DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lens Upgrade
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/15/2008 05:16:54 PM · #1
I have had my 400D now for over a year, and am starting to find the current kit lens 18-55 not providing the quality I want. It was great at first however I am now wanting better optics. I also have the 50mm 1.8 mkII.

I will eventually upgrade to a full frame, even if it is in a few years time, so I dont see the point in investing in EF-S Lenses.

However this upgrade will have to cover me for the next 2 years or so before I can afford another lens.

Firstly I was thinking about upgrading to the 24 105 F4L IS but to be honest I think this sits uncomfortably in the zoom range, 24 on a crop body not being that wide, and 105 not being that long either.

When looking through my photos I mainly shoot landscape stuff, and I am extremely tempted to get the EF 17-40 F.4L for around £460 but the only thing stopping me is that the 40mm isnt as long as the 55mm on the kit lens, but Im sure I will get by using my 50mm to cover that focal length.

This then gives me the option to then buy a 70 200 in the future, so all in all being able to cover 17 200.

I just wondered if you guys think the 17 - 40 F4L will be a worthy upgrade or if you had any other suggestions or alternatives

Many thanks

Message edited by author 2008-04-15 17:19:03.
04/15/2008 05:39:19 PM · #2
I love mine, even on a full frame camera.

I also have the 70-200 F4L IS.

I keep a 50mm 1.8 to bridge the gap when necessary.

Still, I'm thinking of getting the 24-105L at some point.

Message edited by author 2008-04-15 17:39:26.
04/15/2008 06:01:18 PM · #3
The 17-40 is on my 1D more than any other lens and am sure you will love it so, if you can afford it then you should go for it as, as you say Landscapes are your main subject.

Then, stopped down the kit lens isn't a bad lens so you might want to get something longer? Or, even worse become like me and travel from 10-600 and always be in a quandry as what you can carry lol
04/16/2008 08:24:58 AM · #4
Thanks for the feedback, the 17-40, 50, & 70-200 setup is what I had in mind, I use the 50mm quite alot for portraits due to its 1.8. I would either look at investing in a flash or the 70-200 (not sure which one yet, but most probably the F4.0L) next. My university has just purchased the 17-40 so I am going to take it out for the day to see what its like, as Im not too comfortable with buying before I have tried something out!
04/16/2008 08:34:16 AM · #5
the 17-40mm is a great lens. I wasn't sold on it at first, but now i've had the chance to use it in the field and on some jobs it's on my camera 75% of the time (the other 25% being the 85mm F1.8).

But a word of advice: if you're going to buy one, buy it from overseas, especially the USA. You'll save about half your money doing it that way and you can find a near-mint used one for $500 no probs. Mine cost me $430, or £215, and it's in near perfect condition. Definitely something to think about next time you're in Jessops- the ripoff capital of the UK.

I'm like you in the way that i'll be switching to full frame soon and I can't recommend the 17-40mm highly enough because it works so well on both cropped and ff systems, also, it's one of the less expensive L lenses, retains it's value damned well, built like a tank, has great optical quality and basically won't let you down. But make sure you get a decent UV filter for it, not a cheapy green-box one. I recently invested in the Hoya HMC Super Pro 1 uv filter for it and it makes a great difference to the contrast of the pics and reducing haze, even when you didn't think there was any.
04/16/2008 08:46:16 AM · #6
Thanks tez, yes I have been looking at USA Prices and I could pick a new one up for about (online prices) $675 - £335, or on a warehouse express (uk online site) would be £460 with current canon cash back. Baring in mind in some high street shops this is up at £679!

Of course I am open to saving money however with VAT and import tax paid on importing a lens from the USA, surely it would be similar prices to buying online in the UK?

Thanks
04/16/2008 08:49:21 AM · #7
well it depends; i got mine from Canada, and for some reason there was no import tax on $700 worth of goods and it was clearly labelled as such. However, it was labelled as a gift, not as merchandise where the tax would be rendered.

Thing is, it's entirely possible you bought the lens over here anyways, took it to the USA or wherever else and left it with somebody there. If the sender marks it as a gift (which they will from eBay or Fred Miranda or anywhere else) there will be no import tax.

If you buy from B&H or a store, you're liable to pay tax. If you don't, you wont.

Check with Alex Saberi on here, he was selling one not too long ago for £300 and that's a steal.
04/16/2008 09:25:30 AM · #8
Check www.camerapricebuster.com! This site usually provides info on the cheapest equipment available from major retail outlets and internet business stores, as well as providing discount vouchers for varying retailers like jessops, cameraworld, warehouseexpress etc.

p.s. 17-40 is a peach of a lens. Don't hesitate to make a purchase...you won't be dissapointed!!!
04/16/2008 09:37:11 AM · #9
Thanks for the information guys, I have just checked that www.camerapricebuster.com and it offers a voucher for jessops £458.99 Minus cash back £418.99 which it the cheapest I have found so far. Do you buy of the jessops website and use that code?

Cheers tez for the information about importing, Im just a bit hesitant about getting stuff from the USA. But will do further enquiries

Cheers
04/16/2008 10:04:34 AM · #10
Since you mentioned upgrading to full-frame in the future and reusing the same lenses be sure to remember that the 400D has a 1.6 crop factor, so any lenses you migrate to the new format will have 60% less tele and 60% greater wide angle, which since you shoot landscapes will probably work out fine. It is only a pain when you want telephoto and find you have to get twice as close to your subject as you did before. :)
04/16/2008 10:06:04 AM · #11
yeah cheers tog im full aware of the 1.6 crop factor.

In regards to that jessops site i have popped the promo code in, it has recognised it, but hasnt deducted it of the final amount? any ideas?
04/16/2008 10:17:08 AM · #12
Originally posted by Cupra:


I will eventually upgrade to a full frame, even if it is in a few years time, so I dont see the point in investing in EF-S Lenses.


There is a point though: you can have 2 years of cost-effective fun with it and then resell it. And if you ever change your mind about switching to fullframe (many people have) or if you postpone it, you still have that fine lense.

I am not saying you should buy an EF-S, I am just saying you should not ignore them. Unless you are seriously planning a switch to FF in a couple of months, cater your lenses to your current camera.
04/16/2008 10:22:10 AM · #13
Originally posted by togtog:

Since you mentioned upgrading to full-frame in the future and reusing the same lenses be sure to remember that the 400D has a 1.6 crop factor, so any lenses you migrate to the new format will have 60% less tele and 60% greater wide angle, which since you shoot landscapes will probably work out fine. It is only a pain when you want telephoto and find you have to get twice as close to your subject as you did before. :)


Actually I think you have that backwards as you get greater reach but not as wide on the crop sensors... Like my 10-22mm EFS is equivalent to a 16-35mm lens on a FF sensor.

On the 24-105 F4L, Ive just spent a week with a rental and I can honestly say I most likely wouldn't buy one. Don't get me wrong it is a great lens, the IS works good and its sharp as hell with a blazing fast focus that emits no sound but it is HEAVY. For the money I would stick to the 17-40 and maybe a 70-200. I own a 17-40 and love it a LOT.

-dave
04/16/2008 10:25:24 AM · #14
Yeah, just use the code when making an online purchase from their website! Bought plenty of gear this way. A cracking little website for finding cheapest equipment.

edit: it should accept it, make sure you pop it in correctly as shown on the website, otherwise I dont know!!!

Message edited by author 2008-04-16 10:28:25.
04/16/2008 10:46:08 AM · #15
the trick is, don't buy from jessops ;)
04/16/2008 01:42:23 PM · #16
Originally posted by Cupra:

... thinking about upgrading to the 24 105 F4L IS but to be honest I think this sits uncomfortably in the zoom range, 24 on a crop body not being that wide, and 105 not being that long either...
landscape stuff, and I am extremely tempted to get the EF 17-40 F.4L for around £460 but the only thing stopping me is that the 40mm isnt as long ...
the option to then buy a 70 200 in the future, so all in all being able to cover 17 200... the 17 - 40 F4L will be a worthy upgrade...


I use all three lenses, and this is what I think:

24-105: a great all-around lens, solid built L, sharp and good contrast throughout the frame, but not much of a wide angle on a crop body like yours. The IS certainly helps to get shots the 17-40 would struggle with in low light. I would recommend this lens only with a FF camera, if I could afford only one new lens.

17-40: all in all also a great lens, solid built L, sharp and good contrast throughout the frame, especially at and near 17mm. This lens tends to be soft at 40mm (only at corners and along edges). It's not a big deal, if you know it and centre your subjects accordingly. This zoom is noticeably wider and, of course, more suitable as a wide angle on a crop cam. You can also migrate it to a FF cam and gain a very decent wide.

70-200 (2.8, 4, IS/non IS) absolutely great glass, and, depending on your style, suitable for landscapes as well. You won't be able to include much of a foreground subject, but, hell, what a sweet lens. I'd get the 2.8, at least, with IS, if you can afford it.

Your choice, really, in my book is between the 17-40 (a must if you intend to use it in tight quarters/urban street shots/indoors etc). If you can afford only one single lens for a while, I'd seriously consider the 70-200.
04/16/2008 02:26:55 PM · #17
Originally posted by mark_u_U:

Originally posted by Cupra:


I will eventually upgrade to a full frame, even if it is in a few years time, so I dont see the point in investing in EF-S Lenses.


There is a point though: you can have 2 years of cost-effective fun with it and then resell it. And if you ever change your mind about switching to fullframe (many people have) or if you postpone it, you still have that fine lense.


This is a very good point - I had a Sigma 18-50 2.8 before upgrading to Nikon's 17-55. Both are cracking lenses but I decided I wanted more kit before investing in the pro kit. I only "lost" £50 on the Sigma - £50 for a 12 month hire (effectively ;)) is pretty good value!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/03/2021 08:16:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/03/2021 08:16:07 AM EST.