About to make my first digital SLR purchase, please give me some feedback on lenses

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
OK, due to me getting a new job, I now have $5000 to spend on a camera and lenses. I have decided on the Canon 40D. I have always owned Canon's and loved them. I am not interested in another model. Please only give me feedback on the setup below. I would also appreciate some feedback about what hoods/filters/accessories to buy. BTW, I already own a tripod, so I don't need to buy one.

Thanks!

Canon 40D SLR camera $1299
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens $999
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM EF Lens $1129
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens $80

Transcend 16GB 133X High Speed Compact Flash Card $250
Canon BG-E2 battery grip $170
2 Extra batteries $90

Recommend me a flash $400
Recommend me filters / hoods $200
Recommend me a case (backpack style) $100
Recommend small accessories (cleaning etc) $50

Total $4766

Edit:
Hmmm seriously debating getting the 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens instead.... thoughts?
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
how expirenced are you with photography, i dont see much wrong with what you have listed, but if you are a novice i would recomend not droping 5K all at once

but for a flash whatever canons flash is called, i dont remember the modle num but it costs less then 400$
all those lenses but the 50 come with a hood, 50 really does not need one
Filters if you want grap some Skylight or UV/Haze ones just for protection, a Circ Polorizer is always nice as well as 2/4/8 stop Neutral density filters i like Heliopan filters, great glass in them as well as great mounts (brass)

for a case i have a LowePro Mini trekker AW - costs about 100$, will fit all your listed gear

get a bulb blower and a lens pen
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
35
91
Dang, I wish I had $5000 to spend on camera stuff. What job is this?

Do not get the 16GB CF card. These high capacity cards are only really designed for models like the 16 or 21MP 1Ds cameras that have HUGE RAW files. 16GB is about 1,600 RAW pictures for your 40D. While it's rare, CF cards can and do fail. You don't want your only card with gigs of pictures to fail on you. Try for something like 4 x 2GB cards plus an external hard drive that you can dump pictures onto in the field without a computer, something like a Hyperdrive SPACE or the newer Hyperdrive model - forget what it's called.

What's also good by going with multiple flash cards? When you shoot with two bodies in the future, you'll obviously need 2 or more flash cards. I shoot with two bodies and have 4 x 2GB cards. Two cards are in the cameras and two are on standby. When one card fills up, I can immediately put in a blank card and shoot while I offload the full card to my Hyperdrive.

Another good thing about getting smaller flash cards? Large flash cards take forever to erase in your camera. 2GB cards take about 45 seconds, and a LOT can go on in 45 seconds. A full 16GB or even 8GB would be abysmal. Always have a blank card on standby.

Get the extra batteries from Sterlingtek. They are higher capacity, just as reliable as Canon brand batteries, and will save you about $70. The battery grip takes 2 batteries by itself, so I like to have 4 batteries in all. When those two batteries in the grip run out, I just plop in two fresh ones.

Flash - 580EX I or II + flash diffuser of some kind. Homemade ones are quite effective and can be built for $5. Or something like the Gary Fong Lightsphere, which is very popular but bulky. You will want a good set of AA batteries for the flash. Get 8 AA Sanyo Eneloops or Rayovac Hybrids (4 in the flash, 4 on standby), and a Lacrosse charger. An off camera flash cord is also very useful and perhaps a flash bracket like a Stroboframe if you do a lot of people photography.

Filters - Don't be afraid to buy from Hong Kong. Shipping is a bit longer, but the price is WAY better. http://hvstar.net/ (formerly known as MaxSaver) is known and trusted in the photog community. Get filters that have a filter thread (diameter) that is the size of your largest lens. 77mm is quite common and happens to be the size for your 70-200mm plus a lot of ultrawides like the 10-22mm, Sigma 10-20mm, etc. Hoya Pro-1 and Hoya SHMC are good. B&W and Heliopan also quite excellent. Do not use Hoya for circular polarizers because their aluminum construction tends to get stuck on lenses. Brass is better for circular polarizers. For your lenses smaller than 77mm, you can simply use step down rings to adapt your 77mm filters to the smaller diameter of your other lenses. Or you can just buy filters for each of your lenses if you don't want the hassle of screwing on step down rings and not being able to use your lens hood on smaller lenses. Circular Polarizers (CPL), clear UV filters (UV), and neutral density (ND) filters are the three big filters. Infrared (IR) and Split Neutral Density (Split ND) filters are less popular but still up there, and are more for specific kinds of work.

Case - The Lowepro Slingshots are popular, as are Crumpler bags. If you want a belt system, Think Tank is very popular and modular.

Accessories -
Depending on what you shoot, add $300-$350 for a good tripod and ball head.
Get a remote shutter cable from eBay for $10.
Buy a lens cloth. Buy Kimwipes if you suspect your lens cloth is dirty. Eclipse or ROR are great lens cleaning fluids.
Get a bulb blower like an cheapo Ear Syringe at Walgreens or Giottos Rocket Blower for blowing dust off your sensor.
Get yourself a better neck strap with a quick release. I have a Lowepro Voyager and it's neat because it has a built-in holder for two extra CF cards right on the strap which is VERY convenient. Optech straps are very popular. Kinesis and UpStrap are also good.
I like a hand strap on my camera for added security when I'm not using the neck strap. eBay works well - just don't get any ones that actually screw into the tripod mount on your body.

I don't know. All other recommendations need to take into account what you're going to be shooting. Macro, landscape, people, wildlife, night scenes, etc. Macro is crazy and a whole 'nother level in itself. Birding is damned expensive and heavy. Studio stuff can get really expensive or you can try ghetto rigging some stuff.
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Thanks for the feedback fuzzybunny.

I wanted a really large card b/c I am heading to Nepal for 3 weeks next year and I want to make sure I can go crazy and take enough photo's without worrying about running out of storage. I'll look into multiple smaller cards then.

Can you provide me some links to some specific filters that you recommend for my lenses? Polarizing, etc.

My main reason for getting this camera is that I want to take some really nice pics of the mountains in Nepal. I also have a wedding to attend in Dominica next June and I want to put together a photo album of the wedding as a suprise for my buddy.

Other than that, my other main uses would be fooling around and learning techniques. I also want to take a trip to NYC and DC and get some great pictures of the monuments and buildings there.

Thanks for all of the help everyone!

btw, for those of you who are interested in my photography, here are some current samples taken with a point and shoot Canon S40.

http://www.cheddarcheesemedia.com/photos/pictures.html
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
smaller flash cards will also be less expensive for the same amount of storage, so you can buy more storage (you can get 6 transcend 4GB 133x for that). plus, the way prices on flash cards constantly drops, it'd be better holding off until you need it.

i'd also take a hard look at the 70-200 f/4L IS rather than the 2.8. it's just as sharp, it weighs a lot less (1.7 lbs vs. 2.9 lbs) and you'll probably find the IS more useful than the extra stop of shutter speed.

oh, and canon brand batteries are for suckers.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
I agree with a lot that has been said already.

What do you need the 70-200 F2.8L for? Do you need the speed or would you like to save some money and weight and get the F4L IS version?
One 16GB CF card is no good. Get like 4x 4GB cards instead. Having one is like keeping all your eggs in one basket.
I am really liking my Lowepro case. I have the Micro Trekker 200.
As for filters, I have them from Hoya and B+W. The latter are much better made IMO. I have the following:

UV Filter
CP Filter

You want a multi-coated filter, but unless your are buying an UWA lens like the EFS 10-22, you don't need a slim filter. Slim filters can be a pain since they don't accept traditional lens caps.

Edit: And I am personally a sucker as I buy Canon brand batteries :p
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
Agree wholeheartedly about the smaller cards. I often take 100+ pictures a day when on a trip - and the 2gb card has never filled up before I could off load to my laptop. Then I start the next leg with a fresh card. I carry usually 2 or 3 such cards with me.

As for your standard "walking around" lens, I highly recommend the EFS 17-85mm instead of the 17-55. That gives you a 27-136mm (35 equivalency) wich can handle most of your shots.

The 70-200 L f/2.8 is a lot of glass. I have one, and rarely use it. Too big to pack on trips. The f/4 is lighter. But my favorite for packing is the 70-300mm DO IS.

And, I find a monopod to be more useful on treks than a tripod. It also serves as a hiking stick.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: corkyg
Agree wholeheartedly about the smaller cards. I often take 100+ pictures a day when on a trip - and the 2gb card has never filled up before I could off load to my laptop. Then I start the next leg with a fresh card. I carry usually 2 or 3 such cards with me.

As for your standard "walking around" lens, I highly recommend the EFS 17-85mm instead of the 17-55. That gives you a 27-136mm (35 equivalency) wich can handle most of your shots.

The 70-200 L f/2.8 is a lot of glass. I have one, and rarely use it. Too big to pack on trips. The f/4 is lighter. But my favorite for packing is the 70-300mm DO IS.

And, I find a monopod to be more useful on treks than a tripod. It also serves as a hiking stick.

I have to disagree with the 17-85. It was my first lens. Very versatile range but not really good at anything. Soft, lots of CA. The 17-55 is a very sharp lens and even more versatile with 2.8 and IS. It is an L sadly without the L build quality.
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
OK - I never found that to be the case with my 17-85. I used it on many trips and found it to be very sharp and useful with the EOS 20D. I'll see if I can find a sample or two.

In the meantime, I found this - taken by a friend after we made the trip to the top of Corcovado high above Rio de Janairo. It shows me with my mono pod patiently waiting for the clouds to dissipate for a shot of the Christ statue. (It finally paid off.)

Monopod
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
Here's a decent sample of the 17-85mm EFS lens's work. This was a live shot at the Three Rivers (CA) Jazzaffair in April of 2005. Two bands had combined, and the tuba players had known each other since high school. It was a unique opportunity and it was a quickie that came out. BTW - it was shot at ISO 1600 with a 20D.

Tubas

And another on the same trip - very different. I can't resist roses. The bokeh is not bad either.

Rose
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I agree with a lot that has been said already.

What do you need the 70-200 F2.8L for? Do you need the speed or would you like to save some money and weight and get the F4L IS version?

I'd like to do some sports photography. Wouldn't the additional speed be useful then? Most of the time I would have it on a tripod or monopod if I was doing sports.

Any links to sample shots with the F4L one?

edit: Plus if I read correctly, the F4L one has a smaller lens so I couldn't use the same filters between my 17-55 and 70-200.
 

troytime

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2006
1,996
1
0
Originally posted by: corkyg
Here's a decent sample of the 17-85mm EFS lens's work. This was a live shot at the Three Rivers (CA) Jazzaffair in April of 2005. Two bands had combined, and the tuba players had known each other since high school. It was a unique opportunity and it was a quickie that came out. BTW - it was shot at ISO 1600 with a 20D.

Tubas

And another on the same trip - very different. I can't resist roses. The bokeh is not bad either.

Rose

hard to judge the sharpness with all that noise
why the high ISO?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

I wanted a really large card b/c I am heading to Nepal for 3 weeks next year and I want to make sure I can go crazy and take enough photo's without worrying about running out of storage. I'll look into multiple smaller cards then.

WHat will be the situation over there? Will you be lugging those lenses around all day? The 70-200L although not as heavy as the IS version... still is bulky.

I just got a 28-105L F/4.0 IS and love it. The only problem... it is not f/2.8. But so far I have not been in any situations to need it. I've got a few smaller primes when I need the faster lens. The 28-105 is not a whole lot heavier than the tamron 28-75 which was replaced.

If you have a safe place to store lens and don't need them everyday... you have a great selection.
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

I wanted a really large card b/c I am heading to Nepal for 3 weeks next year and I want to make sure I can go crazy and take enough photo's without worrying about running out of storage. I'll look into multiple smaller cards then.

WHat will be the situation over there? Will you be lugging those lenses around all day? The 70-200L although not as heavy as the IS version... still is bulky.

I just got a 28-105L F/4.0 IS and love it. The only problem... it is not f/2.8. But so far I have not been in any situations to need it. I've got a few smaller primes when I need the faster lens. The 28-105 is not a whole lot heavier than the tamron 28-75 which was replaced.

If you have a safe place to store lens and don't need them everyday... you have a great selection.

I will be backpacking through the himilayas for 3 weeks. I will have plenty of time to grab a camera out and take photos. Don't need or plan to wear it around my neck the entire time.
 

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

I wanted a really large card b/c I am heading to Nepal for 3 weeks next year and I want to make sure I can go crazy and take enough photo's without worrying about running out of storage. I'll look into multiple smaller cards then.

WHat will be the situation over there? Will you be lugging those lenses around all day? The 70-200L although not as heavy as the IS version... still is bulky.

I just got a 28-105L F/4.0 IS and love it. The only problem... it is not f/2.8. But so far I have not been in any situations to need it. I've got a few smaller primes when I need the faster lens. The 28-105 is not a whole lot heavier than the tamron 28-75 which was replaced.

If you have a safe place to store lens and don't need them everyday... you have a great selection.

I will be backpacking through the himilayas for 3 weeks. I will have plenty of time to grab a camera out and take photos. Don't need or plan to wear it around my neck the entire time.

Linky

My buddy got back from Bhutan a couple months ago. You really don't want to be lugging around a lot of gear, and you don't want to miss an opportunity by having to take your camera out of your backpack. Gear should be fast, not a hindrance. Fuss with it too much and you'll lose out on the moment.

I'm not necessarily recommending a super zoom, but I do think you need to reconsider how fast things actually happen when shooting.
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
Originally posted by: troytime
hard to judge the sharpness with all that noise
why the high ISO?

Low light - moving around - lots of movement. Anyway - what noise? What is it you call "noise?" I don't see any.

 

troytime

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2006
1,996
1
0
Originally posted by: corkyg
Originally posted by: troytime
hard to judge the sharpness with all that noise
why the high ISO?

Low light - moving around - lots of movement. Anyway - what noise? What is it you call "noise?" I don't see any.

is that sarcasm? or can you seriously not see the grainyness of those photos?
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
Not at the size I view them at. No sarcasm at all. Some of what you call grainiess comes from reducing the pixels for transmission.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I agree with a lot that has been said already.

What do you need the 70-200 F2.8L for? Do you need the speed or would you like to save some money and weight and get the F4L IS version?

I'd like to do some sports photography. Wouldn't the additional speed be useful then? Most of the time I would have it on a tripod or monopod if I was doing sports.

Any links to sample shots with the F4L one?

edit: Plus if I read correctly, the F4L one has a smaller lens so I couldn't use the same filters between my 17-55 and 70-200.

Correct. But a $10 step-up ring would solve that.
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Originally posted by: corkyg
Not at the size I view them at. No sarcasm at all. Some of what you call grainiess comes from reducing the pixels for transmission.

He's right, there's a bunch of noise in those images. Take a look at all the junk pixles in the flower pictures.

View the image at 100% and you will see all sorts of noise. This must have been shot at ISO 800 and above.
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
35
91
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Thanks for the feedback fuzzybunny.

I wanted a really large card b/c I am heading to Nepal for 3 weeks next year and I want to make sure I can go crazy and take enough photo's without worrying about running out of storage. I'll look into multiple smaller cards then.

Can you provide me some links to some specific filters that you recommend for my lenses? Polarizing, etc.

My main reason for getting this camera is that I want to take some really nice pics of the mountains in Nepal. I also have a wedding to attend in Dominica next June and I want to put together a photo album of the wedding as a surprise for my buddy.

Other than that, my other main uses would be fooling around and learning techniques. I also want to take a trip to NYC and DC and get some great pictures of the monuments and buildings there.

Thanks for all of the help everyone!

btw, for those of you who are interested in my photography, here are some current samples taken with a point and shoot Canon S40.

http://www.cheddarcheesemedia.com/photos/pictures.html

The filters:

http://hvstar.net/index.asp?Pa...tion=VIEWPROD&ProdID=4 - thin glass CPL for use on ultrawides

http://hvstar.net/index.asp?Pa...ion=VIEWPROD&ProdID=36 - regular CPL, can be used with regular lens caps

http://hvstar.net/index.asp?Pa...on=VIEWPROD&ProdID=106 - clear UV protective filter

http://hvstar.net/index.asp?Pa...n=VIEWCATS&Category=39 - step up/down adapter rings

Backpacking: What's your base pack weight? How many miles are you hiking a day, and any idea on your elevation gain? How fit are you? Will you have someone or something to help carry your gear?

Backpacking is obviously very weight conscious. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS will be pretty heavy along with an SLR body for backpacking. Like VirtuaMike and others suggest, for backpacking I would go for a relatively light super zoom with IS. Quality will be lower and the lens won't be as bright, but you can easily save yourself a lot of weight by going with this. Something like an ultrawide 10-20mm + super zoom might be best. Weight won't be a problem if you have a pack animal of some sort (and there are photographers who use pack animals). The 70-200mm f/4L IS IMO is very light and incredibly sharp. 10-20mm + 17-55mm + 70-200mm f/4L IS may be doable for weight, but you've got that extra hindrance of changing lenses at inopportune times.

You may also want to invest in a rain shield for your camera. Aqua Tech rain shields seem to be the only ones that don't give people headaches. A lot of people seem to hate Kata and Tenba rainshields because of things like condensation and the only other options are plastic bags with rubber bands or cheap Optech rainshields: http://www.adorama.com/OTRSL.html
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
FBB,

I'll be carrying all of my crap myself. Should be hiking 8-10 miles per day. Route tops out at 17,000 feet. I should have time to stop along the way and take good pics.

Thanks for all of the info. Thanks to everyone else in the thread for their feedback too :)
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
35
91
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Hmmm seriously debating getting the 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens instead.... thoughts?

Instead? Isn't that what you originally wanted?