativity between huge and confined spaces. Quoting from resale thread.. you have a good SGD50 lens to play with compare to a great SGD500... my take is u never know, take the one for general tries.. and my take is 18-55mm is a great if not best lens to start with.. (just my opinion no offence intended ...)

I won't be surprise if she get the 50mm 1.4 cos its really a pair of good lens... but there are chances that she will not. But one most certainly move from 18-55 when they learn that they can do more with other lens.... so dun commit that money first until u are sure...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom