# Which lense to get for canon Eos 400SD?



## skid (Oct 5, 2006)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One for all you camera buffs out there 
I am looking at getting a smaller lense for my Canon EOS 400D for use during my detailing work and other projects. 
I think the standard lense i have is a 55-80...? dont know as i am away from home just now. 
Any recommendations and what do i look for? 
Cheers.
_________________


----------



## clipstone (Nov 29, 2006)

Might be worth getting something like a 17-35 - nice and wide at the open lens but can still zoom in for more detail.

The nifty fifty (50mm prime) is another corker, and cheap as chips, but you have a fixed lens - ie no zoom.


----------



## richardi734 (Sep 4, 2007)

You probably have an 18-55. 

I liked my Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS as a general walkabout but the 10-22 is a great lens in tight spaces and produces some wide effects. The 50mm prime f/1.8 is great especially for portraits and you get some nice depth of field effects with it, perfect if your budget is small.


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

50mm 1.4 -> small, light, not overly-expensive, good in low light, effectively it's a very small telephoto on the 400 due to the multiplier - image quality and bokeh considerably better than the price suggests.

If you want a zoom and you've got the funds, then the 17-40 is a nice lens that probably better suits before and afters. A cheaper and more versatile (though probably lower quality) option is the 17-85 EF-S, which also has IS and is a bit smaller/lighter. A more expensive, heavier option is the 2.8 16-35, but it doesn't have IS.

A 70-200 F2.8 L IS normally on the front of my 1DII, with a 24-105 F4 L IS for wider scenes or more restrictive spaces - neither lens could be described as small! I've just bought a G9 for a carry-around camera - £300, includes IS, produces 12MP RAW files of reasonable quality - might be worth considering, rather than a bulky lens. It's been on my person whenever I've been out since Christmas whereas even a 400 can't be easily pocketed.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

see here:

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1013810


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

tell us more about what you want to use it for? 'smaller' just isnt enough info. The lens you have is pretty small already, so if its size on the camera you are concerned with then you dont have many choices....

what do you want to photograph, do you need a zoom, what is your budget, how big do you plan to view/print the images etc etc.

Quality lenses typically use more glass element and are built more robustly, which makes them bigger, heavier and damned expensive. Typically fixed focal length lenses, like those mentioned are smaller and in the cases of the ones mentioned, they are plastic bodied and lightweight, but having no zoom is not to everyones taste... Personally I carry a Canon Ixus 860is when not hauling my 5D and kit bag around, and it is a far better camera for photographing detailing etc with macro mode, decent flash, shirt pocket soze and superb quality. When i want to lose myself in the process of composing and taking pictures then I turn to the 5D and stupidly expensive lenses.... 

BTW the single best thing you can do for your photography is buy a quality tripod and cable release - essential if trying to photograph anything in macro or lower light. You see 50% of detailing pics on here being blurred so they do nothing to show off the quality of the work etc.


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

Bigpikle said:


> BTW the single best thing you can do for your photography is buy a quality tripod and cable release - essential if trying to photograph anything in macro or lower light. You see 50% of detailing pics on here being blurred so they do nothing to show off the quality of the work etc.


Amen! Either that or they're excessively noisy. Just because your camera has an ISO 1600 setting doesn't mean you should use it


----------



## clipstone (Nov 29, 2006)

ratbag98 said:


> *A 70-200 F2.8 L IS *normally on the front of my 1DII, with a 24-105 F4 L IS for wider scenes or more restrictive spaces - neither lens could be described as small! I've just bought a G9 for a carry-around camera - £300, includes IS, produces 12MP RAW files of reasonable quality - might be worth considering, rather than a bulky lens. It's been on my person whenever I've been out since Christmas whereas even a 400 can't be easily pocketed.


That is so the lens that I want!!

Awesome piece of kit, although for nearly £1500 in the UK, it should be!!


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

ratbag98 said:


> Amen! Either that or they're excessively noisy. Just because your camera has an ISO 1600 setting doesn't mean you should use it


unless you have a canon 5D  noise on that at web sized images is incredible (low).....


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

clipstone said:


> That is so the lens that I want!!
> 
> Awesome piece of kit, although for nearly £1500 in the UK, it should be!!


It is, without doubt, my favourite piece of technology I own. Worth is a subjective issue, but even though I don't get paid for my photos, the 70-200 is worth every penny of its purchase price to me. If you're a professional photographer doing portraits, close sports, current affairs or any photography where "depth" is important then it probably pays for itself many times over each week.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

ratbag98 said:


> Amen! Either that or they're excessively noisy. *Just because your camera has an ISO 1600 setting doesn't mean you should use it*


depends what camera you are using


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

Bigpikle said:


> unless you have a canon 5D  noise on that at web sized images is incredible (low).....


Obviously present company excluded in the noise comment  The 5D is truly a thing of beauty and a wonderful tool.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

You should try the D3 if you think the 5D is all that... saying that the D300 is almost as good as the D3 at 1/3 the price.


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> You should try the D3 if you think the 5D is all that... saying that the D300 is almost as good as the D3 at 1/3 the price.


I meant to include the Nikon alternative - I chose the Canon path many years ago and my lens investment means I'm unlikely to switch, but both manufacturer's are giving us what we want these days in terms of cheaper/better/faster.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

ratbag98 said:


> I meant to include the Nikon alternative - I chose the Canon path many years ago and my lens investment means I'm unlikely to switch, but both manufacturer's are giving us what we want these days in terms of cheaper/better/faster.


I chose the nikon path, reason being a friend is a part time wedding photographer who shoots nikon so i can borrow gear when needed.

Saying that i'm building a not too shabby little collection myself


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> I chose the nikon path, reason being a friend is a part time wedding photographer who shoots nikon so i can borrow gear when needed.
> 
> Saying that i'm building a not too shabby little collection myself


My brother was a pro for a while (a 1DS was his tool of choice, mountaineering photography his chosen subject, strong arms and shoulders the result) and the whole family decided we'd get Canon cameras for some obscure reason...


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

BTW if anyone is reading this and thinking of getting a DSLR then nikon are now doing the D40 with 18-55 kit lens for £299 plus £30 cash back, so you pay £269 which frankly is dirt cheap for what you get.

P.S. this is a brand new camera and lens (not refurb) with a 2 year warranty.

http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...&Prod_name=Nikon+D40+&+18-55mm+Cashback+Offer


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

rmorgan84 said:


> BTW if anyone is reading this and thinking of getting a DSLR then nikon are now doing the D40 with 18-55 kit lens for £299 plus £30 cash back, so you pay £269 which frankly is dirt cheap for what you get.
> 
> P.S. this is a brand new camera and lens (not refurb) with a 2 year warranty.
> 
> http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...&Prod_name=Nikon+D40+&+18-55mm+Cashback+Offer


Thats hitting the price of some "bridge" camera's and a level above in terms of performance. Must be the best deal I have seen on a cam in a while!


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> BTW if anyone is reading this and thinking of getting a DSLR then nikon are now doing the D40 with 18-55 kit lens for £299 plus £30 cash back, so you pay £269 which frankly is dirt cheap for what you get.
> 
> P.S. this is a brand new camera and lens (not refurb) with a 2 year warranty.
> 
> http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...&Prod_name=Nikon+D40+&+18-55mm+Cashback+Offer


Assuming it's the D40 (rather than the D40X, its replacement), here's a handy review to help confirm that this is a great offer:

DPReview review of the D40

Oh, and whilst we're putting up sample shots for a lens that's totally inappropriate to the original poster's needs, here's one I took years ago with the 1D:

Triathlete pedalling through


----------



## yin (Dec 29, 2005)

rmorgan84 said:


> BTW if anyone is reading this and thinking of getting a DSLR then nikon are now doing the D40 with 18-55 kit lens for £299 plus £30 cash back, so you pay £269 which frankly is dirt cheap for what you get.
> 
> P.S. this is a brand new camera and lens (not refurb) with a 2 year warranty.
> 
> http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...&Prod_name=Nikon+D40+&+18-55mm+Cashback+Offer


Also remember that warehouse express price match with camera world and you can still get the cashback off them.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/Home/default.aspx?/AboutUs/PricePromise.html


----------



## skid (Oct 5, 2006)

Many thanks for the replies guys.
One of the main reasons i want it for detailing is to reduce the overall size of aperture of the pic when taking a pic of the full car, as seams to take too much of the surrounding area and not just the car:wall:


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

skid said:


> Many thanks for the replies guys.
> One of the main reasons i want it for detailing is to reduce the overall size of aperture of the pic when taking a pic of the full car, as seams to take too much of the surrounding area and not just the car:wall:


Then a nifty fifty (50mm F1.8) would do the job for ya and they are cheap!. I got the Nikon equiv for my xmas and love the shallow depth of field it gives.:wave:


----------



## skid (Oct 5, 2006)

I just phoned my local Jessops and they say i should go for a Sigma telephoto lense.....70-300?
Opinions guys?


----------



## ratbag98 (Dec 18, 2007)

skid said:


> I just phoned my local Jessops and they say i should go for a Sigma telephoto lense.....70-300?
> Opinions guys?


Insane. You are kidding aren't you? You want a smaller lens than an 18-55, and they suggest a 70-300?


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

skid said:


> Many thanks for the replies guys.
> One of the main reasons i want it for detailing is to reduce the overall size of aperture of the pic when taking a pic of the full car, as seams to take too much of the surrounding area and not just the car:wall:


not sure that makes sense....

aperture controls the amount of light entering the camera and will control the depth of field in an image eg how much of the image is in sharp focus at any time. This depth of field can also be controlled by moving nearer or further from the subject/vehicle, so the further away you are the less depth of field will be present at any given aperture Eg move further away and zoom in to have the same amount of car in the image, and you will end up with an image with LESS in focus front to back. The SMALLER the F number the lens will go down to, the more light the lens will allow into the camera and the LESS depth of field will be given in that image.

OR

did you mean a zoom lens so you can use a longer focal length to produce an image with less in it eg be able to stand further away and get a 'close up' image????


----------



## clipstone (Nov 29, 2006)

skid said:


> Many thanks for the replies guys.
> One of the main reasons i want it for detailing is to reduce the overall size of aperture of the pic when taking a pic of the full car, as seams to take too much of the surrounding area and not just the car:wall:


Mate, please don't take this as sarcastic, because its not.

If you want to reduce the amount of scenary around the car, move closer to the car. You do not need a 70-300 zoom lens to take car photos with - in fact, i struggle at times to get all of the car into a shot if I have limited space with my 28-70 lens.


----------



## skid (Oct 5, 2006)

clipstone said:


> Mate, please don't take this as sarcastic, because its not.
> 
> If you want to reduce the amount of scenary around the car, move closer to the car. You do not need a 70-300 zoom lens to take car photos with - in fact, i struggle at times to get all of the car into a shot if I have limited space with my 28-70 lens.


Lol i aint that daft........:lol: 
If i move close enough to take the car in full in the picture i still take in too much above and below the pic, apart from photoshop i have been told changing the lense will reduce this.
yeah i thought the Jessops idea was a bit strange :lol:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

skid said:


> Lol i aint that daft........:lol:
> If i move close enough to take the car in full in the picture i still take in too much above and below the pic, apart from photoshop i have been told changing the lense will reduce this.
> yeah i thought the Jessops idea was a bit strange :lol:


now who's being funny 

A zoom lens does EXACTLY what walking closer to the image does (essentially). The result from the zoom will be close to identical as moving closer - FACT. The ratio of top:side of the image wont change so you will see just as much top and bottom as before. A couple of things WILL change between using a zoom and walking (not even going to go there on this thread) but the shape of the image certainly wont  The shape/ratio of the image is set by the pixels on the sensor in the camera and nothing to do with the lens...

If you simply want a 'letterbox' shape image then you will need to crop it in an editing programme, which will take you seconds to achieve and be completely free :thumb:


----------

