40D 28-135

Hello all, first post, great forums!

I'm going to be purchasing a 40D, I've done a lot of research, and it seems like a great camera. I have always been interested in photography, and have a bit of money now to spend on a new hobby. Some may think that going that high for a first timer may be too much, but I tend to learn quickly, and want something I can grow into.

Anyway, I am posting in the sports forum because that is generally my main target with the camera. I will be shooting ultimate frisbee for a school that I am working at as a teacher, so will have access to most of the field.

Now, my budget is about the price of the 40D + lens kit, and I'm leaning towards the 28-135 for the range. I am however a bit concerned, as everything I have been reading says the lens is too slow to correctly shoot sports.

This definetly isn't for anything huge, just the yearbook, and perhaps a few mounted posters of some of the better shots for the school.

Is the lens going to completely mess me up, or will it be salvagable? Is there a better lens that I could get if I don't get the kit, but body only, for nearly the same price? Comments?

Thanks!

Way, way too slow to focus, you could try the Canon 70-200 f/4 if youre on a budget.

If you seriously cant afford the 40d and 70-200 i would even drop back to the 30d or 20d to make sure i got good glass.

Dont skimp on glass especially if you can only afford the one

Hmm, I figured that some would suggest this. I would really prefer to get a nice body, so that in a few months to a year, I can really get into the features of the 40d.

I have done a bit more reading, and notice that there are a few nice shots with the 28-135, which makes me feel a bit better about it. Granted, I'm not going to be a the top of the curve on the lens, but at least I can get a few good shots for the yearbook.

Ceyber - It sounds like you've already made up your mind and are looking for people to affirm your decision.

If you can afford it, I strongly suggest you reconsider.

FWIW, I had a 28-135 and found it a decent walk-around lens, but totally incapable of handling moving subjects, especially in lower light levels. I sold it and ultimately replaced it with a 24-70 f/2.8L . The 70-200 f/4.0L is a MUCH better lens than the 28-135 - it's not even close - for only a little more money (approx $150 online).

I couldn't agree with gascoyle more, here: save some money on the body and spend it on a better lens. You will keep great glass for a lifetime - cameras will come and go and new ones are released every year or two. More than likely, you'll never use 80% of the features of even a 40D, so why spend your money here and not on first rate glass?

gazcoyle wrote in post #5682346
Way, way too slow to focus, you could try the Canon 70-200 f/4 if youre on a budget.

If you seriously cant afford the 40d and 70-200 i would even drop back to the 30d or 20d to make sure i got good glass.

Dont skimp on glass especially if you can only afford the one

I am going to echo gazcoyle and say get a nice lens before a really nice camera. The 30d + a 70-200 f4L will take much better shots for what you are shooting than a 40d + 28-135. You should really consider it.

Thanks for the replies, I will definetly look into the lens you guy's are suggesting. I may hold off on purchasing until I can save a bit more for a good lens.

Haven't made up my mind by any stretch, I came for good advice

Allow me to add my 2 cents as well, I'd even suggest the Tamron 70-200 mm f/2.8. It's not L series glass by any means, but it's good glass if you're on a budget and you'd be able to use it for indoor shots as well.

Tom