350 and 40 D Lense Question

Hi Guys. I am the proud owner of a 350D with the standard 18-55 and 70-200MM lenses and probably a below average photographer as my images just do not seem to come out right most of the time. My mother in law recently purchased a 40D with an IS 17-85MM. It didnt take me long to "Borrow" the lens and go out into the kitchen for some "Testing". I was very pleasantly surprised and I am pretty sold on the IS idea.

My question is this. I have been told that both the 40D and the 350D use a 1.6 optics chip thingee and as such the L series lenses are a waste of time and money. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

Should I scrap my 350 and upgrade to the 40D?

What IS lens is the one I am most likely to use most of the time if I do purchase one? I was thinking the 28 -135???

Any comments would be appreciated.

Cheers

yes, both the 350d and 40d are both 1.6 crop cameras, But getting L glass is not a waste of time and money. You might find that a standard L lens it just a bit too far from a standard 1.6 crop lens as the wide end is only 24 and not the 18 you're use to. L glass is better over all. So its really not a big deal at all that its a 1.6 crop.

L series lenses are not a waste of time or money. Who ever told you that doesn't know what they are talking about. If you can afford L series lenses, then seriously look into getting one. There are a couple out there less than $1K that provide stellar optics and the crop factor means nothing as far as owning a L series lens. Just look at the gear most of the folks have on here. I will just about guarantee you that there are a good mojority of us who own cropped cameras and L lenses. As for which lens is right for you, you'll have to be the one who decides that.

Welcome to the forums, by the way and don't be a stranger.

L series are a waste of time and money....LOL. That's a good one!

The first lens I bought to go with my 400D was an L series -- it is great!! And because I have a crop camera (a 40D now) the image my camera records is the centre of what a full frame camera records. So, in theory, and in practice, my crop camera records the better parts of the image - ie not the slightly softer corners etc.
Thus it is my opinion that L lenses are even better on a crop camera than on a full frame - but you have to work out the realtive focal lengths.

Magpie-NZ wrote in post #4174858
My question is this. I have been told that both the 40D and the 350D use a 1.6 optics chip thingee and as such the L series lenses are a waste of time and money. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

Deny.

Check out my gear list.

I'm not the world's best photographer. But I get waaay more keepers with my L's than the non-L's I have used.

Keep the 350; dump the 18-55. If you have plenty of $$$ get the EF-S 17-55 IS USM; if not, either the Sigma 17-70 or the Tamron 17-50 - says me, anyway.

The 350 is a fine camera - no need to change it until there is something that you want to do that it can't. L lenses are in no way wasted on 1.6 crop cameras.

Thanks for your comments guys. Its been a great help.

It didnt make sense to me either that the L series lens would be a waste and I figured that if I upgrade at some stage the L would come with me.

So .... the EF 24 -105 f/4l IS ? wadda ya reckon? As much as I would like a wider bottom end (uhm the lens, not me personally), I figured if I want something wider I could always get a 17 - 40 L but I think I would go up to 3 or 400 before I go down to that.

As a starter L series I think I would get most use out of this particular focal lenght going wide enough for most scenes and enough zoom and aperture for portrait and most sport. Or have I got it wrong?

Cheers

Magpie-NZ wrote in post #4175175
So .... the EF 24 -105 f/4l IS ? wadda ya reckon? As much as I would like a wider bottom end (uhm the lens, not me personally), I figured if I want something wider I could always get a 17 - 40 L but I think I would go up to 3 or 400 before I go down to that.

As a starter L series I think I would get most use out of this particular focal lenght going wide enough for most scenes and enough zoom and aperture for portrait and most sport. Or have I got it wrong?

Cheers

That's a great lens too, although marginally better suited for a full-frame body. The drawbacks of this is that it is relatively slow at f/4, although that is compensated for to an extent by the IS; that won't help with moving subjects though; and that it may not be wide enough. Check the pics you have taken with the 18-55, and see how many were in the 18-24 range - that'll tell you how much you'll miss it.


-------
OK - back to the basics of your question - you already have a 70-200, and you want IS. It's either the 17-55 2.8 IS (best, but $$), the 24-105, or the 17-85 (poorest image quality of the lot, but better than the 18-55).

Here's the clincher - if you can afford the 24-105, buy the 17-55 - it's about the same price, comparable quality, and a stop faster. You won't really notice the 55-70 gap. For sports, look to your 70-200, or upgrade that if it's a slow one, or go longer or get a teleconverter.

Lots of people rave about the 17-55/2.8 IS, but I've read of plenty of build issues, such as dust problems, and that the build isn't up to L standards. My 24-105L lives on our 30D- it revolutionized my photography (actually, I didn't even really start as a baby photog until we got it). When I want the lens to do something for me, 99.8% of the time it does it, the other times it's usually my fault. Another one to look into is the 24-70/2.8. Horses for courses- there are tons of threads comparing them.

If they aren't wide enough for you, go for a 17-40/4 L, which I do not own, but seems a bit behind the times to me. I'd think of the 17-55/2.8 IS or the Tamron 17-50/2.8.

My suggestion is this- download the freeware program Exposure Plot, have it analyze your pictures folder, and have a look at the focal lengths you've used. If the majority of your shots are in the shorter ends, go for a 17-xx lens. If most of them are in the 20+mm range, go for the 24-105 or 24-70. Best of all:

Sigma 10-20 or Canon EFS 10-22 (Ultra wide angle)
Canon 24-70 L or Canon 24-105 L (Walk-around/portraits)
Canon 70-200 L or Canon 70-300 IS or Canon 100-400 L (depending on budget) (telephoto)

The BIG bonus of the crop sensor is that it's great for birds/wildlife- invest in a long lens to take advantage of it!

Oh- and our 350D is a great camera- but the 30D, and therefore by default the 40D is a big step up. The autofocus on the 30D, for one, if far superior than the 350D. The 40D will be even better.

40D + 24-70 or 24-105. You'll be the man! LOL

The only waste of money is that spent on equipment that is improperly/ineffective​ly used...many people buying DSLRs would be better off buying an advanced PnS that does the sharpening/exposure/co​lor rendition adjustments that the user has to do when using a DSLR to maximize the results of that camera...they don't, and complain, and blame the equipment...

I would get the 17-55 IS for a crop body.

I can absolutely confirm that whoever told you that an L was a waste of money on a crop body is full of more s#*# than a Christmas goose

The quality of the image comes mainly from the lens.

It sounds like you have a problem with technique or an incorrect setting in your menu's.

Post some of your shots you are not happy with and we will see if we can help you out.

And welcome to the forum!