Hello folks, I just joined this forum today - sparked by my renewed enthusiasm :thumbsup: thanks to the impending release of the EOS 40D.

I have preordered the Canon EOS 40D from Amazon. I chose the kit with the 28-135 IS lens. I can spend about $1500 on lenses. The weight of the lens is an important issue. What is the best lens combination for my situation. I take picture of my kids, nature, landscape -general prosumer photography. I wanted to add the Canon 100-400 L IS USM to the kit lens. Any comments or other suggestions?

I know this is a question that has been addressed a million times:confused: , but the answers are never satisfying because no three people agree on the "perfect" combination. Will the kit lens allow good portraits? Also, I definitely want to stay with two lenses only.

Thanks,
ssj

Welcome to the Forum. I have heard good things about the 100-400 but I have never used one. With a lens that big, I would want to be using a tripod, but I'm sure the IS would help a great deal with hand holding.

Have you considered a lens on the other end of the spectrum? Something in the wide angle range? I recently purchased the Tonika 12-24mm f/4 lens, and I really like it.

Thanks for your input. Is the tripod absolutely necessary for the 100-400? If so, it will have to come off my list. I have a tripod but, I will be the first to admit, I don't like carrying it around much.

Or should I forget the kit lens and purchase the body alone and add a 17-85 USM and a 70-200 L IS USM?

Thanks for your input. Is the tripod absolutely necessary for the 100-400?

I would say no, but I would highly recommend it if you're shooting at the long end. If you have good light along with the IS, I think you would be ok without the tripod.

The 28-135 IS is not a kit lens. It's a step up from a kit lens. It has it's places to be used for sure, great starter lens, that you will be happy with!

the 100-400L is a commonly used lens for nature and sports photographers, moreso for the former. I believe quite a few racing photogs use it as well. It's soft wide open past 300mm, but when you stop it down you gain some sharpness back. All-around it is a good lens, and very nice if you need that extra length, and will be able to deal with a slower f/stop on the longer focal lengths. That being said, if you know you're going to be using 400mm most of the time, another lens to check out is the 400mm f/5.6L. This is the primary lens used for a lot of wildlife, and a lot of birds in flight photos. As always, the prime is much sharper than the zoom, and the 400 5.6 is no slouch. It's got fast AF, great color and contrast, and is pretty darn sharp wide open. If I had money to spend on lenses at this point, I would probably get one of those because it's so light and easy to carry around.

good luck.

ssj, I have the 100-400 L IS and I just love it on my 5D - the IQ is great.. I use it mostly for birds and hand-held, although I will use a tripod in low light conditions, or when shooting over longer distances. I had it on the camera last week and was driving slowly along this back road and came across a Swainson's hawk on thefence rail. Got two fantastically clear photos before he flew off. Have to improve my panning abilities. HTH.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

28-135 makes little sense for a 1.6 crop factor kit lens. It is like 44-216mm on a full frame camera. In other words it has no wide angle capability. If the 17-85IS is not available as a kit lens, then Canon must have stopped manufacturing that lens in preparation for a new one comparable to the Nikon or Sigma 18-200 stabilized lenses. I have the Sigma, and now my 17-85 and 28-135 stay at home all the time. The Sigma is extraordinary. It is sharp, and its construction "feels" better than either of the Canon lenses.

I also have the 100-400 and have used it A LOT over the last three years. It works well handheld (I remove the tripod foot for reduced weight and a better grip) for nature shooting. It does not work well with an extender--either 1.4x or 2x. Also, it seems to be somewhat trouble-prone or fragile. Mine has not broken, but those belonging to people I know have. AF failed on one; IS failed on another; a third that I heard about, I didn't get the nature of the failure. It is expensive to have repaired. However, I sometimes get shots my wife misses with her 500mm F4LIS, because I can zoom out.

If you get the 28-135, you will almost certainly have to buy a wide angle. I'm sure Canon will be happy to accomodate with the 10-20mm or 15-30. Just get out your checkbook.

Frankly, if I had no DSLR, I would buy the Sony Alpha. Stabilization built into the camera makes every lens stabilized, so you don't have to pay the premium in price, battery life, and weight of stabilized lenses. Plus the Alpha is $300 or so less than a 40D.

The 28-135 IS is not a kit lens. It's a step up from a kit lens. It has it's places to be used for sure, great starter lens, that you will be happy with!

Unfortunately the 28-135 is one of 2 kit lenses Canon is marketing for the 40D with the other being the 17-85mm IS.

A good starter lens for the 40D might be either the 17-40mm F/4L or EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lenses for the wide side. Then the 70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L for telephoto.

Depends what you are shooting to be honest.
For portraits I would still HIGHLY recommend the 50mm f/1.8 MK II lens.
If you are a portrait shooter but would like more range maybe for wide angles i would get something with a 50mm range somewhere in it. I wish I had one.
I have heard that the CANON 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 EF IS is a good lens.
I'm looking for something like that with the added bonus of an f/2.8L

EVERYTHING is better on this camera! The clarity, the dof, the colours, the higher ISO's...WOW!

Here's a quick snap I took today with my 40D and my 50mm f/1.8 MKII lens.
Using only window light.
Manual mode, ISO 800, SS 1/125, f/4.0
Minimal editing, to contrast and colours.


http://alisongreenwoodphotography.com/ssp_director/albums/album-78/lg/IMG_0052_500.jpg

Depends what you are shooting to be honest.
For portraits I would still HIGHLY recommend the 50mm f/1.8 MK II lens.
If you are a portrait shooter but would like more range maybe for wide angles i would get something with a 50mm range somewhere in it. I wish I had one.
I have heard that the CANON 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 EF IS is a good lens.
I'm looking for something like that with the added bonus of an f/2.8L

EVERYTHING is better on this camera! The clarity, the dof, the colours, the higher ISO's...WOW!

Here's a quick snap I took today with my 40D and my 50mm f/1.8 MKII lens.
Using only window light.
Manual mode, ISO 800, SS 1/125, f/4.0
Minimal editing, to contrast and colours.


http://alisongreenwoodphotography.com/ssp_director/albums/album-78/lg/IMG_0052_500.jpg

Very nice Alison!

The 28-135 is not a bad lens, I own one myself. I just meant that it was considered a 'kit' lens for the 40D, by Canon. It's a much better lens than the 17-50 kit lens Canon hung on the 400D. I will try the 28-135 on my 40D - when I get it!

hi there,well i haev the 70-200 f4/L USM and all i can say is that its a great and sharp lens,the only downside maybe for it (in ur case)that its not wide at all,so u much condiser buying another wide angle lens for that matter,preferably the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM if u have the bucks or the 17-40 f4/L wich is anothre great lens.

I see they are bundling the 28-135 with the 40D. I'm suprised. The 18-85 would make more sense because the 28-135 lacks wide capability. It was my first lens on my digital rebel and was replaced with the Sigma 17-70 which I like a lot. The 17-70 plus the 100-400 would be a killer combo. I sold the 28-135.