Which lenses for a beginner?

arent those funny looking white lenses for beginners? i'm sure i heard that the L stood for learner. they may be a little unweildy but they're made so big so they're more user-friendly and then as you get better at photography you can move down to the smaller more 'fiddly' lenses.*

this is what the guy at the camera store told me and while the beginner lenses seemed to be much more expensive i'm glad i listened to his advice, however the $200k it cost to buy the whole starter package was a little extreme but its ok the payments dont kick in until 2007

*may not be true at all

the 28-75 is a completely different lens - don't get it for a 1.6 crop.

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 is a great lens.

Ciqala wrote in post #2045469
arent those funny looking white lenses for beginners?

I'm all ready. My 100-400 gets here tomorrow and I'm going to paint it black as soon as it's out of the box.

blam wrote in post #2044294
Should I bother with the kit lens?? I'm thinking of getting the body + 50mm f1.8 instead of the kit lens. (I am currently shooting with a 50mm f1.8 on my Canon AE-1 and I love the narrow DOF on it)

I will mostly be shooting cars, ...

You may well already know this, but the 50mm lens on the XTi will not give the same field of view you're used to with the AE-1, and will be a bit narrow for car pictures.

The other lenses being suggested here are all better than the kit lens, which could leave you feeling dissatisfied with the camera. I wouldn't bother with it. The usual advice is to get the best lenses you can afford. Start simple, experiment a bit , and you'll start to find out what you want, whether it's wider, narrower, faster, closer, etc., etc. Before you know it you'll be a gear-head like the rest of us!!

go with the most affordable L series lens, the 17-40L... you will not regret it..

Madweasel wrote in post #2045537
You may well already know this, but the 50mm lens on the XTi will not give the same field of view you're used to with the AE-1, and will be a bit narrow for car pictures.

yeah, I know it won't be the same because of focal length multiplier deal, right?

I'm pretty much set on buying the XTi Body + 50mm F1.8 for starters and then in a few months get a zoom lens like the 17-85 or the sigma you are all suggesting.

I just need to do more fiddling and learning about what lenses do what and what the mm ranges really mean and what effects they are capable of.

the sigma 17-70 seems really popular so far.

Luckie8 wrote in post #2045549
go with the most affordable L series lens, the 17-40L... you will not regret it..

I can't afford the L series =(

what does the L stand for anyways?

blam wrote in post #2045691
I can't afford the L series =(

what does the L stand for anyways?

Luxery...

serious? or are you pulling my leg?

from what I can tell it's just a more expenive version of the non L series...are they better quality? is that why they are Luxery series?

the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM seems more bang for my buck over the 17-85mm IS USM, just not as wide.
I imigine I won't be doing much landscape..and if I do, i'll be wanting the 17-40L

Would the 28-135 be a suitable lens for the XTi?

From what I've read since joining this forum, they're not just better quality, they're a whole different way of life according to some........

You guys have got me interested in this Sigma 17-70. I'd quite like to replace my kit lens with something a little faster. What's it like compared to the Tamron 28-75? I just Googled for a review and read that its only weak point is being a bit soft at 17mm.

lol...to be honest, I love photography and I love taking pictures, but I don't think the extra $$ is worth it and I wouldn't be abel to tell the difference

blam wrote in post #2045793
the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM seems more bang for my buck over the 17-85mm IS USM, just not as wide.
I imigine I won't be doing much landscape..and if I do, i'll be wanting the 17-40L

Would the 28-135 be a suitable lens for the XTi?

Any of the lenses you mentioned would be suitable for a beginner. The real question is whether or not you think you'll continue with the hobby. If you think you will, don't waste money by buying "consumer-type" lenses. The better lenses will make a real difference if you're trying to take "good" photographs rather than snapshots. The higher resolution and contrast of most L lenses (its luxury by the way) and their counterparts among the third party lensmakers, really shows when compared to cheaper lenses.

The 17-85 is a better choice IMO over the 28-135. The latter is a very slow lens for its focal length.

if i could do it all over again, id would bought my body only a tamron 28-75 f2.8 and my sigma 70-200mm F2.8

i HIGHLY recommend the sigma if you cant pay for the canon

*EDIT* oh and i also recommend a grip for your rebel

the grip I will definatly get.

now I just need to decide on a zoom lens.

excuse my n00bness. but what kind of distance can I get with the 17-85 IS USM?

will it be alright for hockey games? or will I be getting fairly wide shots?

edit:
I looked at the specs again here is what I see:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

I am guessing for the focal length of the 28-135 I'd want something in the 2.8-3 range?

Thanks again for all the info. I am learning so much and I am glad I didnt just go whild and buy the camera w/o thinking.
the 17-85 is a popular lens, I think I will go with that one and maybe a sigma 70-200 f2.8 in the future