 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Best lens for Digital Rebel XT - is the kit lens worth $70?
With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. I see you can buy it without a lens or for $85 more the 18-55 mm kit lens. Is the kit lens worth it (dpreview says it is not too good) and if not what lens would you put the $85 savings towards? sorry - should be $85 difference to get kit lens and not $70 > With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. > I see you can buy it without a lens or for $85 more the 18-55 mm kit lens. > Is the kit lens worth it (dpreview says it is not too good) and if not > what lens would you put the $85 savings towards? sam (sam@utah.net) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. I > see you can buy it without a lens or for $85 more the 18-55 mm kit lens. Is > the kit lens worth it (dpreview says it is not too good) and if not what > lens would you put the $85 savings towards? Well, that lens sells for $140 by itself, so $85 isn't a bad deal. And, you're not likely to find a better unused zoom lens for $85.  SignatureJeff Rife | "Why the hell did you stuff yourself like that?" | "Hey, Lowell threw down the gauntlet...I just | poured gravy on it and ate it." | -- Joe and Brian Hackett, "Wings" > With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. I > see you can buy it without a lens or for $85 more the 18-55 mm kit lens. Is > the kit lens worth it (dpreview says it is not too good) and if not what > lens would you put the $85 savings towards? I got my Rebel XT with one - and then when I traded up to my 20D I got another. I've been VERY disappointed with both examples - sharpness is poor, contrast is poor - it is possible to get a good shot with it, but it comes with a long list of shortcomings & compromises. The best you can buy in that range is what I went for: a 24-70 F2.8L USM. It's expensive, but (for me anyway) the difference was "night and day". And if you do buy one then you're sure to have it for many more years than the camera - it's fully compatible with others (and probably future) Canon DSLR models (unlike the kit lens). >> With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. >I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >camera - it's fully compatible with others (and probably future) Canon DSLR >models (unlike the kit lens). But you are cropping the central part of the image of that lens, which magnifies the imperfections. It's a bit like using it with a 1.5 x tele-extender. Consider the new Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens, made for the XT and 20D cameras. The reviews sound great... I don't have one yet but stand by... KS >>> With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. >>I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >But you are cropping the central part of the image of that lens, which >magnifies the imperfections. Cropping out the edges and corners makes a lens seem *better*, not worse. It retains the center of the image, which is always (at least in my experience and reading) the best part. This is shown at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/ in the review of the 24-70 lens mentioned above. Both cropped and full-frame test results are available, and side by side comparisons are easy to do. Keep in mind that this lens is exceptionally good - the difference between the center and corners of the produced image is usually more extreme, as shown in the review of the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF. > But you are cropping the central part of the image of that lens, which > magnifies the imperfections. It's a bit like using it with a 1.5 x > tele-extender. Um, no. > Consider the new Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens, made for the XT > and 20D cameras. The reviews sound great... I don't have one yet but > stand by... Only problem with an EF-S lens is that you're stuck with a very expensive paperweight if you ever move up to a full frame sensored camera. >> With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. >I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >camera - it's fully compatible with others (and probably future) Canon DSLR >models (unlike the kit lens). If only it had IS. KS > >The best you can buy in that range is what I went for: a 24-70 F2.8L USM. > >It's expensive, but (for me anyway) the difference was "night and day". And [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If only it had IS. I'm a big IS fan - and I certainly enjoy it on my 70-200 F2.8L, but I have to say that to date - touch wood - it hasn't been an issue with the 24-70. >With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. I >see you can buy it without a lens or for $85 more the 18-55 mm kit lens. Is >the kit lens worth it (dpreview says it is not too good) and if not what >lens would you put the $85 savings towards? While the 18-55 kit lense is not a great model, it takes fairly decent shots for 4x6 snaps. There are several other choices you can consider, but it depends on your needs. Do you want the best optics? Resolution, colour, contrast are nicer with the better lenses. In this case, look at the 17-40 f/4 L and 16-35 f/2.8 L lenses. They're not cheap, but they are definitely high quality. Do you want a longer zoom range but less demand on the optics? If so, the 17-85 IS lense is handy with image stabilization and a wide zoom range, but optically isn't much better than the 18-55. I don't recommend this one to people unless they want a single lense to cover such a wide zoom range and need IS for their intended shots - it's pricey for what you get. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lense has good zoom coverage with decent optics, but it's not up to the 17-40 or 16-35 quality. It has IS and a fast 2.8 aperture though, and again is pricey. If you don't need the wide angle, you can also consider the 24-70 f/2.8 which is a fantastic lense, and expensive. But it's the best of the lot. There's not much else in the zoom range that really stands out. Just so you know, I use the Canon Rebel XT with the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L lenses. These two cover 90% of what I need to shoot, have great optics, and are reasonably priced. They're two of the best price/performance gems from Canon. Having said that, if you have no specific need to buy Canon, have you considered the excellent Nikon D50 or D70s cameras? Either one with the Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lense would be a better choice and cost less. The 18-70 lense is a very good performer and is one of Nikon's gems (I've used my friend's D70s extensively lately so I know how well it performs). I personally think the Nikon D50 with the 18-70 is the best DSLR choice available right now. You get a decent body with plenty of features, great high ISO performance, and a really good lense that covers a wide range and has good optical qualities. In this price range, it's definitely one of the best deals. >While the 18-55 kit lense is not a great model, it takes fairly decent lens >shots for 4x6 snaps. There are several other choices you can consider, >but it depends on your needs. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Do you want a longer zoom range but less demand on the optics? If so, >the 17-85 IS lense is handy with image stabilization and a wide zoom lens >range, but optically isn't much better than the 18-55. I don't recommend >this one to people unless they want a single lense to cover such a wide lens >zoom range and need IS for their intended shots - it's pricey for what >you get. > >The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lense has good zoom coverage with decent optics, but lens >it's not up to the 17-40 or 16-35 quality. It has IS and a fast 2.8 >aperture though, and again is pricey. > >If you don't need the wide angle, you can also consider the 24-70 f/2.8 >which is a fantastic lense, and expensive. But it's the best of the lot. lens >There's not much else in the zoom range that really stands out. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >considered the excellent Nikon D50 or D70s cameras? Either one with the >Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lense would be a better choice and cost less. lens >The 18-70 lense is a very good performer and is one of Nikon's gems lens >(I've used my friend's D70s extensively lately so I know how well it >performs). > >I personally think the Nikon D50 with the 18-70 is the best DSLR choice >available right now. You get a decent body with plenty of features, >great high ISO performance, and a really good lense that covers a wide lens >range and has good optical qualities. > >In this price range, it's definitely one of the best deals. Hope I didn't miss one. Fred SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> While the 18-55 kit lense is not a great model, it takes fairly decent > > lens << Snipped bits out >> and a really good lense that covers a wide > lens > Hope I didn't miss one. You did, but then the whole response was enervating. Signaturelsmft Even if you learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you speak it to? (Fred@fred.fred) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > >While the 18-55 kit lense is not a great model, it takes fairly decent > > lens Try again: http://www.bennetyee.org/http_webster.cgi?lense SignatureJeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/ObedienceFinal.jpg > Hope I didn't miss one. Someone takes the time to post some valuable info and you waste time with this silly crap? What a loser! SignatureStacey >Do you want the best optics? Resolution, colour, contrast are nicer with >the better lenses. In this case, look at the 17-40 f/4 L and 16-35 f/2.8 >L lenses. They're not cheap, but they are definitely high quality. >Do you want a longer zoom range but less demand on the optics? If so, >the 17-85 IS lense is handy with image stabilization and a wide zoom >range, but optically isn't much better than the 18-55. I don't recommend >this one to people unless they want a single lense to cover such a wide >zoom range and need IS for their intended shots - it's pricey for what >you get. >The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lense has good zoom coverage with decent optics, but >it's not up to the 17-40 or 16-35 quality. It has IS and a fast 2.8 >aperture though, and again is pricey. >If you don't need the wide angle, you can also consider the 24-70 f/2.8 >which is a fantastic lense, and expensive. But it's the best of the lot. >There's not much else in the zoom range that really stands out. You did not mention the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS. It isn't L glass but I've read that a number of folks use it as a walking around lens. Any opinions? --- Paul J. Gans >>Do you want the best optics? Resolution, colour, contrast are nicer with >>the better lenses. In this case, look at the 17-40 f/4 L and 16-35 f/2.8 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >glass but I've read that a number of folks use it as a walking >around lens. Any opinions? Sorry...I completely forgot to mention it. I have very little personal experience with that lense (only tried it out for about an hour), but from what I've heard and read it's a very good performer aside from the flare issue (and it is infact "L" glass, red stripe and all). The only issue I have with it is cost due to the IS feature pushing the price into the 24-70 f/2.8 range which I consider a better performer. The weight and size of the smaller 24-105 could be a benefit though and make it worthwhile. >>>Do you want the best optics? Resolution, colour, contrast are nicer with >>>the better lenses. In this case, look at the 17-40 f/4 L and 16-35 f/2.8 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>glass but I've read that a number of folks use it as a walking >>around lens. Any opinions? >Sorry...I completely forgot to mention it. >I have very little personal experience with that lense (only tried it >out for about an hour), but from what I've heard and read it's a very >good performer aside from the flare issue (and it is infact "L" glass, >red stripe and all). >The only issue I have with it is cost due to the IS feature pushing the >price into the 24-70 f/2.8 range which I consider a better performer. >The weight and size of the smaller 24-105 could be a benefit though and >make it worthwhile. I thought that the flare issue had been resolved? I agree about the 24-70 f/2.8, but if you have to walk around with the thing all day... For me there are two types of "expeditions". One where I take three or four lenses in a phtobackpack and do serious stuff. The other is where I have my "walking around lens" and do just that. I'm in NYC and the number of "grab shots" one can find is amazing. Except that there is no time to change lenses (if I had any others along). For that I think the 24-105 might be ideal -- even though I'm using a 1.6x crop camera. Maybe next year. I blew this year's budget already. ;-( ----- Paul J. Gans > >>>Do you want the best optics? Resolution, colour, contrast are nicer with > >>>the better lenses. In this case, look at the 17-40 f/4 L and 16-35 f/2.8 > >>>L lenses. They're not cheap, but they are definitely high quality. [...] > >The only issue I have with it is cost due to the IS feature pushing the > >price into the 24-70 f/2.8 range which I consider a better performer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I agree about the 24-70 f/2.8, but if you have to walk around > with the thing all day... Just to add that I use the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 with the XT and have had great results with it. Cost about UKP350. A little bit heavy for an ideal walkaround, but currently no budget for more lenses! Signaturebellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk >>I have very little personal experience with that lense (only tried it >>out for about an hour), but from what I've heard and read it's a very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I thought that the flare issue had been resolved? Yes, but it's still something to look out for if buying used or off ebay. Buying new today shouldn't be a problem. >I agree about the 24-70 f/2.8, but if you have to walk around >with the thing all day... It is heavy, but you have to consider image quality. If you want the best, you have to be willing to carry it. That's why I have the smaller and lighter 17-40 on my camera. :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.