EOS 40D Kit I or Kit II?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 17, 2006
58
0
0
#1
Hi guys

Any advice on these?

EOS 40D kit II (EF S17-85 IS USM)
or
EOS 40D kit I (EF S18-55)

I was wondering how much difference are lens with or without an image stabilizers, especially with non-tele focal lens.

should get kit I and get a llonger lens without IS later
or
just get kit II?

tks
 

bang

New Member
May 2, 2005
125
0
0
#4
Just got the 40D and I've to say the 17-55 has exceeded my expectations. Maybe mine's a little low though..
But frankly, it does feel rather plasticky and cheapo. But I can sure live with that.
 

Aug 17, 2006
58
0
0
#5
So, whats the recomedation?
Kit I or II?
any comments on the 17-85 IS lens?
 

flipfreak

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2007
7,030
0
36
Singapore
www.rogerchua.com
#6
just get the cheapest set up and upgrade from there. the new 18-55 has improved image quality and image stabilizer so you will probably use it most of the time.
 

Aug 17, 2006
58
0
0
#7
just get the cheapest set up and upgrade from there. the new 18-55 has improved image quality and image stabilizer so you will probably use it most of the time.

you sure the Kit comes with the 18-55 IS lens?

tks
 

flipfreak

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2007
7,030
0
36
Singapore
www.rogerchua.com
#11
its pretty decent. my first lens. didnt like the distortion on it. other than that, for the price, i think it is pretty good considering u get IS and USM and the focal length is very useful for the crop sensor.
 

Aug 17, 2006
58
0
0
#12
Nov 26, 2007
60
0
0
#15
Why buy such a beautiful camera with such a cheap lens? Don't go with the kit lens. Your money can be well spent on other better lens. I have also been told by quite a few people that they are trying to push the kit lens because it's cheap and no one wants it. Hence the drop in price. Go to any retailer who sells these cameras and ask how many of the kit lens they have in stock. Most people, myself included, just bought the body and upgraded to a better lens. Good luck to you.
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#16
a lot of buyers are upgrading from previous cameras.... and i think there's a lack of body-only sets, hence retailers may unbundle the kit lenses to sell the bodies. this doesn't mean the lenses are no good though. anyway, cheap doesn't mean no good. the 17-85 IS is comparable if not better than the "old" 28-135 IS which was a pretty popular and good lens despite its "cheapness".
 

Aug 17, 2006
58
0
0
#19
not good? in what sense not good? at the price most shops are selling, tell me what lens is better than this?
I don't know man, he was just saying.
I have no idea, just wondering.
I do travel and take shots of kiteboarding and surfing quite abit.
new advice on water proof housing too.

btw what do think of Sigma Lens?
 

flipfreak

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2007
7,030
0
36
Singapore
www.rogerchua.com
#20
I don't know man, he was just saying.
I have no idea, just wondering.
I do travel and take shots of kiteboarding and surfing quite abit.
new advice on water proof housing too.

btw what do think of Sigma Lens?
get a 3rd party if there is no canon equivalent. u buy canon for the whole system, not just the camera body. defeats the purpose of buying canon if u gonna invest in 3rd party stuff. :nono:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom