Matching lenses for my new Rebel XSi??

Best 2 starter lenses that have good IQ and don't cost too much: 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Will keep you busy for quite some time.

gasrocks wrote in post #8290989
Best 2 starter lenses that have good IQ and don't cost too much: 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Will keep you busy for quite some time.

+2

Kind regards, Wim

For under $100 add a 50mm 1.8 for portraits. It's a great lens.

If money isn't a concern:

16-35L II f/2.8
70-200L f/2.8

YankeeMom wrote in post #8291080
For under $100 add a 50mm 1.8 for portraits. It's a great lens.

Your money might be better spent picking up a used Tamron 28-75. I never uers my nifty fifty. Its not that great of a lens.

imahawki wrote in post #8294015
Your money might be better spent picking up a used Tamron 28-75. I never uers my nifty fifty. Its not that great of a lens.

I know there is a "backlash" on the 50 1.8 here nowadays, but it really is a very good lens for the money. You can get amazing shots with it.

gasrocks wrote in post #8290989
Best 2 starter lenses that have good IQ and don't cost too much: 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Will keep you busy for quite some time.

with the 50 1.8 it's a good combination (until you can afford the "L" glass!)

It is a good lens... for the money. Taco Bell is good Mexican for the money too. It doesn't mean either is objectively good.

+1 on the 18-55, 55-250, 50 1.8 combo. Those are three killer lenses for not much money.

I do like the Tamron 28-75, but in all reality I'd buy the 50mm first because 1.8 is a LOT faster than the 2.8 indoors.

As for the 16-35 L, IMHO, its a waste on a crop camera even if you have the money to burn. That lens is designed specifically as a fast UWA for 1.3x and full frame sensors (5D & 1D lines).

If money and weight are no object, my dream line up on a crop camera would be (in order):
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS (better range than 16-35 + IS)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS (f/4 IS is a great contender too)
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (ultra wide)

and a handfull of primes
Canon 50mm 1.2L, 1.4, or Sigma 50mm 1.4
Sigma 30mm 1.4, Canon 28mm 1.8, Canon 24L
Canon 85 L or 1.8
Canon 135L
Canon 100 macro (if into that photography)

Then mabye a super tele prime or super tele zoom (100-400) if needed

imahawki wrote in post #8295686
It is a good lens... for the money. Taco Bell is good Mexican for the money too. It doesn't mean either is objectively good.

OK, I get that it's "cool" to put down the 50/1.8 now.

PhatheadWRX wrote in post #8295699
If money and weight are no object, my dream line up on a crop camera would be (in order):
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS (better range than 16-35 + IS)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS (f/4 IS is a great contender too)
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (ultra wide)

I'm just curious -- is the 17-55 IS much better than the 18-55 IS? What is the difference? Thanks!

YankeeMom wrote in post #8295746
I'm just curious -- is the 17-55 IS much better than the 18-55 IS? What is the difference? Thanks!

The biggest difference is that the 17-55 IS is two stops faster than the 18-55 IS across most of the zoom range.

YankeeMom wrote in post #8295735
OK, I get that it's "cool" to put down the 50/1.8 now.

I OWN the lens but its not OK if I criticize it? Yeesh. Its a very inexpensive fast lens. It also has trouble focusing in low light which can defeat that main benefit and the bokeh is pretty rotten. I'm not putting the lens down, its $100, I'm stunned you can make ANY lens and retail it for $100. But I wish someone had been a little more realistic about it before I bought mine... I wouldn't have bought it.

The optics on the 17-55 are regarded as L quality. Its just the build quality that isn't up to L standards (also Canon does not have any EF-S [crop] lenses as Ls).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
look about half way down the page and there is a GMC picture where you can mouse over the quality difference between the two

The 18-55 IS has great optics for the price. But the 18-55 is variable aperature from 3.5 to 5.6
The 17-55 has constant 2.8 aperature (as fast as you get for current Canon zoom lenses)

Therefore, if your 18-55 @ 55mm wide open (5.6) needs a 1/30" shutter, the 17-55 @ 55 wide open (2.8) can shoot the same ISO at 1/120". Thats a huge difference in speed.

However, the 17-55 is almost 7x the price of the 18-55 (~$1000 vs $150). That's why I said, "if money was no object"

imahawki wrote in post #8295805
I OWN the lens but its not OK if I criticize it? Yeesh. Its a very inexpensive fast lens. It also has trouble focusing in low light which can defeat that main benefit and the bokeh is pretty rotten. I'm not putting the lens down, its $100, I'm stunned you can make ANY lens and retail it for $100. But I wish someone had been a little more realistic about it before I bought mine... I wouldn't have bought it.

Maybe something's wrong with it. I use mine all the time. Sharp, fast, and nice bokeh:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR