What lenses to buy for EOS 400D/Rebel XTi

[char@worldoptions.com.au]

New to Digital SLR.

I am going to buy a Canon EOS Digital 400D (they aren't called Rebel XTi here in Australia) but Canon have advised me they are one and the same. I want to know which lenses I should buy.

I have the option of purchasing a kit which includes:
18-55 mm USM lens.

I like to take lots of travel photos.
I would like to take wide angle photos of landscapes (like a panoramic view if possible) without using tripods.

I also like to take photos of architecture.

I also want to be able to take close up photos of my kids (with the blurred background) and just general situations as well as travel photos.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that I want 1-2 lenses that will cover most of my basic needs, obviously some lenses are better suited for each situation but if I could get 2 that cover all the above it would be great. My 2 main things I want is the wide angle view for scenery and the close up of kids with the blurred background effect.

So my questions are which lenses should I buy? I don't want to spend a fortune and don't want to be chopping and changing lenses frequently. I would prefer a maximum of 2 lenses only.

We have a twin lens kit available and are the 18-55mm and the 75-300mm. Although I would prefer to make my purchase in the USA when we come for our holiday as they are cheaper than ours but depends on whether I vary from the standard kits lens or not.

After reviewing the Canon web site for types of photography eg. landscape, architecture and portrait. It seems they suggest the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens for landscapes as a good overall choice.

Should I purchase this lens and perhaps the 75-300mm which I could use for any wildlife photos and just general zoom lens? The 75-300mm lens is quite reasonable in price. The 28-135mm is alot more expensive (US$400-500) but has the image stabiliser. Could I keep this lens on the camera most of the time and use for general photography? Or would I be better off having the standard 18-55mm lens as well as this one? The 18-55mm lens is reasonably priced.

But as I mentioned, I really would prefer not to have lots of lenses as I can't imagine having the time or inclination to be constantly swapping lenses while on holidays with 2 small children. It is just not practical.

The other thing is that some lenses like the 18-55mm seem to say "equivalent to 28-90mm" while others don't???? I read Bill's post about lenses, focal length etc etc and he explains this really well but I just wish my head could take it all in!!

Could someone maybe please offer some expert practical advice on what to buy? Sorry for the long winded questions.

Please help.
Thanks

[dave kadolph]

If I had to stay with 2 lenses and cost was a concern--17-85 IS and 70-300 IS

Money not so tight 24-70 and one of the 70-200 family.

I bought a kit lens but never used it much--but always had other lenses around to choose from.

There are many "third party" lens that work well and are more cost effective but have pretty much stayed with the Canon brand myself.

Welcome to the forum

[whchan]

The wide end of the 28-135 lens (28mm) is not very wide for landscape shots. Belive it or not, I would rather use the kit lens (18-55) for landscape or architectural photos. As Dave pointed out, you can get the Canon 17-85 or you may also consider some 3rd party offering in that range (with better quality than the kit lens): Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8.

I don't know what's your budget but the following lens can be considered for the tele zoom range (I assume you don't want f2.8 lens having 2 kids travel with you):
Canon 70-200 f4 (~$580 USD), best optics
Canon 70-300 IS (~$550 USD), not as good optically as the 70-200 but has IS (IS, however, does not help to capture kids running around)
Sigma 70-300 APO DG (~$200 USD), best budget lens for this range. It is much better than the Canon 75-300 that you indicated.

BTW, if you are really into lanscape/architectural type of photos, you may want to consider having a UWA lens in the future.

Hope that helps.

[david888lee]

hey char,

first of all, there is a really great search function on the top of the forum that you can use to search all sorts of fun stuff. Since, I see a new topic very similar to yours almost every day, I'm sure you can find out a lot of information just through the search bar. also, this will help you decide faster instead of waiting for responses.:)

if you're like me, I don't like spending a lot of money on camera equipment since i'm not a professional, but would like to get the best bang for the buck, so I would recommend third party lenses. here are two lenses (one that I have, and one that I want) that I think would be great.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - $400 (landscape, architecture, kids)
Sigma 17-200 f/2.8 - $800 (telephoto)

Also, remember to check all the lenses out yourself. In this forum (the lens section) you'll also find an archive of images taken with almost every lens out there for Canon camera's and a bunch of polls about what is the best starter lens, walk around lens, yada yada yada. Take a look at those, since i'm sure you'll learn a lot about the different lenses (advantages and disadvantages) there. Again, if you could tell us your price range, that would help a lot since if you don't mind spending tons of money, the sky's the limit!

David

[arqp]

I think a Canon EF-S 17-85 IS or a Sigma 17-70 would be a good walk around solution and suit most of your needs (I'm trying to decide between these two myself). The suggested Tamron 17-50 or a Sigma 18-50 would be better for that blurred effect you want, since they are f/2.8, but personally I find their range a bit short... If you want to go wider I'd suggest you try the Canon EF-S 10-22, it's a great lens and really fun to use. many people on the forum are very happy with the Sigma 10-20 too. For a tele zoom I'd go for the Canon EF 70-300 IS (on my wishlist too). Personally I chose to buy the 10-22 and the kit 18-55 but now regret not having gone for a better quality and better range all round zoom (like the 17-85) and have just that one for a while to see what range I'd be missing the most, as I'm not feeling happy with the kit lens. I suggest you do that and see if you need your second lens to be a wide zoom or a tele zoom.
Good luck.

[slipper]

I got a Canon 17-40 f/4L and a 70-200 f/4L. Also considering getting a 50 f/1.8.

[Pat]

I also have the 400D and bought the EF 17-40mm which I use for landscapes, architecture and a walk around, another choice would be the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 which has very good reviews.

[tsk1979]

When I bought a Canon 350D I was on right budget
So one lens I bought was the Kit lens. This is the most used lens by me
Another lens I bought with it was the 75-300USM III (Its a 150$ lens).
This was used for some birds and potraits(Potraits come out better with zoom lenses)

But lacking a good potrait lens was frustrating, so I bought the 50mm F1.8
though on the 400D it will give you 80mm FOV in 35mm terms, it is an amazing lens, and my favorite.
The reasons are simple. Canon cams do clean ISO 1600. Add to that a 1.8 lens and you can have great potraits in lot so good light and amazing pics of places where no flash is allowed.
So whatever lenses you buy this is a must have lens(Unless you afford 50mm 1.4)

On the other lenses front as I posted, I am no great expert as I am on a budget.
but if I had money I would love to have something like a 17-85 IS for vacation shots.
55mm is a tad short.
The ideal thing would be 18-200 OS from sigma, but if wishes were horses.....
For non birders 17-70/85mm is a great usable range.

So to sum up my post
1. Take one 17-85 or 17-70mm lens : IS is always better as it helps in low light. This will take care of landscapes (24mm is not wide enough because for 400D you multiply FL by 1.6 to get 35mm equivalent
2. Take the 50mm 1.8/1.4(Depending on your budget) for your kids. You can also spend more and get 85mm prime(1.4 I think?)
3. If you like bird photography and are on a budget 75-300IS is good, if you can spend 1100 or so USD then 100-400L-IS from canon is good.

[Coastwatch203]

Hi guy's, one fantastic walk around lens to consider is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens with Image Stabiliser. A friend of mine who is a pro wedding photographer swears by it. (not at it!) - With the 400D's 1.6 crop factor it equates to apx 35mm to 150mm which obviously isnt as wide as the 10mm or 17, but its a fantastic "people len's" and one that my end up being attached to the Rebel most of the time. Its not cheap - Digitalrev on ebay sell them for $1200 Australian dollars, but being an "L" lens it will hold its value, and you will still be loving the photos it captures long after the pain of forking out for it is forgotten! - me thinks:)

[JohnJ80]

Best two lens kit for the XTi (or for any crop camera) is the 17-40 and the 70-200 f/4. If you want IS, then go for the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 IS USM.

The gap between 40 and 70 is really not that important, but if it is for you, then you can add the 50 1.8 for cheap or a tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

That is a modest cost lens setup and you will have top end IQ. You'll be happy for many many hours.

If you are into landscape then I'd advise you to strongly consider an good tripod and ballhead in there too and be prepared to spend what you would on one of the lenses I list above. Secondly, I'd like to suggest that you use that tele for some interesting landscape shots too... See below for one taken with the 70-200 f/4 at 200mm on the XT.


http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/image/55597446.jpg

Here's one taken with the 17-40 on the XT:

http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/image/54404523.jpg

J.

[bishop13]

When I got my XTi (or 400, whatever) I wanted to get the best range of lenses without spending *too* much $$$ (so I can save for some L-glass..hehe), so I started with the kit lens (hey, came with the camera, and its capable of pretty darn good images), a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (great walk around lens, esp for $250US, I've hardly taken it off since I got it), Tamron 75-300 f/4-5.6 (motor is kinda noisy, but price was right and IQ is pretty good), and a 50 f/1.8 for portraits.

[char@worldoptions.com.au]

David888lee I did use the search function and I did read all the reports but still wanted some "expert" advice. I know you all probably get sick of people asking the same questions but I really wanted some advice on my "own" situation.:)

Thanks everyone for your help because I feel now after reading your suggestions that I think I should buy the 17-85 IS USM lens. As for budget, well I guess I didn't want to spend much more than $1000 on the 2 lenses.

Ok, so I'm still a bit confused between these lenses. I went back to Canon site and still don't really know why there is such a difference in price etc, I just went to a retail site for some comparison prices.
I understand what the USM is and the IS but why is there such a huge gap in price for Option 1 and 2???

1. 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM $549
2. 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM III $190
3. 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $984
4. 70-200mm f/4.0L USM $529

The L lenses are obviously more expensive but would I notice a difference in my photos being an amateur??? What I want to really know is there a HUGE difference in appearance in photos or not?

I can't really see much difference between option 1 and 2 except the Image Stabiliser but if this means not having to use a tripod at times then this would be really beneficial to myself while travelling.

The $948 one seems a bit out of the price range when I'm also buying the 17-85mm.

So I guess the question is whether I buy Option 1 with IS or Option 4 without IS and is only 200mm as opposed to 300mm??? Do you need to use a tripod on all night time photos, even if you have an IS lens?

Personally I feel I should buy Option 1 because it is 300mm and has the IS, but hey what on earth would I know?????

Thanks

[JohnJ80]

David888lee

Thanks everyone for your help because I feel now after reading your suggestions that I think I should buy the 17-85 IS USM lens. As for budget, well I guess I didn't want to spend much more than $1000 on the 2 lenses.

Ok, so I'm still a bit confused between these lenses. I went back to Canon site and still don't really know why there is such a difference in price etc, I just went to a retail site for some comparison prices.
I understand what the USM is and the IS but why is there such a huge gap in price for Option 1 and 2???

because one is good and the other isn't.



1. 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM $549
2. 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM III $190
3. 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $984
4. 70-200mm f/4.0L USM $529

The L lenses are obviously more expensive but would I notice a difference in my photos being an amateur??? What I want to really know is there a HUGE difference in appearance in photos or not?

I did. I have to tell you that so very many have been hooked into L glass by the 70-200 f/4L. It is one of Canon's best zooms and has fantastic color, contrast and saturation. This lens has the ability to really do amazing things for you as a matter of course. It is a great lens.

Because the IS version has come out, you can pick these up on B&S for $450 or so. A great deal. This is one of the 'must have' lenses if you are serious.

see:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&thread=14245789



I can't really see much difference between option 1 and 2 except the Image Stabiliser but if this means not having to use a tripod at times then this would be really beneficial to myself while travelling.


Personally, I try to take few pictures with teles that are no on either a tripod or with lenses that have IS. I've found that it makes a big difference in the image quality and the keeper rate.



The $948 one seems a bit out of the price range when I'm also buying the 17-85mm.

So I guess the question is whether I buy Option 1 with IS or Option 4 without IS and is only 200mm as opposed to 300mm??? Do you need to use a tripod on all night time photos, even if you have an IS lens?

Personally I feel I should buy Option 1 because it is 300mm and has the IS, but hey what on earth would I know?????

Thanks

Personally, I'd recommend that you look at something like the sigma 18-50 f/2.8, the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or similar lenses over the 17-85. The 17-85 is sort of a middling lens, it isn't bad but it isn't good - kind of in the middle. If you read the reviews over at fredmiranda.com, it comes in a very mediocre rating (which is about right). The other two have much better IQ, IMO. You also get faster glass which means your AF will work better and you can do better in lower light.

For tele's it is hard to do better than the 70-200 f/4. On occasion, some will lenses can do as well as it, but not all the time and probably not better. It is a terrific lens - probably in the top 3 for Canon's zooms - and then at that price point? A no brainer. If you want to go up to the IS version - it is probably Canon's best tele zoom right now. (I also have one of these). It is superb.

What does L mean? I find that it means that I get color I like, and nice contrast and sharper out of the camera. It means I do less post processing and less time in front of the computer and more time shooting. For the difference in price to the 7x-300 and this lens? No question that I'd get the 70-200.


J.

[char@worldoptions.com.au]

Hey JohnJ80 this is getting harder & harder!! You know what, I went and saw some of those photos and they are fantastic, but is it the photographer or the lens????

You've convinced me to get the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens now but I do hope I can take such great photos as well, I'm just your average Mum with 2 kids who likes to take photos and do scrapbooking, and would love some great shots like those!

One other question, any idea on how I change my name??? I don't recall putting my email address in as a name? I can't find any help on this system. I've been through everything under profiles and can't find how to change it.:(

[tsk1979]

On a budget?
Get te 17-85 IS. This will work in low light, but not really in light where required exposure in in seconds.
Get a 50mm 1.8 for potraints.
For zoom stuff the 75-300 from Canon is not too sharp. I have it hence know. So get 75-300IS. If you cannot afford that I suggest you go for a 75-300 from sigma, its better than the canon version

[JohnJ80]

Hey JohnJ80 this is getting harder & harder!! You know what, I went and saw some of those photos and they are fantastic, but is it the photographer or the lens????

You've convinced me to get the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens now but I do hope I can take such great photos as well, I'm just your average Mum with 2 kids who likes to take photos and do scrapbooking, and would love some great shots like those!

One other question, any idea on how I change my name??? I don't recall putting my email address in as a name? I can't find any help on this system. I've been through everything under profiles and can't find how to change it.:(

The 70-200 f/4L IS USM (also the non IS version) is a great lens for shooting pics of the kids. If they are active, this is the lens to shoot them in action and crop them tight. You will love this lens for your scrapbooking (I do the shooting, my wife is a scrapbook-a-holic).

You will need a wider lens too. If you are shooting kids, you should really look at something that is pretty fast too (f/2.8 or so) so you can get those great available light shots of your kids inside. Tamron 17-50 or the sigma 18-50 are great choices for that. If you have the cash, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM would be great. The 17-40 is ok indoors, but you will wind up using flash more (which kids hate....). That said, it is a fantastic WA on a crop camera for landscape.

Can't help you with the name thing but you definitely want to get that email address out of there. Maybe someone knows a link to one of the sysops that could fix that for her?

J.

[char@worldoptions.com.au]

So was that yes or no with having to use a tripod with the telephoto 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens?

[char@worldoptions.com.au]

Ok thanks again.
I do hope I can get rid of that email address - anyone help?

[JohnJ80]

The IS in the 70-200 f/4L IS USM is the best that Canon has come out with to date. You get about 4 stops of performance if you believe Canon's claim - I'm always a skeptic, so I'd put it at 2-3 to be realistic.

That means that when you shouldn't shoot at 200mm longer than 1/200s you can get away with about the same results on a static object at 1/50s with the IS (a conservative 2 stops). That is a huge difference. That, of course, doesn't mean that it you can shoot those fast moving kids at 1/50s and not have blur on them (only static objects).

A tripod is always better, but for dealing with kids and that sort of thing, a tripod is difficult because they move so fast. Shooting handheld, IS is much, much better than non IS in general and recommended (for sure).

J

[david888lee]

David888lee I did use the search function and I did read all the reports but still wanted some "expert" advice. I know you all probably get sick of people asking the same questions but I really wanted some advice on my "own" situation.:)

Thanks

hehe.. no problem. i'm sure i would have done the same thing. :)

anyways, i don't think you can get rid of the email address (changing your user name) I had an account and decided to change my screen name but couldn't. However, since your account is still new, you can just change your current account email address to a new email account. Make a new account. then set that new account to your old email address. at least that's what i did.

besides the 70-200, have you considered a general walk around lens?
i suggest the:
tamron 17-50 f2.8 - $450
sigma 18-50 f2.8 - $420
sigma 24-70 f2.8 - $430
sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5) - $390

these all produce outstanding IQ, fast AF, and general best bang for the buck. and just right for your price range. i hope haha.

[eble]

welcome to POTN :)

my best suggestions for your wide angle lens will be
canon ef-s 10-22 f3.5-4.5 -> it's already on my wishlist :D

another 'walk-around' (ambiguous terms) lens that will suit your travel needs are:
canon ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS -> f2.8, IS, several dust issues, available only to rebel xt/xti and 20d/30d
canon ef 24-70 f2.8L -> f2.8, great bokeh (according to many), non IS, weather sealed
canon ef 24-105 f4L IS -> IS, focal length, weather sealed

choose one of them according to your needs :)
i think 70-200 will be out of your consideration if you're not into sports photography.
hope that helps.