Printable View
I'm looking into getting a Rebel XTI in the near future (duh!) and was wondering what people would recommend for a lens. Everything I've heard about the stock one is either neutral or negative so I'm thinking that might not be the route to go. I'll be shooting a lot of skiing, mountain biking, and scenery so I'll need a fairly large amount of adjustability. I'm also looking to spend around $800 (maybe too optimistic, I'll probably go over). Any suggestions?
Hmmm...I tried a search, but apparently I suck at that. Thanks for the help!
its more than your budget but if you shop around you can get (used):
10-22mm $500
70-200mm F4 $500
50mm F1.8 $75
by far the best bang for your buck.
Tamron 28-75mm can be found pretty cheap used, great lens for the money. I have one, as does my brother. And it'll work with the full-frame sensor body you buy down the road.
Second Tamron 28-75. Good lense, fast (2.8). Canon 17-40 F4L is good value as well.
Everyone will tell you get 2.8 or faster glass, but F4 is good price/performance compromise if you are shooting in sunny weather. All L lenses hold value really well, so if you want to upgrade in the future it will not be a problem. Lenses are your real investment since camera body will be out of date inside of a year.
fredmiranda forums are a good place to check for used gear prices.
The 50mm f/1.8 is great for indoor party shots and blurred-background portraits, but not something I'd get for sports. Zoom is the way to go for sports.
Also, I don't know about the XTi but the Rebel XT only has focusing accuracy to f/4.0, which means focusing accuracy is hit or miss at apertures larger than 4. (The XT will accurately focus somewere within an f/4.0 depth of field, but if your lens is at f/2.8 the camera may focus behind or in front of the thinner f/2.8 DOF. Don't bother sending the body to Canon for calibration, it's simply the camera spec.)
BTW, if I were you I'd get a used 20D instead.
which is why i reccomended the 70-200 f4. for scenery/landscapes nothing beats the 10-22 on a crop camera, there's nothing wider. and to cover the 22-70 focal length the original poster could either use the 18-55 kit lens or if they want a fast lens, the 50mm f1.8 costs about the same, $50-75 used. for around $1000 you will not get a more versatile 'quiver' of quality lenses. you've got wide angles covered, telephoto covered (an L lens to boot), and a fast prime for lowlight.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
i don't know about the whole focusing thing but i would reccomend a used 20d as well, i got the 30d while the rebate was going and got $200 off so that made the most sense at the time but if i had to buy one now i'd get a used 20d. the dust cleaning feature is the only thing the xti has over the 20d/30d, 2mp is nothing.. i'd rather have 5fps and dual dial controls anyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
http://onlinemercadomall.com/product...oducts_id=1414
This seems too good to be true. Is it? Or should I pull the trigger on this one? It doesn't seem to have a memory card, but other than that this camera looks awesome!
agreed. and if you're skeptical of buying from an internet stranger, b&h routinely has used 20D (bare bones package) for $719. fully inspected and tested and whatnot.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
i went this route after much debating over going with your plan. i decided to just get a wide angle and the 50mm, since i still have so much to learn. now all discretionary income and spare change from debit purchases are going towards investing in the 70-200 2.8L (someday). i figure i might as well not waste money on shitty lenses when after skill, glass is the most important component of photography. but that's just me.
70-200 f4 isn't shitty by any means and it's a very useful lens, its also half the size/weight of the f2.8 IS and a third of the price. i bought one and if i'm ever good/rich enough to justify buying a 70-200 f2.8 IS it won't be any trouble selling the f4. i'm sure i'll get most if not all of my money back.Quote:
Originally Posted by smalls
Seconded, can't go wrong there. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and it's sweeeeeeet.Quote:
Originally Posted by grapedrink
(And a 20D {may sell it}, 5D, 1D Mk II N, 300mm f/4 {for sale}, 400mm f/5.6, 50mm f1.4, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, Tammy 90mm macro, 17-35mm, and 28-75mm. Yep, it's all kept in a safe. Please take away my credit cards before they do...)
the shitty comment was directed at the kit lens. i'm borrowing a friend's f4 and i love it as far as shooting sports is concerned. however i know which lens i want, and i figure i'd rather save the few extra hundred dollars and buy a used copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by grapedrink
nonetheless, it was not intended as advice. simply proposing an alternate viewpoint from someone who recently dealt with the same decision.
I use my 50 1.4 more than anything now, but I do a lot of available-light stuff walking around and inside without a lot of light. It's pretty inflexible and I miss a lot of stuff I could get with a wider or longer zoom, but I've sort of gotten used to it and accept the limitations.
The 100 2.8 was the clear winner in the rainforest and in a lot of other situations that required either a longer reach or closeup stuff. It's also really really sharp and just makes good solid looking pictures that have a feeling I can't quantify but is different from my other lenses.
The 10-22 is great for landscapes and tight spots, but I don't use it as much as the other two day to day. Sometimes I feel like the wide angle is played, and other times I'm amazed at what I can fit into one frame.
I had a 70-300 IS but sold it. At 70 it was great, at 200 it was good, but from around 250-300 it was really soft and I found that when I really needed the extra reach I ended up with so-so pictures. Also, it wasn't from camera shake; I used 1/500-1/1000 in bright sunlight and still got the softness with or without IS.
Once I get over my attachment to the 10-22 and sell it, I'll probably try to get a 16/18/22-40/55/70 type fast lens to keep on as a default and so I can travel light with just one lens.
Also, and this is just a personal preference, I would choose the dust removal and light weight in the XTi over the better body and higher framerate of a 20D. Dust is my nemesis and my sensor brush is about to crap out.
lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens lens
lenses lenses lenses lenses lenses lenses lenses lenses
NEVER "lense"... its as bad as "skying" or "skiis"
Dude that is an awesome picture!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
I"m glad you are liking that lens :)Quote:
Originally Posted by backpack
I've warmed up to it... the only problem is its occasional decision not to autofocus until I've flipped the switch to manual, gotten it right by hand and then flipped it back to auto. It was pretty bad for a while, but now it hardly ever happens. Maybe it was just that time of the month. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I forget what you are shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by backpack
My 20D does that sometimes with my 50 1.4 if it was way out of focus... my EOS 3/Elan II/A2 never used to do that shit...
my 20D also does it with my macro lens... but then I always manual that...
350D... never had it happen with any other lens, though my 100 macro will get slow and do the whole "creep through the whole focus range" thing sometimes when it gets confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I guess the 400D/XTi has the 30D focusing system, so maybe someday when I upgrade that'll take care of it.