I just bought the 40D this weekend, what lens should I get?

I think I'd like a nice walk around lens I think. I didn't get a kit lens w/ the 40D body. I know L glass is the best to go for. But I'm just starting out so can't drop the big bucks. I did that on the camera.

I am not afraid to get a Sigma or Tamron lens if I can tell it's had good reviews, but aware that most people say Canon is the way to go. I'm thinking a medium range zoom lens? I know I'll want to do the regular family snapshots, serious pictures of my children, some street stuff, some head shots for my church, and eventually some of my young daughter's soccer games. But the sports would probably need a 2nd long range telephoto.

Any advice to be given on a good starter lens that has lots of value?

Used canon 28-70 that's a bit banged up. Should be able to get that for around 600. Maybe even a canon 24-105L used could fit the bill as well.

Canon 17-85mm...my friend has this lens and it's great...very sharp and has IS. I used it once and it is nice and not heavy at all.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3515...f_4_5_6_IS.html

If you can't get the 24-70mm right now the 17-85 may be a great option.

Good luck.

I guess I should make this RE clear. the 28 -70 the 24 is going to be well well out of your price range.

I would say...

50 1.8 ~ $90 (why is this the only lens that goes up in price over the years, mine new was $55 lol)
and either:
85 1.8 $361
28 1.8 $412

depending on what u would prefer - wide or zoomed!

should be aprox $600 I think?

Thats what I would do!

My suggestion would be to get the Canon 50mm 1.4 (skip the nifty fifty 1.8... in the long run you will be happy you did) and a used 28-135 3.5-5.6 which can be gotten for about $275. That way you have a great (and fast) prime lens and then you have a nice zoom (I used to own one and my copy was great).

I sold my 28-135 and rolled the money into a 24-105L. I love the lens but wished I had something faster... in hindsight as I was starting out I should have just saved for the 50mm 1.4 and hung onto my 28-135 until I could afford better.
.
That's my two cents.

BTW: I too have the 40D... enjoy yourself
B

I would suggest picking up the 50 1.4... I absolutely love this lens and couldn't make it without it

+1

Yep, I agree with Timco and Eric, go for the primes! You won't be sorry!

So does going prime only force me to develop a personal process or style versus just twisting and zooming?

It simply means you'll have to walk more!! Move in, rather than zoom in!

My dear close friend the "foot zoom", only limited by how many times my goofy butt can trip over itself....

I think we all can agree that twisting is more a matter of personal preference... if the music moves you then there is no need to give it up if you go with primes.

On the serious side though... while I am sadly primeless I do believe that your images will noticeably sharper sticking with primes over any zoom lens.

Would having a 50mm be my widest lens not leave me much "up close" options since the 40D has a 1.6 crop?

You'd be amazed really. The first couple weddings I shot were with Just a 50 (had backups though), Eventually I transitioned to a 35 f/2. I love the 35mm focal length on the crop cameras, it's just about perfect.

The best you will get for $600 is your primes, just get used to moving around a lot. 50 and 85 are great!!! The 50 1.8 is almost better than my 1.4 Save and get a new 70-200 IS when you can, until then save some of that money for renting.

On my 5D I love my Canon 85mm 1.8. On my 30D I really like the 50mm 1.4.

Just my opinion, but I would go for the 85 1.8. You could use the extra money for a slower Canon zoom lens or maybe the Tamron 28-75 2.8?? Ive shot about 25 weddings over the 2 years Ive been getting into the business and I used the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for about 20 of them as my main lens.

My friend Courtney (www.courtneymorehead.com), who is by far a better photog than me, uses the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS for the majority of her work.

Also, you might try renting the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 from www.lensprotogo.com or www.rentglass.com. Ive had excellent luck renting from both.

Good luck with your decision!

a 24-70 L USM, second hand, it may be slightly more than $600, but its a lense worth keeping and covers ALOT of areas. If I were to restart over again from the beginning id buy the 24-70 instead of the other lenses i bought as i only ended up having to get rid of them to get the 24-70 anyway. Its easier to get the better and to have it even if its that slight bit more than to get what isnt so good for just a fraction less.

just my opinion if it were me.

I just dumped my Canon 24-40 because it was so unpredictably soft. I took a chance and purchased a Sigma 24-70 (around $400) and am thrilled! Here's a quick snapshot of my son (haven't shot a wedding yet) shot at 2.8 with only a small amount of LR Clarity added. This image is also cropped about 10%

http://www.rayhendricksphoto.com/html/SigmaSample.jpg

The zoom ring is backwards to the Canon but I'll get used to it. The focus noise is NOT as bad as I had expected and focus speed if pretty good as well.

I think after research here and elsewhere, and reading reviews on Amazon.com a lot, I'm going to get either the Tam 17-50 f2.8 or the Tam 28-75 f2.8. Both have excellent reviews and both of those give me a decent range. I'd like it to be 17-75 because I'd like to have at least 17mm at the widest, but the difference in the zoomed out range (50 vs 75) is significant too. I don't know if 28mm is wide enough inside on a 1.6 crop. Does anyone else find the 28-75 not wide enough inside (think group shot at Christmas or something).

But after reading through, I'm looking at the Canon 55-250. It's not fast. But not too expensive either with quite a range.

So I still have choices. Some have suggested just getting a 50mm and a 85mm prime lenses. Learning them. And then figuring out my wants/needs after that after getting skilled.

I am thinking about doing the same thing. We have 4, 24-70 L lenses and all of them are horrible back focusing. 3 of them went back to Canon, came back great and then within a few weeks sucked again. It's ridiculous.

I think I'm liking hard at the Tamron 17-50. With the 1.6 crop factor of the 40D, that seemed like a good start. I've read good reviews of it too.