So I got a Rebal XTi now what.

[ak_powder_monkey]

I have the kit lens on there now but I want to invest in some decent glass. I was thinking that tamaron (or is it sigma) 17-300 mm lens. I have seen it reveiwed in photography magazine and it got very high marks for the price (around $400) I was wondering if anyone has used this lens or can recomend something else in the same pricerange. I'd like to get the most and BEST telephoto for the least money. What would people recomend for that (I like taking pictures of brids and stuff.)? I also plan on getting a fast 50 mm lens, what would people recomend for that? Of course I'll be getting a polarizing, and a UV filter can anyone else reccomend any other filters?

[ak_powder_monkey]

I was looking at this lens http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-28-300mm...e=UTF8&s=photo anyone use it/ have opinions. I've read some pretty good reviews.

[Free Range Lobster]

Now what?

Shoot it till you're blue in the face.

[Toby]

I'd recommend you search for Viva or Summit's threads on lenses they're selling that'll fit the XTi.

[LeeLau]

I know nothing about that Patrick

I did get a Rebel XT when the prices dropped due to the XTi coming out.

I bought a EF-S 10 - 22 3.5 4.5 locally . Used 1 day then returned for a nice price plus filter - still $ 750 but I wanted to deal local just in case the lens had issues.

Am using a Tamron 24- 135 4.5 - 5.6. It's also a nice lens but the Canon lens has spoiled me. The Tamron has a slow AF and is also darker then the Canon.

So far, I'm liking the range these two lenses get me.

I know Tamron has an 18-200 3.8-5.6, Canon has a 28-200 3.5-5.6 as far as the super-zooms go. I've never seriously considered a 17-300 because I figured it would be much too big to pack around.

So I can't say I've ever heard of that kind of range of lens but it might exist

I've been using this site for reviews fyi http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

also this - http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

[LeeLau]

From Photonotes:

Should I buy the Canon 28-200 or the Tamron 28-200 or the Sigma 28-300 (or some other lens with a big focal range)?

A popular question back in the late 90s, when such lenses were heavily marketed as the ultimate in consumer convenience since they cover such a huge focal length range. Sadly, the lenses tend to be fairly big and heavy, as consumer lenses go. And most importantly, the optical quality of these lenses leaves a lot to be desired. It’s very difficult to build optically sharp zoom lenses, particularly those with a really wide zoom range like these ones. The lenses are pretty slow, with small maximum apertures. They also tend to have a lot of distortion, which makes squares and rectangles in photos appear like they’re bulging in or out slightly - bad for photos of buildings.

If you only take 4"x6" snapshots then these drawbacks are probably fine, but if you ever want to make enlargements beyond that you may find that your photos look disappointingly soft - not very sharply focussed. Since they’re optically so slow you’ll probably also find that any telephoto photos you take will be badly blurred unless you use a tripod or flash. Finally, using long telephoto lenses requires a certain degree of technique and experience since the focal lengths are so long. You can’t easily handhold a slow 300mm lens, for example. Doing so, particularly without high-powered flash, is a surefire recipe for disappointingly blurry photos. And Sigma has regrettably a long history of older lenses turning out to be incompatible with later EOS cameras.

As a beginner you’re probably best off getting one or two lenses of a more modest focal length range, no matter what nonsense the salesperson in your camera shop may say about you never needing to buy another lens again. In short, consumer-level 28-200 or 28-300 lenses always suffer from tremendous optical compromises; compromises which render them of limited value, especially at the long (200-300mm) end.

There are really only two lenses with a huge focal length range that are generally accepted as possessing decent optical quality - Canon’s 35-350 3.5-5.6L and Canon’s 28-300 3.5-5.6L IS. However both are gigantic and expensive lenses not intended for beginners.

[ak_powder_monkey]

thanks for the reviews! I'm thinking I want a telephoto of some sort.

[schuss]

put it in a box and mail it to me. Or just shoot your ass off.

[couloirman]

I bought a EF-S 10 - 22 3.5 4.5 locally . Used 1 day then returned for a nice price plus filter - still $ 750 but I wanted to deal local just in case the lens had issues.

whyd you return it? I was thinking of picking me up one of them for my 20D soon for this season and am curious about their performance.

[Big Blue]

whyd you return it? I was thinking of picking me up one of them for my 20D soon for this season and am curious about their performance.

I think he meant that he got one that had been returned.

[couloirman]

I think he meant that he got one that had been returned.

ah, yes indeed that is how that reads, Im a dumbass, disregard said post, but still tell me how its treating you

[LeeLau]

Sorry - on re-reading it was confusing.

The Canon is very nice. The very fast focus USM motor is a good feature. The brightness and sharpness of the lens compared to the Tamron 24-135 (which itself is supposed to be a decent lens) is quite remarkable.

Even with my limited experience so far I think its the lens I will use the most.

[couloirman]

does it turn anyone else off as much as me that the canon 10-22 lens wont be good on a future full frame sensor camera once they come out with a reasonably priced one? I worry about trade in value for these lenses if these small sensors go obsolete once they manufacture cheaper full frame alternatives.