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 - )

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]

Originally Posted by 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 - )

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.

[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!

[Stu]

Originally Posted by glypo

.......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.

[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

[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 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/2008/01/2...ds-on-preview/

http://www.peterbernik.com/2008/01/3...ye-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