any comments on this combination?

03/25/2008 11:32:05 PM · #1

Camera: Canon 40D
Lenses: Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f/4L USM IS

i'm kinda not sure about the 17-40. I usually shoot outdoor, but i dont know if i should get anything sharper than f/4.

any comments? thanks in advance.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/25/2008 11:52:15 PM · #2

Originally posted by seraphkz:

The 40D would look good in my bag! ;)

Seriously- I think you'll like the 17-40...what things do you shoot outside? the 50/1.8 is good for portraits, though I'm sold on the 85/1.8. I use the 70-200 non IS and have no complaints. Is IS worth the extra $$$??

03/25/2008 11:59:28 PM · #3

Originally posted by mpeters:

Originally posted by seraphkz:
Camera: Canon 40D
Lenses: Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f/4L USM IS

i'm kinda not sure about the 17-40. I usually shoot outdoor, but i dont know if i should get anything sharper than f/4.

any comments? thanks in advance.

The 40D would look good in my bag! ;)

Seriously- I think you'll like the 17-40...what things do you shoot outside? the 50/1.8 is good for portraits, though I'm sold on the 85/1.8. I use the 70-200 non IS and have no complaints. Is IS worth the extra $$$??

hmm. i do candids. and sometimes i'd appreciate a good bokeh. that's why I dont know if f/4 is enough.

03/26/2008 12:21:46 AM · #4

and i shoot landscape..sunset/sunrise.. park.. stuff like that.
don't usually do indoor

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/26/2008 12:25:14 AM · #5

IMO the 17-40 would work well for 'landscape...sunset/sunrise..park stuff'

Not sure about the bokeh on the 50/1.8. Somebody else will need to chime in... The non IS version of the 70-200/4 has bokeh, I just don't have anything to compare it to.