I am goin to buy my 1st DSLR
for body i m goin for canon 40D
but here comes the problem.

shall i go fo the 17-85 IS kit
-or-
i go for body only+sigma 18-200 OS
-or-
other lens?

is OS/IS very important for a first timer of DSLR?

wow.. 1st DSLR and you're getting 40D

18-200 is a good all-rounder lens if ur on tight budget...sigma with OS now only around 1.7k wad

Go for the 17-85 IS kit ... it best compliments the EOS 40D and having IS would be of good assist for you first timer having to hold a heavy camera.

Man you're getting 40d for your first dslr?????? I salute you man....

is the IQ of 17-85IS much more better than 18-200OS?

fuuyoh...1st DSLR already goin for 40D. *Salute*

Sigma 18-200 shd be quite a moderate weighted lens.

So if mounted on 40D, (excl. batt grip) would be quite heavy.

Until you are comfortable with the whole set and the type of shooting and the conditions you are in, IS DOES HELP A LOT! Unless you don't mind lugging a tripod along all the time.

Aiyo, Maybe TS experienced with SLRs but now getting the 1st DSLR leh!!!!

Money obvious not a factor in his case,

I'm not surprise if so.

40D for 1st time DSLR is not too bad..

Imagine if someone comes along and say he wants an EOS 1D Mark III for 1st time DSLR, then we all can really 'pengsan'...

This post has been edited by nivac: Oct 6 2007, 01:27 PM

mine first DSLR is D80

I would say get a 18-200mm lens. A good lens to start with. For you to experiment with different styles of shooting.

Good for travelling too.

Start with a Canon Lens.
Then later u'll realise how slow the non-USMs are.

40D for ur first dslr.. u sure r rich..
get the kitlens.. its not of a good quality.. but it does the job..
later on upgrade the lens..

Hey Wakaka

I suggest you start off with the 17-55mm.. It is a very good lens to start off with

If you get the 18-200mm, yes you can cover more.. But also need more time to master it.. To find which points it isn't good at and stuff like that..
Also considering that it has a big range from 18-200mm means that it is not very sharp.. Only some 18-200mms are sharp.

The 17-55mm feels much better than the 18-200mm also.. It has a large aperture value of f/2.8 from 17-55mm and also has IS motor and USM..

The TS is asking for lens below RM2k (EFS 17-85 & Sigma 18-200 OS), then you go & recommend a lens which double in price.
Nice suggestion.

guys, please refrain from posting useless stuff like this.

you're not even contributing to the question at hand.

and stop assuming that 1st time DSLR getting 40D as a big thing, some people may already have experience in using SLRs and so on so forth. no biggie la ok? RM 2.8k for first camera, RM 4.5k for first camera - not that big a differences isn't it? 1 month salary.

anyway TS,

AFAIK you can stick to the kit lens of the 40D which comes with the IS system, AFAIK the kit vs body only price diff is RM 300 only so might as well get the one with the kit and add the 18-200mm OS when you think there's a need for it.

I totally agree with Goldfries here. When getting a new camera, do toy around with the kit lens first and use it to it's fullest. Until then, you never know what is it that you might want to venture into and maybe after getting the 18-200mm lens you might just regret in the future for not saving the cash for another lens or perhaps even a flash gun.

You'll use the wide to near focal ranges more often, so the kitlens still comes in handy. Unless you absolutely know what kind of photography you'll be doing, stick to the kit lens. So the 17-85 IS is a good bet in this case.

18-200 just is an good option to consider.
Since u could afford a 40D, why not go for a 18-200 as well.

Buy 18-85 IS is more suitable for the one who first time own DLSR
I think you need the IS function to take sharp photo and it's easy to store and more convenience during travelling
outstation.

The Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS has Optical Stabilizer which is a similar technology to IS.

It's a better traveling range as it fits wideangle and telephoto.

My vote goes to body + 18-200mm Sigma OS

This post has been edited by calvin_gsc: Oct 10 2007, 10:38 PM

i am using Sigma 18-200mm OS...
it is very good lens... but very heavy too...
but i still vote for Sigma 18-200mm OS

yeah...i think when it comes to range wise...18-200 definitely beats the 17-85, do u have any sample images taken with this lens?maybe can share up a little bit to check it's quality...

I recommend getting the EF 17-40 f4L instead of those two. Colour and contrast won by 17-40 f4L hands down I think. Or just get a 50mm f1.4 and a 35mm f2. If I had your budget and with hindsight, I would've gotten those two primes with my 30D last time =)

The 30D is my first SLR/DSLR. Nothing special about it. Tons of people get 5D as their first SLR and I won't be surprised if there's people who got 1D/1Ds series as their first. If you can afford it why not?

Just wan to answer this last part: is OS/IS very important for a first timer DSLR

No

Why? I assume that this is your first SLR camera, so my apologies if I assume wrongly. I do not think its a good idea to get a IS/OS/VR lens on your first try coz it makes the user lazy to learn how to control his or her body. Better to learn how to use a non-IS lens now then later. Learn how to take a picture without shaking or at least keep it to a minimum.

And if anybody wan to ketuk me for this.. i dont deny it. I am very old school. And proud of it

let's consider the price of EF 17-40 F4L vs Sigma 18-200mm OS.

it really depends on the user. fine if you're willing to cough up more and have only 17-40mm range BUT having great picture quality.

i believe most people prefer to spend less, cover more distance + OS and of course, usually their picture is going to be resized for screen display.

actually, i heard that Ken Rockwell usually use his 18-200 VR almost of his travel ^^
not absolutely because of OS, it;s because of Canon don't have any 18-200 IS in their system ^^

Try to compare the pics quality of both lens if you can. Specs wise, Sigma lens definitely will be more worth it (if not how to beat Canon!!)

But if the quality is not as good as Canon, better go for a better quality lens, even if both states they have IS or OS. Afterall, not often you will go up to 200mm.

As for 17-40mm, not suitable for your first lens, unless you have specific usage for it. I believe quality wise will be better (L-Lens worrr...), but not practical as your prime lens unless you need it.

OP considered the 17-85 IS which is not that far off in price compared to the 17-40 f4L.

I wonder why 17-40 is not a suitable 'first lens'. Canon offered the 18-55mm as a kit lens from the 300D onwards. How much difference is it in focal length? 17-40 would make a great walkabout lens, it doesn't have that tiny extra reach but I believe it makes up for it in quality (build and picture wise).

the long range is always good at times

As I said, quality wise no question about any Canon L-lenses. But 17-40 alone may not be sufficient unless you have a specific purpose for it. Especially for travelling, having in hand a 17-85 with IS will be really good.

the 17-40 F4 L is a good walkabout lens. YES, It does not meet all needs, but its compact and also built like a tank. Plus its the lightest L Lens in the series. 17-85 IS is a good choice, for the short term.....

i have tried 17-40 and the sigma and i end up buying the tamron 17-50 and a 50mm 1.8..

u should get these 2 lens.. they are sharp and the apature is good thus u can shoot under dim conditions