considering lenses for Canon XTi (novice)

[cshontz]

Lenses that I don't have yet, but I am thinking about buying.

1) Canon EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

The price is right, and I've found that I'd like to have more reach. Plus, I've heard positive reviews that this is a good walk around lens. The thought of having IS is also appealing.

2) Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

The "nifty fifty". Supposedly a dirt cheap prime lens, that even feels cheap, but takes beautiful pictures with nice bokeh. They say you can't afford not to buy this one.

I'm not new to taking pictures - I've been a snapshooter for as long as I can remember. But I find I am new to photography. This camera is a whole different ballgame, and I love it. It makes you work for good pictures, but the results are extremely rewarding.

 

[jeffryscott]

what do you have on there now? what is the budget you are trying to stay within? Those are the first two questions I'd want answers for.

That said, Canon makes three exceptionally good L lenses that have a fixed F4 aperture which I heartily recommend - the 17-40, 70-200 and 24-105. They are reasonably priced, well built, light and optically superb.

 

[dan chain]

our most commonly used lense is the 28-135mm i/s USM the other favorite would be the 10-22mm wide angle i/s usm, third is our 28-300mm i/s usm even though the last one has a huge range it is just to heavy and expensive for most regular work. So I would definetly look at the 10-22mm wide angle lens, and I always prefer the image stabilized lenses when possible.

 

[cshontz]

what do you have on there now? what is the budget you are trying to stay within?

I have the 18-55 kit lens on there now. My budget is fairly low - I'd say around $500, which is the approximate cost of the 28-135, and the 50 1.8 is around $75 which should be easy to squeeze in.

For the most part, I don't think I've graduated to L glass yet - and I'm still getting over the sticker shock on those lenses! The 17-40 is almost within reach at $675 (B&H) however, and one that I'll definitely have to consider. Thanks for the suggestions, Jeffry.

 

[whipp]

I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II and love it, especially for the price.

On the XTi, it will have the equivalent focal length of 80mm, due to the APS sized sensor (focal length factor of 1.6). If you want the 50mm perspective, you'll need to get a EF 35mm lens.

 

[goodtimes]

I have the 18-55 kit lens on there now. My budget is fairly low - I'd say around $500, which is the approximate cost of the 28-135, and the 50 1.8 is around $75 which should be easy to squeeze in.

For the most part, I don't think I've graduated to L glass yet - and I'm still getting over the sticker shock on those lenses! The 17-40 is almost within reach at $675 (B&H) however, and one that I'll definitely have to consider. Thanks for the suggestions, Jeffry.

If you find that you really enjoy using the dSLR, and expect to use it for some time to come, then do not skimp on the glass. You will grow into it. In the long run, it is cheaper to buy the quality glass now, rather than buy the lower grade parts, then turn around and buy the higher grade stuff later.

My personal opinion (which really doesn't carry much weight with all these uber-experienced photographers around), is that if you already have the 18 - 55mm EF, add lens(es) which will bring new capability to your kit. While the 18 - 55 is not the best lens out there, but it is still quite usable. 90% of the images I take are with that lens. There are days I would like to replace it, but in the end I always decide to add a new capability instead. Since I am not earning a living with my photographs, it is not a big deal if they go soft as I wander away from f/9.0 with the 18 - 55 EF. And it is really nice to have the added ability of the other lenses when the situation calls for it.

As for sticker shock....well, yea. Hard to get around that one. I have seen some good deals here in the 'for sale' section. You might also consider one of the many rental businesses out there. If you want a specific lens for a short period of time (weekend trip, etc), or just to try it out, the prices are not that out of line.

 

[cshontz]

Now I'm torn. I definitely find myself wanting more zoom, but at the same rate, I'm not really satisfied with my 18-55 lens. I have two complaints: 1) the softness, and 2) underexposed "dark" images.

What I'm not sure about is how much the lens is responsible for images appearing "dark", if at all. Even though the images appear dark, the detail is there in the shadows, and whites aren't overblown. That would tell me its a good exposure, but on the other hand... they just look "dark" overall.

I have been using the camera with the exposure stepped up to 1/3 most of the time, but I've found this to be a little too much in bright sunlight. So in bright sunlight, I leave it at 0, and when cloud cover comes in, or if I'm in the woods, I step it up to 1/3. Its not too much inconvenience because its easy to do - but I still wish I wouldn't have to hop back and forth like this.

Would a higher quality lens such as the 17-40 L remedy this to some extent?

EDIT: For instance, I struggled with this white truck this past weekend.

 

[goodtimes]

Now I'm torn. I definitely find myself wanting more zoom, but at the same rate, I'm not really satisfied with my 18-55 lens. I have two complaints: 1) the softness, and 2) underexposed "dark" images.

I had the exact same problems with my dRebel, which had me thinking the same thing you are. Seriously--same damn thing!

On the issue of being soft, I try to shoot around f/9.0, where that lens is the sharpest. Yes, it reduces some of the capability of the lens, but again, for 95% of the photo's I take, it works well enough to keep me from spending lots of money on a replacement lens.

To resolve the exposure issue, I set my camera to over-expose by 1/3 stop as the default. This has resolved the issue 90% of the time. Just like you, I get some blown out areas in full sun, and some dark shadows when it is cloudy. But those are minor enough that I can compensate for it in Lightroom.

On the subject of Lightroom or Aperture (for the mac geeks) these are great tools for the novice photographer. They give you the ability to tweak the exposure and white balance in the post processing, so you can see the results of those changes. As you spend time doing this, you will notice trends...like all of the images are over/under exposed, white balance being wrong, etc. You can take those trends and modify either how your camera is set up (default settings), or modify how *you* operate, and end up with better images. When I first installed Lightroom early this year, I spent a lot of time in post processing. Now I don't spend 1/4 of the time....they just don't need as much work...in fact, most of them don't need work at all. I credit Lightroom for allowing me to see the trends, and some helpful advice from friends to solve the issues.

After learning to deal with the shortfalls of the 18 - 55 EF lens, I am satisfied enough to not replace it....yet. Eventually, yes ... but there are still other pieces of gear that will make a better addition than a replacement lens....for me anyway.

 

[pcgb34]

I have the 50mm 1.8 for my XT and love it. Focusing gets a little tough sometimes, especially in Low Light. And the motor is a little bit noisy, but still, for the price, it's fantastic.

Oh, and when you are at 1.8, you will forget just how thin the DOF is.

 

[esh]

cshontz- filters may help you out, depending on the situation. a graduated ND will help with overcast skies. It seems like the contrast balance/under-over exposure issues trend more to bodies. I have seen shots from 5Ds that would never come out as well on a 20D. Still not worth the extra few grand to me.

If you are looking for lenses, I really like the 17-40L.. one of my favorites for what I usually shoot. Another quality "value" lens is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.. 1/3 the price of the canon 24-70L, lighter, and very very close in sharpness. With both those lenses, you won't ever need to worry about the lenses sweet spots- every spot is sweet.

Not a huge IS fan.. it is more of a tool in a bag of tools and has situational use for me- more to do with what you're shooting than using that feature as a selling point.

 

[cshontz]

For the past couple months, I've been leaning toward the 17-40L. Although I could probably live with the lack of IS, I'm afraid I'll find it too slow when I'm out on the trail in the woods. The weather-sealed construction and build quality are considerable pros, but some have reported the lens to be soft - which is something that I've been wanting to avoid.

Now, just this morning, I read up on the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. People seem to be raving at the IQ and low-light performance of this lens. On the other hand, build-quality is meh, and the assembly is monstrous. Too big for a walk-around lens? The $1,000 price tag is also a little difficult, but if its that good, I could eventually make it happen.

Sooo... I don't know. Any thoughts?

 

[articulate]

I rented that 17-40L two weeks ago and had a blast. My reaction with wide zooms like this is to simply leave it at 17mm and have a ball, taking advantage of the widest angle.

Of course, I was shooting with a film camera so the wide angle I got was the full shebang. That's what I loved about the lens. I'd take that one over the 17-55 for film use since it's a higher quality lens (arguably). The extra 15mm don't mean much to me for my style and output.

I suspect that you'd be happier with the 17-55, though.

Do you have a camera shop nearby where you can rent? That would be ideal.

 

[nwoods]

I had the nifty-fifty, I had the Tamron listed earlier, and the EF-S 17-85, and the EF-S 10-22mm, and the 17-40mm F4 L

My EF-S 17-85 was extremely useful range initially, but built poorly and suffered from heavy dust infiltration.

In my opinion, the 17-40 L was a very good all around lens, but never had quite the pop I was looking for. The Tameron was an amazing lens. Very sharp and brightt, with excellent saturation. It makes the nifty fify redundant and I never used it after I had the Tameron.

However, the Tameron focus ring action is opposite the Canon action, and I never got used to it. So I sold them all and got a used 17-35 F2.8L and it was terrific. 90% of the shots on my website are with that lens. Eventually, it got a little bit beat up from all the off road use, and I refurbed it and then exchanged it for a new 16-35mm F2.8 MkII L and OMG is it amazing.

Still have the 10-22 and LOVE it though. It takes some really fun shots. It's weird holding it up to your eye, aim at the horizon and thinking that you can see your own shoes. LOVE that huge wide angle shot, and it's terrific for close up portrait shots.

 

[cshontz]

Still have the 10-22 and LOVE it though.

Today I'm leaning toward the 10-22. It'd open up more shots for me, and most folks seem to love it. I still like the 17-55 IS, but the price point is a little too ambitious right now. Aside from the construction, the 17-40L doesn't seem to offer much of an advantage over other lenses.

I'm loving my 50mm 1.8. :wings:

 

[pwc]

Take a serious look at the Sigma 18-200. It doesn't have IS, which is annoyig until you get more used to it (I've been spoiled with IS on all my telephoto lenses).
Otherwise it is a really nice lens. My wife kept one on her Xti on a one month trek in Nepal this October. Last october she took my 5D and 24-105 and 100-400 L lenses and she MUCH prefered the smaller setup for an extended trip. No lens changing meant less dust, which was a problem on the first trip.

I don't have her photos handy enough to post right now but will in a bit. The results are great and as I mentioned the most blur is on the long end of the range in lower light when she wasn't being careful. It's in your price range and just might fit the bill.

Personally, having a 5D, I just purchased a 28-300L which is about the same range as the 18-200 on th XTi but WAY heavier. It works quite well. I'm considering getting the 14mmL to accompany it and dump my 16-35L which doesnt' get much use. but that's just me and I'm blabbing