Newbie - Need help picking a lens for Rebel XT

[sumitk]

Hi all. I recently purchased the Canon Rebel XT. Its my first SLR camera so I am looking for guidance. I want to buy a new lens that gives me a good zoom and a good wide angle as well. I am hoping to get a lens which will also substitute the 18-55 that came with the camera so that I do not have to carry multiple lenses with me.

Also, does the brand of the lens matter? In other words, since I have a Canon camera, should I try and get a Canon lens as well? Are their better brands out there that you would recommend over Canon?

I would really appreciate any input.

Regards

[sumitk]

OK, I just did some research on this website and looks like the top rated lens is "EF 50mm f/1.8 II OR f/1.4 USM "

I tried finding the above lens on the Canon website but had no luck. Can you please help?

[JusSmith]

OK, I just did some research on this website and looks like the top rated lens is "EF 50mm f/1.8 II OR f/1.4 USM "

I tried finding the above lens on the Canon website but had no luck. Can you please help?

The 50mm prime doesn't really fit your criteria of being wide and a zoom! You'll need to give us a clue on how much you want to spend and what focal lengths you're after. The Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM will fit your criteria, but isn't cheap.

[Maxima]

The 50mm lens will not replace your kit lens or satisfy what you're after. The 50mm is a fixed focal length lens, you will not get a wide angle or any kind of zoom. However the 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8 is a sweet, sweet lens. Here's a link to the two lenses:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=152

As for a replacement to the kit lens, I've heard the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical to be a great lens. However, it still does not cover the wide end very well.

[sumitk]

Well, as far as price... I guess approx $400.


I did see a "EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens" for around $400.

There is another one for around the same price "EF 28-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 USM Standard Zoom Lens" at Dell.

Is the latter one definitely superior to the first one?

sk

[sumitk]

Hi Maxima. Sorry to seem ignorant but can you please tell me why the 50mm lens is so good if it doesnt do wide angles or zoom?

Thanks

The 50mm lens will not replace your kit lens or satisfy what you're after. The 50mm is a fixed focal length lens, you will not get a wide angle or any kind of zoom. However the 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8 is a sweet, sweet lens. Here's a link to the two lenses:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=152

As for a replacement to the kit lens, I've heard the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical to be a great lens. However, it still does not cover the wide end very well.

[ggibbs1971]

50/1.8 lens is an excellent choice based on price $75 and speed of the lens. The speed is usually the second set of numbers. In this case, 1.8, it will allow you to take pictures indoors without a flash. I had the Sigma 18-125 ($275) as my first all around zoom lens, it is a great lens for outdoor shots. However I sold it to get the Tamron 28-75, it is a faster lens. Please research as much as you can, try: www.dpreview.com. They have an excellent forum for Canon 350XT and SLR lenses.

Good luck

Geoff

[check_this]

Canon 24-70/2.8 is a great all-purpose lens.

[Maxima]

sumitk,
When shopping for a lens, you have two choices, either a fixed or a variable focal length lens. Try not to think in terms of point and shoot cameras, where they all basically have a zoom lens, this is not the cause with a DSLR. When you see 50mm f/1.4, it means the lens only has a focal length of 50mm, no wide angle, no zoom. The f/1.4 represents the maxium aperture size, the smaller the number, the larger the opening, and the more expensive. This is a great lens because it's fast, great in low light, sharp & crisp images, and decent bokeh. I see it as an ideal lens for studio portraits.

Variable (zoom) lens, ie 28-75mm, you get a range of focal lengths ranging from 28 thru 75. This will cover your wide end (somewhat) and your zoom up to 75. It depends what you're shooting, you may need more than 75, but it's a good start, and it's a good all around lens, the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical that is. It'll fit the bill too, I believe it's under 400 bucks, but be prepared, it's considerably heavier than your kit lens.

[Longwatcher]

SumitK,
first look here if you have not already
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56747

Then to save you time. The Canon 28-135 IS is a much better lens then the 18-55 kit lens, but may not give you what you need. It is however better for most things if you want a single general purpose lens. What you will lose from going to the 28-135 is a wider field of view (ability to get closer to the subject) then your 18-55. On the flip side you will have some telephoto cpability (meaning you will be able to see farther away then the 18-55.

The problem is you said you wanted a wider lens, Just to make sure you are talking the correct terminology, I am presuming you want a lens that will let you get physically closer to the subject (or let you see more area). This is opposed to a long (or telephoto) lens which will let you be farther away from the subject. For a wider lens you need a smaller focal length then 18 to get a wider shot. This limits you to the Canon 10-22 EF-s, 17-40, 16-35, or 14. All of which cost more then $400. SIgma also has some wider lenses, but don't know which ones.

So it is hard to give you good advice if you provide conflicting needs.

As to the 50/1.8 as mentioned its cost is very low for what you get and a lot of people, including me recommend that everyone getting a Canon DSLR get one of the two 50s. The 50/1.8 has a maximum aperture of f1.8 (aperture is lower number means bigger opening means more light gets to film/sensor, thus can take pictures with less light). Also the optical quality is better then the kit lens, meaning the pictures will be better in terms of sharpness (when processed) and the way they look overall.

But if you just want a better lens, the 28-135 IS is highly recommended as a good starter lens and only the "L" series lenses tend to rate higher consistently and they are professional lenses costing a lot more then $400.

hopefully this will help you, but let us know what you want to shoot with your camera and we can make better recommendations.

[dharris]

Save youself all the stress and effort an buy the 17-40mm. Have a read of these reviews first though.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

[condyk]

The problem is getting both decent wide performance and some worthwhile, flexible zooming length. I suggest the best option in your budget is the Canon 28-135mm IS. I have this lens and it is a nice general purpose lens to carry around most of the time. If you want one lens of good all around quality that is reasonably priced and fairly lightish then this is the one.

The 50mm II is an awesome, small lens and crazy cheap. It will get you some nice people shots and I'd add it to your kit bag anyway. It will fit in your shirt or coat pocket and performs well indoors too, for when you're doing family type shots, so goes nicely with the Canon IS lens.

What you lose is some width with the Canon IS, but no other lens I know of goes wider and also longer while also being very good quality, other than the Tamrom 24-135mm. What you lose with the Tamron is the Image Stabilization system which can be a real help in hand held shooting as it helps get rid of shake. If you buy this Canon IS lens and upgrade later then you won't lose much money as they are very popular. Same goes for the 50mm II.

Even though I am selling my Canon IS, from the shots I have taken and for it's all around usability I believe it to be excellent choice for what you may want. For the time you want wider you have your kit lens. If you carry your camera in a bag then just get one that takes the main lens and the kit lens. The kit lens (and the 50mm II) are very light.

The options I am currently looking at as a replacement for my Canon IS have, from my research anyway, the potential to produce sharper and more dynamic images than I believe the Canon IS is capable of. Not much in it tho', but they are:

Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF

Both are mentioned regularly on this forum.

They are less expensive than the Canon, but are not as long in their zooming and nor do they have Image Stabilization. Neither do they have the width: remember, something 10mm or upwards to 20mm will be needed if real wide shots are what you want to do. The Sigma is wider but not as long in the zoom. You can't have it all. Both the above lens will be better in lower light situations as well as in general use, but the Canon IS is OK there too and the IS helps it out.

[MTalley]

Here's a different perspective (no pun intended) on the matter. Most folks new to DSLR's have just come from a digital point and shoot. Typically, those cameras have specs geared more to the zoom multiplier available and dwell less on the focal lengths.

To cite a specific example, my previous camera was advertised as having an 8x optical zoom. Looking the front of the lens, it mentioned that the lens was (approx.) a 7.3mm - 58.4mm lens at f/2.8-3.1. Since the imaging multiplier on this camera (with a 1/1.8" sensor) was exactly 5:1, translated to 35mm measurements, the lens was effectively a 37-300mm lens.

If I wanted a similar lens for the DRebel, with it's 1.6:1 imaging multiplier, I would be looking for a 23-188mm lens. The closest one I see mentioned in the posts, above, is the 28-200mm lens. In 35mm terms, that translates to a 45-320mm lens. While not very wide, it does have pretty good zoom (better than 7x from wide to full zoom).

[zakmckracken]

Hello

I am also a guy who "upgraded" from P&S (Canon G5) to a digital SLR (300D).

I also have a couple of questions: Why is the KIT lens so bad ? Was the lens on the G5 better ? Because up to now I am taking pictures with a somewhat less quality than the ones using the G5.

Why is everyone complaining about it ? Should I also upgrade to another lens ?
I am OK with the wide angle and zoom factors on it, its just the aperture size and possibly the quality of the optics that kills me (is it a low quality lens?).

So if it is a low quality lens, what is the next best lens to upgrade to, which will inprove the quality of the photos, but will remain with similar "zoom" and "wide angle" values ?

Thanks

[whchan]

The kit len is not terrible if you consider the price ($100) of this lens. I think it works ok outdoor when you stop down a little (8 or above). Also, avoid using focal length very close to 18mm or 55mm. For starter like sumitk, if you need a longer lens than the kit lens provide (55mm), buy the 28-135mm. We all want/need to upgrade the lens at some point and that using the 28-135 should be a good starting point.

Have fun!!

[Jon]

The 28-135 would be an appropriate addition to the kit lens. As sumitk said I am hoping to get a lens which will also substitute the 18-55 that came with the camera so that I do not have to carry multiple lenses with me. the 17-85 IS may be a better alternative. It'll replace the kit, and give a bit more reach (it's the 1.6x equivalent of the 28-135) than the kit. Not as long, but those "extra" mm at the wide end will really make a difference.

[sumitk]

Ok guys. Thanks so myuch for your advice & suggestions. Just one last question and I will shut-up, promise...

I am down to chosing b/w these two lenses:

1. Canon - EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens

2. Canon - EF 28-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 USM Standard Zoom Lens

The prices are very similar so that is not a deciding factor... if you had to pick one of these two lenses, or rather recommend it to someone who is just planning on carrying this one lens around... which one would you recommend?

Thanks a ton!

[Jon]

I'd go with the 28-135. They're essentially the same size, but they're both slow; the IS will help give you an improved low-light experience. Also, IIRC, the 28-135 is better optically than the 28-200 (Lesson 1: Wide zoom ranges are hard to design well).

[condyk]

I'd go with the 28-135. They're essentially the same size, but they're both slow; the IS will help give you an improved low-light experience. Also, IIRC, the 28-135 is better optically than the 28-200 (Lesson 1: Wide zoom ranges are hard to design well).

I think that's spot on ... and I would add that the 28-135 has excellent resale value. The 28-200 is pretty average from reviews I have read: I have never used it myself tho'..

[sumitk]

Hello again guys. Well, I just received my 28-135 lens. Now the question is that is there a fitted case that will accomodate the Digital Rebel XT with this lens on it. I was looking at the Canon EH-18L Semi-Hard Case but looks like it wont accomodate this bigger lens. I dont really want to be carrying a big case like the Canon 100 EG.

Thanks!

[GTogs]

Sumitk, a good small bag for my DRebel and everything smaller than a 70-200 is the Tamrac 5315. Has good storage for all the incidentals, cards, cleaning supplies ect, but not an extra lens.