Good Canon fit lenses?

[glypo]

I'm after a little camera lens help if I may.

I'm getting a Canon EOS 40D soon and would appreciate any recommendations for good general lenses. I have borrowed a 20D from neo-buggy Phil the last couple of race meetings I have covered (Euro Indoor in France and the Neo08) and used a couple of different lenses.

From this experience I have already decided I'm after a Canon 70-200mm L F4. I think the f2.8 is too heavy and not worth the money for RC, and that having IS isn't worth it for race photography? I got some great snaps with the 70-200 L F4 so hopefully that can be my general RC lens.

However I'd like to know what people recommend for general photography. Ideally I'm after a standard zoom lens for general photos, a macro lens and a fisheye. I've been reading through reviews and I'm stuck! Hows the standard Canon 17-85mm F4.0-5.6? I haven't heard anything about it, but the deals with a 40D and that lens are good, and the focal range is nice but the F number sounds a little high.

Thanks in advance for any help!

[mole2k]

The 70-200 f4L should be grand for r/c car shots. I've got one and its my most used lens for rallys and other things.

I coupled it with a 17-40 f4L too which was great and ultra sharp, I had to sell it due to lack of funds at christmas though :(

I dont know much about the EF-s lenses but im sure somebody will have more experience than me on those. The 17-55 f2.8 IS has always been held in high reguard by most people i've talked too who owns one, i've no idea on the price of it though.

Currently I have 10-20mm then a huge gap till 50mm, im looking to fill it either with the canon 24-70 f2.8L or the sigma 24-70 f2.8 if I cant get the funding for the L glass.

[Stu]

If you can avoid the EFS18-55 plastic lense then do - it's OK at 18mm but thats all. I have one but only use it at 18mm, I swap to a 50mm for mid stuff.

I do want an EFS17-85 ideally (but I keep looking at 5d's - :cry:)

The 70-200 F4 L is ace outdoors, but it did not come out the bag at the NEO as it's not fast enough for indoors.

[glypo]

That's an awesome reply, thank you so much.

I checked and the 17-55mm f2.8 IS costs £659.00. It's a fair bit of cash as the 17-40mm f4.0 L is £499. But you get an extra 10mm of zoom and having f2.8 really makes it appeal to me.

Relatively speaking though, the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS when purchased with the 40D only works out at £230, which is a £100 saving (or £170 compared to Jessops price). I'm not sure if I could justify more money on a lens with much less zoom, despite the extra aperture (the f/2.8 does sound wicked).

What do you think, the extra money worth it? Which then brings me onto the next question, if not, do you think the 17-40 f4 L is worth the extra money over a standard lens? I was certainly impressed with the L series 70-200 but sure if I should spend the extra cash just for a normal lens.

Thanks again for your help, SLR's are a minefield!

[glypo]

If you can avoid the EFS18-55 plastic lense then do - it's OK at 18mm but thats all. I have one but only use it at 18mm, I swap to a 50mm for mid stuff.

I do want an EFS17-85 ideally (but I keep looking at 5d's - :cry:)

The 70-200 F4 L is ace outdoors, but it did not come out the bag at the NEO as it's not fast enough for indoors.

Thanks for a reply Stu. I was writing my last reply when you posted so missed it.

The 40D doesn't come with 18-55 fortunatly, the kit lens is the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. Hence I have been confused as to whether I should go for this lens (works out dirt cheap with the 40D) or get a body only and perhaps get some L glass or a lens with lower aperture.

I disagree with the 70-200 f/4 L being too slow for indoors. I got some nice results at the Neo. I just uploaded a couple to show, I haven't had time to put any on my website yet. I've only really had chance to go through to pick some nice/relevant ones out for the magazine race report. But still, considering I was using a camera I wasn't used to (20D borrowed from neo-buggy Phil), and that I'm a total SLR newbie I was very impressed with what the 70-200 f/4 L gave.

http://www.glypo.com/general/neo08/1.jpg

http://www.glypo.com/general/neo08/2.jpg

[Stu]

.......and a fisheye. ...


I don't think a fish-eye is available for the crop sensor Canons?

The 10-22 is the closest.

Maybe someone will correct me?

[glypo]

Well anything wide-angle really. There's me using the wrong terms... oops. Is 10mm not classed as fish-eye then? My bad.

Well that's what I mean anyway. Anyone with a good suggestion(s) for a nice very wide angle lens would be greatly appreciated also. I'm sure 10mm will be plenty, I have seen both Sigma and Canon lenses which work well with the APS-C sized sensors.. but reading a tonne of reviews hasn't helped me chose!

[Stu]

The 10-22 is good.

You don't get the distortion that a fish eye gives, which may or may not be what you want. They are ace for landscape/interior type stuff but you dont get that crazy-fish-eye-madness.

The following is at 10mm - there is distortion around the edge, but not like a full fish-eye.

http://www.northernracer.com/posted/8.jpg

[mole2k]

The sigma 10-20mm is great. A fisheye lens basically has massive barrel distortion a normal lens doesnt as it corrects to keep straight lines (relatively) straight.

You can get a few fisheyes for crop camera's i think but you need an 8mm one to get a complete circle.

I love my 10-20mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2122258057_eafe961cf4_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/2343902084_e78011ac74_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2122241311_12a7d1d7b2_o.jpg

[glypo]

Wow thanks for the heads up. I would have been VERY disappointed to have purchased one of those and not get the fisheye distortion.

After a long evenings research (you have got to love google!), I have found a few lenses that can distort for the APS-C (1.6x crop factor, for Canon). A lot of them had rounded edges though (not what I'm after) so I found two which didn't have the rounded edges.

Oddly enough they are both 10mm but give a massive field of view and distortion. The first option is the cheapest, and is the Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 at £400. Lots of people seem to use and enjoy. The second option is the new Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX HSM (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1024105) at £450.

This will likely be my option as it's lower f value, and a prime (I want a fisheye for distortion, so zoom is pointless taking out of fish eye).

Anyway here are a couple of links to a blog where a guy has taken some photos using the sigma 10mm fisheye, looks like with a 30D:

http://www.peterbernik.com/2008/01/21/worlds-first-sigma-10-f28-mm-fisheye-hands-on-preview/

http://www.peterbernik.com/2008/01/30/a-few-more-sigma-10-28-fisheye-test-shots/

Looks ideal to me. Quite expensive but I think the Sigma EX are good?

Once again thanks, I just assumed any low mm lense would distort like a fisheye. You saved me making an expensive mistake :) p.s. mole - those are some AWESOME photos

[mole2k]

The low mm wide angles do distort quite similar to fisheyes sometimes when you zoom in close but when compared side by side you notice how the straight edges are more or less straight when compared to very curved ones on a fish eye.

I've always thought I would like a fisheye but I cant really see me using one that much to actually make it worth my while buying one.

[craigosh]

Canon 15mm FE is an awesome lens, the Sigma EX fisheyes are good as well, much better than they used to be.

Depends what you intend to do in the future, if your maybe considering getting a full frame camera like the 5d then i'd go for the Canon or Sigma 15mm, the Sigma 10mm is a APS-C lens. For the same reason i'd probably go with the 17-40mm over any of the EF-S lenses.

Macro wise, the Sigma 105mm EX is a great choice unless you want 'quick' AF then get the Canon 100mm USM. But optically they are pretty identical, even with a little edge on the Sigma.

Check www.photozone.de for good reviews (all in english)

[glypo]

Thanks for the input. I doubt I'd ever work my way up to a full frame. I also used a 1Ds MkIII at the Neo also, with the 20D. And it's obviously a nicer camera, but I could never personally justify the cost of that, or even a 5D.

If I was ever to upgrade from a 40D it would probably be within the xxD range. Hence I was at the EF-S fisheye lenses specifically. I was under the impression that due to being the APS-C sized sensor that a 15mm Canon fisheye on a 40D wouldn't distort much? Hence I thought a Sigma 10mm could be just the ticket.

Thanks for the macro help. The Sigma lens is cheaper then I was expecting. Onto the topic of EF-S again but with these, I noticed there is a Sigma 70mm F2.8 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1013806) for APS C which gives the same field of view as the 105mm on a full frame. Do you think that's a better option for me with a 40D?

Thanks again! I didn't realise there were so many photo experts here, and all very helpful. :)

[jimmy]

youll be able to get a full frame slr with plastic body for 100 quid in a few short years - NEVER is a long long time!

[craigosh]

The 15mm still has a good bit of distortion on an APS-C camera, just not as much as the 10mm will have.

As for the Macro, i'd just get the 105mm and take advantage of the crop factor to work a bit further away.