Newbie-Rebel XT Lens

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

roger@blacktech-inc.com - 18 Aug 2006 16:06 GMT

I have been trying out a new Rebel XT with standard kit lense (18-55),
and am thinking about making the plunge and purchasing the camera. But
I have read several reviews stating that I could do better than the
lens included in the kit, and was thinking that perhaps I should just
buy the body and get a better lens (I own other Canon digital cameras
which take the same battery and CF cards, so the kit isn't that big of
a deal). Can anyone offer me any advice? I shoot mainly my children,
indoor and outdoor activities, portraits and landscapes--I really don't
see the need for anything over 200mm, particulalry if it means
sacrificing a great deal of quality over the closer shots. I know this
topic has been posted before, but I am hoping to get some advice
specific for my shooting hapits. Thanks in advance.

Roger

Reply to this Message

Todd H. - 18 Aug 2006 17:11 GMT

> I have been trying out a new Rebel XT with standard kit lense (18-55),
> and am thinking about making the plunge and purchasing the camera. But
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> a deal). Can anyone offer me any advice? I shoot mainly my
> children,

Heh--that sounds violent.

> indoor and outdoor activities, portraits and landscapes--I really don't
> see the need for anything over 200mm, particulalry if it means
> sacrificing a great deal of quality over the closer shots. I know this
> topic has been posted before, but I am hoping to get some advice
> specific for my shooting hapits. Thanks in advance.

Important question: what's your budget?

I recently took the plunge and go the EF-S f/2.8 17-55mm IS lens and
have been very happy with its feel and improvement over the kit lens.
f/2.8 plus image stabilization is positively intoxicating and lets you
shoot available light in a lot of situations it's simply not possible
to shoot otherwise. But, brace yourself, it's $1250.

Other options I considered in replacing hte crappy kit lens included a
24-somethin f/2.8 lens but after trying it, the loss of wide angle
coverage at 24 on the digital rebel body was just something I didn't
want.

I have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens as well that makes a nice
complement for shooting the longer end.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Reply to this Message

Al Dykes - 19 Aug 2006 12:45 GMT

>> I have been trying out a new Rebel XT with standard kit lense (18-55),
>> and am thinking about making the plunge and purchasing the camera. But
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>I have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens as well that makes a nice
>complement for shooting the longer end.

I bought the 300D with the kit lens, and it was ok but I soon bought
the Canon 28-135 IS zoom for about $400 and now rarely use the kit
lens. It doesn't weigh anything and stays in the camera bag for the
occasional wide angle situation (and 18mm on a 300D isn't really
*that* wide.)

I miss the 24MM lens I had on my 35mm film camera and, IMO, loss of
true wide-angle on a camera I can afford (and would carry, daily) is
the biggest downside to digital photography.

The F1.8 50MM lens for $60 makes for some fun low-light shooting
on a budget.

Signature

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Reply to this Message

AaronW - 19 Aug 2006 18:07 GMT

> I miss the 24MM lens I had on my 35mm film camera and, IMO, loss of
> true wide-angle on a camera I can afford (and would carry, daily) is
> the biggest downside to digital photography.

Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Reply to this Message

roger@blacktech-inc.com - 23 Aug 2006 15:56 GMT

Thanks for all the replies and help. Unfortunately, 1200 is out of
budget (out of my wife's limits for my budget, to be more specific).
Does tamron or Sigma offer anything comparable? Obviously, they won't
have the performance, but close will do! I could probably go to the
$700 range. To be even more specific, I would say that 60-70% of my
shots are indoor, so low light performance is paramount. Thanks again
for all your help.

> > I have been trying out a new Rebel XT with standard kit lense (18-55),
> > and am thinking about making the plunge and purchasing the camera. But
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/

Reply to this Message

AaronW - 23 Aug 2006 23:28 GMT

> Thanks for all the replies and help. Unfortunately, 1200 is out of
> budget (out of my wife's limits for my budget, to be more specific).
> Does tamron or Sigma offer anything comparable? Obviously, they won't
> have the performance, but close will do! I could probably go to the
> $700 range. To be even more specific, I would say that 60-70% of my
> shots are indoor, so low light performance is paramount.

Canon 35/2
Canon 50/1.8
Canon 85/1.8

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Reply to this Message

Bella Jones - 27 Aug 2006 08:03 GMT

> > Thanks for all the replies and help. Unfortunately, 1200 is out of
> > budget (out of my wife's limits for my budget, to be more specific).
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Canon must laugh all the way to the bank every time they read that all
other lenses than theirs won't have the performance!

I bought a Rebel XT at the end of last year. After a lot of research,
and bearing in mind that budget was an issue, as my first lens I got a
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which cost UKP 350. I've been having a great time
with it, and it's taken some really nice shots.

Sure, with more money available I might have got the Canon 17-40, but
it's swings and roundabouts...

Signature

bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk

Reply to this Message

Steve Dell - 18 Aug 2006 17:15 GMT

I bought the XT with the 17-85 IS EF-S lens instead. it handles what you
want and is much better quality than the kit lens.

The XT takes a smaller battery than its 10/20/30D cousins. They are easily
obtainable. it uses CF cards so those that you own now will work fine.

Steve

>I have been trying out a new Rebel XT with standard kit lense (18-55),
> and am thinking about making the plunge and purchasing the camera. But
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Roger

Reply to this Message

AaronW - 18 Aug 2006 18:12 GMT

> I have been trying out a new Rebel XT with standard kit lense (18-55),
> and am thinking about making the plunge and purchasing the camera. But
> I have read several reviews stating that I could do better than the
> lens included in the kit, and was thinking that perhaps I should just
> buy the body and get a better lens

It is much easier to sell the camera with the kit lens when you
upgrade.

> Can anyone offer me any advice? I shoot mainly my children,
> indoor and outdoor activities, portraits and landscapes--I really don't
> see the need for anything over 200mm, particulalry if it means
> sacrificing a great deal of quality over the closer shots.

Canon 50/1.8
Canon 85/1.8

Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS

Canon 17-55/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS

Canon 1.4x
Canon 2x

Canon 135/2
Canon 300/2.8 IS

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Reply to this Message

Bill - 18 Aug 2006 22:45 GMT

>I have been trying out a new Rebel XT with standard kit lense (18-55),
>and am thinking about making the plunge and purchasing the camera. But
>I have read several reviews stating that I could do better than the
>lens included in the kit,

The kit lense is not terribly bad for the price, good enough for general
shots and pics of the kids at play.

Have you considered the Nikon D50 with the 18-55 and 55-200 kit?

I think it's a better deal since Nikon has slightly better optics, the
two lense kit gives a huge zoom range, both lenses have a silent motor
so it's quieter than the Canon lense, and many people prefer the way the
Nikon feels in their hands.

The cost of the Nikon D50 with 18-55 and 55-200 kit would be the same as
the Canon with 18-55 and would perform just as good.

If you want better optical quality, the Nikon D50 with 18-70 lense would
be a good choice and would still cost about the same as the Canon.

> and was thinking that perhaps I should just
>buy the body and get a better lens

There are other options, but you don't mention a budget. Good glass is
not cheap.

The Canon 17-85 is convenient and has a good zoom range, but lacks in
optical quality (similar to kit lense) and is not cheap.

The 17-40 f/4 L is similarly priced and has fantastic optics. It's a
real price/performance gem.

The 16-35 f/2.8 L is also great, but it's about twice the price of the
17-85 and 17-40 since it has a larger aperture.

What you get will ultimately depend on your needs and budget.

Reply to this Message