Good quality Canon glass with a budget of around £400

Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2006
Posts
6,240
Location
SE England
Hi all

With my birthday coming up I have decided that it's time to invest in some good quality glass. I own a 400D with:

Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
50mm 1.8

I have my sights on upgrading to full frame early next year, so crop sensor EF-S lenses are out of the question. So far I have been looking at the 70-200mm F/4.0 L and the (slightly out of budget) 17-40mm F/4.0 L.

Are there any others that should be brought to my attention? As my first decent bit of glass, it would probably make sense to invest in a decent walk about lens with a wide focal range.

Thanks for any help :)
 
Associate
Joined
12 Aug 2003
Posts
786
Location
North London
I would be inclined to suggest you hold on and save a bit more till you have the funds for the 24-105mm F4 L IS. That would be a perfect walk about solution when you go full frame, and it will be very usable on your 400D in the meantime.

If you fancy importing the lens from any of the usual places; the price is not worlds away from your budget and imho would be money well spent if its a walk about solution that you're after.

Also worth noting, is that it may become increasingly more scarce over the next few moths with the advent of the 24-70 F4 L IS (and its ridiculous RRP)... so it might be the prime time to snap one of these up before they disappear and secondhand prices rise!
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,855
Location
Canada
A used 17-55 IS? May be s little over budget though but definitely a nice lens. Otherwise maybe a prime or two, say the 35 f/2. Otherwise if you want a bit of decent length then a used 70-200 f/4 would suit the bill nicely!
 

sid

sid

Soldato
Joined
9 Feb 2003
Posts
5,178
Location
London
A used 17-55 IS? May be s little over budget though but definitely a nice lens. Otherwise maybe a prime or two, say the 35 f/2. Otherwise if you want a bit of decent length then a used 70-200 f/4 would suit the bill nicely!

24-105mm Would be better for the future should he decide to upgrade to full frame.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,425
Location
Here and There...
24-105mm Would be better for the future should he decide to upgrade to full frame.

but an annoying focal length on a crop body for most people, personally I'd go with something for the camera you have unless the full frame upgrade plans are absolutely concrete and based around guarenteed funds.

Buying a good quality crop lens second hand should see the OP loose very little money should he upgrade as the depreciation is very small once gear is second hand.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2005
Posts
1,013
Location
Newcastle
but an annoying focal length on a crop body for most people, personally I'd go with something for the camera you have unless the full frame upgrade plans are absolutely concrete and based around guarenteed funds.

Buying a good quality crop lens second hand should see the OP loose very little money should he upgrade as the depreciation is very small once gear is second hand.

^ This

I got a 17-55mm second hand and judging by the prices on the bay, I'd get my money back at least. 24mm is too long for a crop body to be useful and close-to-medium range.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2003
Posts
10,630
Location
London
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 24-105 is perfectly useable as a walkabout on a crop, anyone who says otherwise hasn't used it, or is a hardcore landscape photographer who needs super wide.

Before I was using full frame, I did an entire walk around Venice using the 24-105 on my 7D and it was plenty wide enough. Remember that 24mm on a crop is near enough 38mm which is hardly a telephoto starting length. On full frame, 24mm gets a fair old bit of distortion anyway.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Aug 2003
Posts
786
Location
North London
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 24-105 is perfectly useable as a walkabout on a crop, anyone who says otherwise hasn't used it, or is a hardcore landscape photographer who needs super wide.

Before I was using full frame, I did an entire walk around Venice using the 24-105 on my 7D and it was plenty wide enough. Remember that 24mm on a crop is near enough 38mm which is hardly a telephoto starting length. On full frame, 24mm gets a fair old bit of distortion anyway.

I agree, I found my 24-70mm very usable on my 450D in terms of focal length. If I needed anything wider I just stuck my kit lens back on briefly - but in all honesty that wasnt very often.... Hence my recommendation for the 24-105 purely on the basis of answering the OPs requirements, and not adjusting them.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,425
Location
Here and There...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 24-105 is perfectly useable as a walkabout on a crop, anyone who says otherwise hasn't used it, or is a hardcore landscape photographer who needs super wide.

Before I was using full frame, I did an entire walk around Venice using the 24-105 on my 7D and it was plenty wide enough. Remember that 24mm on a crop is near enough 38mm which is hardly a telephoto starting length. On full frame, 24mm gets a fair old bit of distortion anyway.

Your thoughts on this are exactly like mine personal opinion and it's down to the OP to decide based on his or her own experience combined with recomendations from others what best suits them. I'm by no means a 'hardcore landscape photographer' but will more often than not find myself bumping against the 28mm wide end of my walk about on full frame.

Neither of us are right or wrong, but throwing labels like 'hard core landscape photographer' around is hardly productive and really makes little or no sense a 27-28mm equivalent is hardly super wide compared to modern 16-17mm lenses and has in fact been the default wide angle for most people for a generation.

I agree, I found my 24-70mm very usable on my 450D in terms of focal length. If I needed anything wider I just stuck my kit lens back on briefly - but in all honesty that wasnt very often.... Hence my recommendation for the 24-105 purely on the basis of answering the OPs requirements, and not adjusting them.

I didn't adjust the OP's requirements I made a recomendation based on his current and future needs, he can have what I consider the best crop camera walk about now and sell it if/when he goes full frame for very little if any loss and invest in a quality walk about for full frame. It's all about options and opinions and everyones will differ
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Nov 2002
Posts
9,652
Location
London UK
Used a 24-105 on a crop (400d) for over a year without any issue and found it a great all round walkabout lens. Still use it as my main lens on full frame and majority of the time I can't fault it.

Although you mention that the 17-40L is slighty out of budget and I think they are around £550 now so the 25-105 will be more of an issue as I think they are 700+ now new, or are you considering second hand?
 

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
91,593
Location
South Coast
24MM on crop is gonna be 38mm ish isn't it so that's near enough wide angle (35mm on FF). I've used 24mm on the 40D for years and found it just fine. Obviously not ultra wide like <24mm but still good.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,855
Location
Canada
Your thoughts on this are exactly like mine personal opinion and it's down to the OP to decide based on his or her own experience combined with recomendations from others what best suits them. I'm by no means a 'hardcore landscape photographer' but will more often than not find myself bumping against the 28mm wide end of my walk about on full frame.

Neither of us are right or wrong, but throwing labels like 'hard core landscape photographer' around is hardly productive and really makes little or no sense a 27-28mm equivalent is hardly super wide compared to modern 16-17mm lenses and has in fact been the default wide angle for most people for a generation.



I didn't adjust the OP's requirements I made a recomendation based on his current and future needs, he can have what I consider the best crop camera walk about now and sell it if/when he goes full frame for very little if any loss and invest in a quality walk about for full frame. It's all about options and opinions and everyones will differ

Hear Hear. There is no coincidence that 17/18-50/55 on a crop sits nicely in the equivilent focal range that 24-70 does on full frame. Also not everyone wants to go full frame. I used to love the idea of it and went with the "buy full frame glass for when I upgrade". I never did, ended up selling the sigma 24-70 because it was too bulky and of no real benefit to me and am still on crop (with a different body). 27-70 is a good crop focal range for things like shooting people, 17mm is a better starting point for those that want to shoot general things. Although if you have a 12-24 or 10-20 you do get some overlap in focal lenghts, but then if you have to keep changing lenses it does get rather annoying.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Mar 2006
Posts
3,975
2nd hand 17-55mm? Talkphotography have a very good classified section. Would reduce depreciation loss even more.

I too agree about the 24mm on a crop not being very satisfying. A family friend has a Canon 550d/similar with a 28-135mm lens. That 4mm is quite a lot, I presume, but it's almost useless at most shots on her camera.
 
Top Bottom