If I skip the kit lens...should I get ....

I know the kit lens only adds about $100 to the price of the camera, but if its not a very good lens Id rather put that $100 towards a better lens that I will keep (instead of buying the kit one and upgrading)
{ETA Im ordering the Rebel XT}

Out of these which would be a good substitute for the kit lens:
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (around $449)
tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (around $360)
sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (around $389)
sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (around $429)
canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM (around $509)

(shooting mainly pix of kids)
thanks

(sorry to ask so many questions...ordering my camera and lens today and DH is pestering me lol )

Go with 17-xx zoom for your 1.6 body. I think the Sigma 17-70 is a very good choice for its versatility and price and optics.

I don't have it, but the 17-70 would cover a lot of ground for the price and quality. I think if I was startting out again, I may have gone this route. Do a search for the Sigma 17-70, you will find some great pictures samples. Good luck.

WaterLily wrote:
I know the kit lens only adds about $100 to the price of the camera, but if its not a very good lens Id rather put that $100 towards a better lens that I will keep (instead of buying the kit one and upgrading)
{ETA Im ordering the Rebel XT}

Out of these which would be a good substitute for the kit lens:
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (around $449)
tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (around $360)
sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (around $389)
sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (around $429)
canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM (around $509)

(shooting mainly pix of kids)
thanks

(sorry to ask so many questions...ordering my camera and lens today and DH is pestering me lol )

get the tamron 17-50 or canon 17-85. the tamron 28-75 is another good choice but probably not as an only lens.

these lens are also smaller and lighter than some of the others you've listed and are a good fit for the XT.

ed rader

tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (around $360)
sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (around $389)


These are the 2 that I was leaning towards b/c I remember reading some positive reviews on them....any preference for one over the other? Originally I thought of going with the Canon but Ive read some not so favorable reviews.....

Im itching to hit that "submit order" button LOL

Canon 17-85 just can't be beat as a one lens solution for a crop camera. Great focal range and image quality plus the IS is another bonus too. While not as sharp as my 85 and only close to my 70-200 it is still the lens that stays mounted on the camera for ready use.

You need something that starts at 17 or 18mm - 24-28 mm really isn't wide enough.
the 17-70 is an excellent lens, good value, good focal range and reasonably fast. It's as close to an all round replacement for the kit lens as you are going to get. the 17-85 IS is on paper a nice lens but a lot of people have reported it disappointing - and it is the most expensive of all.

Don't be in a big hurry to write off the kit lens totally - check out the thread 'Post your best kit lens pics' and see what some people have managed.
the kit lens takes good enough pictures, especially when you consider how little extra it costs to ge tthe bundle. i have kept mine, there may be times when i want something light and small - but to tell the truth since I got my 17-40 to replace the kit lens as a walk-about lens - I haven't used it at all. but when the time comes to part with my 20D, I'll be glad to have a lens to sell it with. the best thing the kit lens did for me was allow me to take pictures and learn to use my camera, while researching and deciding what lenses I really wanted.

I have noticed that most people who knock this lens are ones who don't own it. It may not be quite up to L standards but there is no L to compete with what this lens offers. I have hardly seen anyone who owns this lens who is not happy with it.

I did a lot of research before deciding not to get the 17-85 - enough of the reviews i read were negative to put me off. I also read plenty of positive reviews too, and got the feeling that quality control might be an issue on this.

Then I read more reviews on a whole bunch of other lenses and got the feeling that quality control was potentially an issue with any lens, L or not...

In the end what swung the decision for me was the EF-s thing - I prefer to be able to use lenses on my film camera too ( tho to be honest it has not had a great deal of use lately...) but also at some stage would aspire to a full-frame. but I do think there are better value lenses that outperform the 17-85, if you ignore the IS thing - and that is a whole new argument....

Actually it can be. There generally is never one lens in the regular zoom range that can beat another, because that's where there are the most options.

Tokina is coming out with one very soon. But now you have one by Sigma and by Tamron. And then you have ones that aren't as wide. So you actually have options.

Sigma 17-70
Tamron 17-50
Sigma 24-70
Tamron 28-75

to name a few. It all depends how you shoot of course, but as a one lens solution, there defintely are some out there that are in the same price range.

But what I am saying is the 17-85 as a whole package can't be beat. For starters, and this is a huge thing, there is nothing better covering the whole 17-85 range. There are some like the 17-40L that are much better built and a bit better IQ, but do not have the range or IS, much the same with the Sigma 17-70 but it is quite a bit faster on the wide end.

Another thing that makes it great for cropped sensors is the fact it is designed for them, thus reducing bulk. I have plans in the near future for a 5D but will never part with the 17-85 as I will always keep my 20D or one of it's succesors.

I would certainly agree with Bear that the 17-85 IS is a very good lens - and if you get it as a bundle with the body, it is better value than if you buy it separately.
It has a great range, the equivalent of the 28-135 IS in film terms, and it was pretty much designed to mimic this for the digital crop cameras. But it does cost 25% more than the 28-135 IS - and that's where the value decision comes in. If you can get it for less as a bundle with the camera then the economics start to look better.

Okay, so I priced the the three that are made for cropped cameras specifically(at trustworthy stores but with good prices after shipping/taxes in US).

Canon 17-85 4-5.6$495.95.
Sigma 17-70 2.8 - 4.5$356.34
Tamron 17-50 2.8 $439.00

IS is good, but IS doesn't stop motion blur. Having a whole stop difference can be a big difference. I like IS, don't get me wrong, but rather have 2.8 over 5.6 with IS. And depending upon which lens, you can have 2 stop difference.

In no way, am I saying the lens is crap, but its not the only one lens for a cropped camera to start out with.

I just bought the XT the other day with the Sigma 17-70 instead of the kit lens. I had the same idea as you - put the money toward a better lens from the beginning. I have been playing around with it and it seems OK. But as a complete beginner to slr's, I cannot give a recommendation. I know the reviews have been positive.

Stefan

I got the 17-50 as my "first" lens. I love it. sharp as can be. I may be pairing it up with a 70-200 F4 soon.