Question

Hi I have, and love, a Rebel XT. I am an amateur but I have lots of fun with it. My husband wants to buy me something for it for my birthday this month. I have just the basic kit. I would like zoom ability but do not want to have to change the lens all the time. I have a 10.5month old son so I take a lot of photos of him but we also travel often so I would like something that can zoom well for nature shots.
Thanks for the help.

whats Your budget?

if you have a Reasonable Budget i would go for either

1.Sigma 70-200 F/2.8(great indoors, but at the widest aperture its a tad soft)

2.Canon 70-200 F/4(doesnt take in much light yet is Great outdoors)

Budget is up to $350

This might do the Trick.

Sigma 18-200

Link:http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC​_Lens.html

Dont know if the Vignetting is bad or not...hopefully someone will shed some light on this.

check this out for samples.

https://photography-on-the.net …t=357214&highli​ght=18-200

Thanks!!! Looks quite good. I am just trying to do some research on the various lenses available.

I suggest you get a Canon lens, less chance for problems than 3rd party lenses. There are a couple of good ones that with the hood will keep you within budget. The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 and the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. If you would go off budget another $100 there is the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6. And don't forget to get the proper Canon hood for your new lens.

jr_senator wrote in post #4044158
I suggest you get a Canon lens, less chance for problems than 3rd party lenses.

Woffel!
Pure, woffel.
Of the most offensively woffelish kind.


There is nothing wrong with thrid party lenses, and in many cases they are better than the offerings from Canon.

Moppie wrote in post #4045369
Woffel!
Pure, woffel.
Of the most offensively woffelish kind.


There is nothing wrong with thrid party lenses, and in many cases they are better than the offerings from Canon.

What the heck is woffel?

Which third-party lenses are better than the Canon counterpart?

WOFFEL?

Never heard that one before.

I think he means waffle.

In either case the meaning is the same: spouting pure BS.

*just interpreting, not passing comment*

gooble wrote in post #4046080
What the heck is woffel?

Which third-party lenses are better than the Canon counterpart?

Woffel, its like shoffel, fluffel and hoffel, all of which are forms of bullsh*t.


The best example is a lens that Canon dosn't even have a counter part for. The Sigma 120-300. Canon dosn't even make a constant F2.8 zoom that goes past 200mm.

gooble wrote in post #4046080
What the heck is woffel?

Which third-party lenses are better than the Canon counterpart?

It's generally agreed that the Sigma 70-300 APO is much better than the Canon counterpart...

-js

Moppie wrote in post #4046280
Woffel, its like shoffel, fluffel and hoffel, all of which are forms of bullsh*t.


The best example is a lens that Canon dosn't even have a counter part for. The Sigma 120-300. Canon dosn't even make a constant F2.8 zoom that goes past 200mm.

I've never heard of any of those words.

There's no counterpart for that lens but are you better off having it than a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 300 prime, or a 100-400? WIll you get the best IQ and AF performance with it that a couple other lenses even though at certain FL you'd have a slower lens? Plus, it is quite expensive and you could almost get any two lenses to cover the FL range of the Sigma.

Well, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is hundreds of dollars cheaper than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L, and is generally regarded as just as good.

The Sigma 70-300mm APO DG blows away any and all telezooms for that price, or even for double that price. For $170 you get a lens that is amazingly high in quality (for that price). The Canon alternatives are not regarded anywhere near as highly.

And yet, there's more. Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 is well loved by many on these forums. The Sigma 10-20mm is almost as good as the Canon 10-22mm... at over $200 less.

The Sigmonster (Sigma 50-500mm) is untouched by anything even remotely within it's pricing zipcode.

Sigma's 24-70mm f/2.8 is called the "L killer" because it performs at or above the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L ... at about 1/3rd the cost of the Canon alternative.

Same story for the Sigma 15mm fisheye, and the 8mm fisheye has no Canon equivalent.

And all of these examples are only from the Sigma camp. There is still Tamron and Tokina to think about.

So yeah... there are some good 3rd party lenses out there.

gooble wrote in post #4046327
I've never heard of any of those words.

That's cos you live in the wrong hemisphere!