My First SLR (XTI)...Now Which lens do you recommend?

K6AZ: he already has the 18-55.

If you have money for the 70-200 f4 - take it. If no - 55-250 . Easy pick, nothing wil be better for your money.

Okay. On the lens on the further most area it says Image Stabilizer. Secondly, it has two switches that you can turn off and on 1) Stabilizer on/off and 2) AF/MF. So would a non IS lens have the words Image Stabilizer on the end of the lens just before the lens cap would be?

Thanks for the answers to my questions. I have been lurking on all these threads lately especially the different lenses out there. I am not looking at spending a great deal of money yet. I am really leaning towards the 55-200 IS because I want the zoom.

well, a non-IS lens should not have "Image Stabilizer" on anywhere of it, since the "IS" stands for "Image Stabilizer".

On the choice for the zoom lens, I would also recommend the 55-250. Performs nicely, it is affordable, hence IMHO the first choice for an entry-level zoom lens.

Where would one go to find the best deal on this lens? I've been to Amazon and the best deal right now is somewhere in the neighborhood of $230. Any sites for used lenses?

i know nothing about the 55-250 lens and its quality but i am still fairly new (2 years) to photography and the advice i have is this. go for quality, quality, quality. it does not take long to get the bug, start taking lots of pics and realize you want/need a better and faster lens. i would get a short zoom like 17 - 135 (not a lens) range with f 2.8 or 3.5. if you take pics of xmas, kids and basketball you will be cropping pics even with a 200 mm at some point and better glass will crop cleaner. also look at the lens archive at the top of first page of this section. it has many lenses, opinion from people that own them and lost of pics. you can get some good glass for 350.00 usd. if you need more reach get a 1.4 extender for good glass. my .02.

B&H sometimes has used lenses. KEH is another place to look.

And there's always the Marketplace forum on these boards.

Another vote for 55-250 IS, a fantastic lens for the money. Back in July the deal was to get one around $260, just recently Amazon was selling them for about $220, so $230 is not a bad deal. I have one and it's a sharp versatile lens.

I am not familiar with 70-300 line but I read these are not too impressive and not close to 55-250 in terms of IQ. The real bang is in the 70-200 line but then you're talking 4x more $ for an IS lens as compared to 55-250.

One thing to keep in mind though, none of them except maybe 70-200/2.8 (maybe ! because even 2.8 is often not fast enough) is good indoor in low light without a flash - it's the nature of tele range, you have to set the shutter speed to the number at least corresponding to the focal range to get a steady shot (i.e. at 200 mm zoom you need at least 1/200sec to prevent camera shake from blurring the image). These speeds are nearly impossible in a dimly lit interior without either fast apertures (2.8 or faster), high ISO or a flash. So if you're sure you will be taking a lot of indoor photos and you don't have a decent flash, you probably need to either get a fast tele prime, or an expensive fast tele zoom, or better else a good flash to complement the tele.

Added: I re-read OP's original post and I think for the range of activities he lists a 55-250 will be nearly ideal, especially when coupled with a flash. The fast tele is going to cost more than all the gear OP has + 55-250, combined...

I purchased a 70-200 f4 L non IS when I bought my Xti a few years ago. I couldn't be happier. (even though I wish I had the 2.8 for hockey)

get the L fever early , go for the 70-200 mm f4 L

(to start with...)

I just did the same thing. Got an XTi about 2 months ago, and have exchanged a few lenses. I would ABSOLUTELY recommend the 55-250IS. It's just a really great weight, good image quality, a great zoom range and a nice price. Check the used section at B&H. I think they are pretty affordable there (that's where I got mine). If you have the 18-55 IS, that's a good lens, but if it's NOT IS, I would say it's a terrible lens, and look to sell it.

Personally, I'm unimpressed with the 50/1.8. Yes, it's cheap, but a) the focal length is odd (too close indoors, too long outside) and b) it doesn't like to focus in low light, in my experience. For an inexpensive fast prime, I'd recommend the Canon 35/f2.0. It's fast enough, focuses well and is pretty affordable. Some will say the build quality isn't great and it's "noisy" when it focuses -- these are both true, but for the price, output and light weight, it's great for a beginner.

I had the 18-55IS, but returned it because I just found the 35/2.0 sits on my camera all the time unless I need zoom. I would not recommend always taking the lens off. If you don't need to -- why bother? It seems to me many people have a "favorite" lens that sits on their camera most of the time.

If you can (and it's reaaaalllly hard) don't get caught up in too much lens talk right now. I must have spent 2 weeks solid in researching lenses, yet I didn't learn ANYTHING until I started actually using them. If you have the 18-55, the 55-250 and one fast prime like the 50 or 35, you'll have the tools to learn a LOT (e.g. how helpful IS is, what focal lengths you like to work at, and what a wide aperture does for you). Then, later, you can go back and buy better lenses to replace your "starter" lenses once you know what you like to work with.

btw -- +1 on "understand exposure" book mentioned by Matthew Moore. An essential to get started with.

Here is a picture I took today (it is somewhat partly cloudy and very cold).

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

It just looks flat doesn't it?

Wow,I'm jealous that you got an IS lens with your XTi. I just got the old regular 18-55, but mine also came with 75-300. I bought a 50/1.8 a few months ago that I am still learning with.

To make a fair comparison, you'll need to take both your XTi and P&S and take the same shot with them. Try that out and post here, and we'll try to help you out.

As for the picture of the house, the scene is backlit, judging from the shadow on the driveway. That's going to eliminate any sort of shadowing on the front of the house, which is what would give the picture some depth.