A little surprised by Elan kit lens on my XTi.

I've had my Elan IIE for over 10 years. It is a fine film camera. I never upgraded the lens because I didn't know the difference.

Last week I bought a 400D body only because I was hoping my old kit lens might do until I save up for a proper short range zoom lens. I bought a 50mm 1.8 at the same time I bought the 400D, because I heard so many great things about it on this forum. The price was right and I wanted to see how this camera was with a nice sharp lens.

I love the 50mm. I did a side by side comparison today. It's no surprise that the 50mm was sharper and produced more vivid color. I was impressed that the old Canon 28-80mm usm 3.5-5.6 did a fair job indoors and outside. Inside it wasn't as good in low light of course, but moving the ISO down to 800 produces a decent snap shot with very little noise.

Again, I have no intention of really using this lens much, but glad to have held onto it to buy me a few weeks to save up for a 17-40L or a 17-85 IS.

I'm really glad I bought the 50mm 1.8 to see what this camera can really do. It's a fantastic camera. I might not think the same way if I had purchased the kit lens instead of the 50mm.

the 50mm CAN'T show you what that camera can do

It's a great lens, but put a 17-40 on there and magic happens

angryhampster wrote in post #2159877
the 50mm CAN'T show you what that camera can do

It's a great lens, but put a 17-40 on there and magic happens

Oh, I don't know about that. If someone is talented and doesn't mind "zooming with their feet" it's amazing what you can do with just one lens. I agree though that adding the 17-40 will add a new dimension though

angryhampster wrote in post #2159877
but put a 17-40 on there and magic happens

Canon lens only do magic to your wallet, as I've tested 3 L lens (24-70L, 17-40L, 70-200L F2.8 IS) and even go to the extreme to have them re-calibrated by Canon, and they are still no better than the 3rd party alternative.

angryhampster wrote in post #2159877
the 50mm CAN'T show you what that camera can do

It's a great lens, but put a 17-40 on there and magic happens

Have you seen this thread?

dr_who wrote in post #2159898
Canon lens only do magic to your wallet, as I've tested 3 L lens (24-70L, 17-40L, 70-200L F2.8 IS) and even go to the extreme to have them re-calibrated by Canon, and they are still no better than the 3rd party alternative.

Oh i know..look at my sig But, he said he was thinking about gettinga 17-40L. My next lens will be another third-party offering

17-40 L lens is what you deffinately should buy and then after that buy one of the L versions of the 70-200 L lens. That is if you want "magic" to happen. The 17-85 IS is a OK lens but frankly I find IS pointless on a lens of that length because it isnt exactly telephoto telephoto like 200m plus is.

Nice to hear your old lens works well for you.

cjm wrote in post #2160133
17-40 L lens is what you deffinately should buy and then after that buy one of the L versions of the 70-200 L lens. That is if you want "magic" to happen. The 17-85 IS is a OK lens but frankly I find IS pointless on a lens of that length because it isnt exactly telephoto telephoto like 200m plus is.

Nice to hear your old lens works well for you.

Thanks for the advice. Like I said the "old" canon lens might get used for just the rare snapshot when the 50mm won't work. Yes, I agree that the 17-40L could really make the magic happen.

That 28-80 is a dog. Take your watch off and shoot it in the sunlight with that lens and compare it with the same shot with a 50mm 1.8.

Shoot at say f/8 and tell me how much the 28-80's CA wrecks the shot.

I had this lens for a shprt time last year when I had a film rebel. It was horrible.

cosworth wrote in post #2160300
That 28-80 is a dog. Take your watch off and shoot it in the sunlight with that lens and compare it with the same shot with a 50mm 1.8.

Shoot at say f/8 and tell me how much the 28-80's CA wrecks the shot.

I had this lens for a shprt time last year when I had a film rebel. It was horrible.

Geez!
Calm down.

Did you read my original post?

I know the lens is poor, but I already own it. Not looking to buy one or recommend it by any means.
I'm just glad I've still got it for the occasional indoor snapshot until I get a 17-40L.

Whatever, you get kudos for not buying the kit lens and for using your old kit lens. Very money wise since you plan on ugrading as soon as you can.

Another OK lens is the 24-70 f2.8 EX DG from Sigma. Its about $500 US and a good value.