| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2008 10:21:12 PM · #1 |
Hi!!
im looking forward to buying a body and several lenses.
Now i've come down to..
either
xti(400D) + ES-F 17-55 2.8 + 70-200 F4 IS
or
40D + Tamron 17-50 2.8 + 70-200 F4 IS
don't know if i should save some money to get the 40D or go with the "better" ES-F 17-55 2.8?
i shoot outdoor/landscape mostly.
Thanks!!! |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 01:35:35 AM · #2 |
| From a person that went from the 350XT (wich I still have) to the 40D. IMO, 40D!!!! |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 01:41:58 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by SDW:
From a person that went from the 350XT (wich I still have) to the 40D. IMO, 40D!!!! |
Second that, I use the 350D(xt) for work and own the 40D and the 40D beats the living daylights out of the xt and most likely the xti 400D
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 03:15:53 AM · #4 |
thanks.
what about the 2 lenses?
tamron 17-50 2.8 vs. ES-F 17-55 2.8?
is the canon ES-F 17-55 2.8 really worth the $500 extra when compared to the tamron 17-50 2.8? |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 03:21:33 AM · #5 |
From an other person that went from the 350XT (which I still have) to the 40D. IMO, 40D!!!!
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 03:21:43. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 03:23:55 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by seraphkz:
thanks.
what about the 2 lenses?
tamron 17-50 2.8 vs. ES-F 17-55 2.8?
is the canon ES-F 17-55 2.8 really worth the $500 extra when compared to the tamron 17-50 2.8? |
I don't have any experience with the Tamron 17-50 but I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a super lens.
Tamron makes some good lens and IMO if your not going for L glass from canon the Tamron would be a great lens while saving you some money. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 04:50:06 AM · #7 |
The only differences you're likely to notice between the two lenses are the quieter focusing on the Canon and its Image Stabilization. If the IS isn't important to you (I've personally never needed it) then I'd go for the 40D and the Tamron every time. The Tamron is a super lens and the Canon, though slightly superior optically, certainly doesn't justify the hefty price difference. You're going to get more benefit from the 40D.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 04:53:04. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 06:51:46 AM · #8 |
| I wouldn't agree that the Canon lens doesn't deserve the price difference, but if, as you say, you shoot mainly landscape and outdoors, the additional 5mm on the long end and the IS are not going to be a big benefit to you. So I would suggest the 40D and the Tamron. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 10:33:14 AM · #9 |
thanks everyone who has replied.
People actually told me that the Tamron is better optically. It just lacks the IS that the EF-S 17-55 has. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 01:05:40 PM · #10 |
and it lacks USM focus - which is faster, silent and allows manual operation all the time - a bonus if you use a expodisk or color parrot for WB. And yes, IS is worth the extra cost.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 05:18:12 AM · #11 |
The Tamron is brilliant. You won't be disappointed with it.
I'll be selling mine in a few weeks if you haven't got one already.
As for 40D/400D, they use the same sensor but 40d is built better and bigger too.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/22/2025 06:05:16 PM EDT.
