Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 40D - Two Lenses - Which Is Best?  
User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1901 posts, RR: 27
Posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

Hello everyone,

I'm about to get an EOS 40D and these are the two lenses that come with it. I'm unsure on which one I should get. I've been told the 17-85mm lacks in image quality, and the 28-135mm is not wide enough for cool photos.

If you can all give me some advice on what to get, I'd really appreciate it! Prices for both is $949 for the first one, and $1049 for the second one.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM AF Lens

Canon 28-135mm Lens

Thanks in advance!


Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5126 times:



Quoting 797 (Thread starter):
17-85mm lacks in image quality, and the 28-135mm is not wide enough for cool photos

Don't always go with what you are told - it ain't always right! I'd personally go with the 17-85, however with either of these lenses you're going to require a second (and possibly ultimately a third) to get maximum scope. A great companion for the 17-85 would be the EF70-200 F4 L, which gets rave reviews on here (I've got one and no complaints!) and would give you a good overall zoom range. While it may be true that 28 sometimes isn't wide enough (to be honest I've only ever needed wider TWICE in four years!) 135 on the other hand certainly isn't long enough; and more often than not in aviation photography it's the long end that's more important!

I've heard good things about the 28-135 (it's got IS too I believe) but for aviation it's a funny lens - it may very well lead you to buy two other lenses, with added expense and large amounts of unnecessary overlap. Like I say, go with the 17-85 and either a 70-200, 70-300 or 100-400.

Karl


User currently offlineWithaK From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5118 times:

I can't say much about the 28-135 but I can recommend the 17-85. I haven't had any problems with image quality.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kris Mogford
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kris Mogford



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kris Mogford



Good luck

Kris


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5103 times:

get the 24-70 f.2.8 it is in your price range and IQ is stunning...razor sharp images will be delivered to your door step.

You need another lens anyway to cover 70 plus mm....

Vasco


User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1901 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

Thanks for the input guys,

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1):
A great companion for the 17-85 would be the EF70-200 F4 L

As a matter of fact, I already have that lens! I am upgrading the camera from a Rebel XT. I am selling it with the 18-55, but I'm keeping the 70-200 and the 1.4x converter.

Later on, whenever I get some money, I want to get the 100-400... but that's another expensive piece of glass.

Quoting WithaK (Reply 2):
I can recommend the 17-85. I haven't had any problems with image quality.

Judging from your photos, I believe it's a pretty good option! I think I might go for that, considering I already have a good zoom lens.

Quoting AKE0404AR (Reply 3):
get the 24-70 f.2.8 it is in your price range and IQ is stunning...razor sharp images will be delivered to your door step.

I believe you misread the numbers Big grin The 40D with these lenses costs nearly 1000 bucks. The 24-70 alone is above this number. But anyways, thanks a lot for the help!

Thanks you all,

Enrique



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5082 times:



Quoting 797 (Reply 4):
I believe you misread the numbers Big grin The 40D with these lenses costs nearly 1000 bucks. The 24-70 alone is above this number. But anyways, thanks a lot for the help!

Guess so, maybe I was half a sleep,sorry about that.
In any casse the 24-70 is still a killer lens...

For your reading pleasure: (review about the 17-85)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...p?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

Vasco


User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2907 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4895 times:

Consider also the Sigma 17-70, it has better IQ than the CAnon 17-85. I use it together with the Canon 70-200 F4L IS and like it a lot.


I scratch my head, therefore I am.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Of The Two Is Best On Your Screen? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 08:10:20 by Frippe
Is It Worth Upgrading To The Canon 40D? posted Thu Mar 13 2008 00:09:38 by Deaphen
Spotting At LHR? Which Is The Best Place At LHR? posted Mon Nov 19 2007 10:35:46 by Maxketan
Which NY Airport Is Best For Aviation Photography posted Thu Apr 7 2005 21:10:43 by Columbia107
Which Is The Best Dslr In Price-Quality Ratio? posted Tue Feb 24 2004 05:07:11 by MartinairYYZ
Movie Mode On Digicams - Which Is The Best? posted Fri Jan 23 2004 11:31:34 by UTA_FLYingHIGH
Canon Lenses With Is? posted Mon Dec 8 2003 01:56:15 by PJS800
Which Film Is Best? posted Fri Sep 26 2003 06:57:55 by Ukair
Which Camera Is Best For Taking Aircraft Pics? posted Mon Sep 22 2003 22:09:19 by A340pilot
I'm Buying A Digital Camera - Which Is The Best? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 17:42:57 by Airways1