| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2007 03:26:57 PM · #1 |
I've decided to get the xti because it will allow me to get better quality lenses. That being said, I'm looking a good set of lenses, and I want to make sure i get some quality.
I'd like a standard everyday lens, macro, and digital fish eye.
Trying to keep it within 1500 for the lenses. Budget was 2k for everything (and I can get xti body for less than 500). |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 03:34:16 PM · #2 |
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a good cheap Portrait lens, and ive had the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM and prefair the 50mm, with our sensors at least.
and for wide angle, ive always wanted Peleng 8mm f/3.5 i think there around £300 on ebay. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 03:47:22 PM · #3 |
Canon 17-40 is a good all round lens with your camera crop
The 50mm f1.8 is brilliant
pelang 8mm great suggestion manual focus.
sigma 17-70 is nice
tamron 28-75 f2.8 too sweet
sigma 70mm macro
canon 100 macro
The list is quite big sorry. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 04:39:01 PM · #4 |
You're going the smart route. Cheap out on the body, blow your cash on the lens.
As always, I would suggest not forgetting about your computer and some new software.
I would also suggest the cheap 50mm, when my 17-40 isn't on my camera, the 50mm is on it. It isn't USM, but for $80, what do you expect. Realise, there are no focus distance markings also. If you want the USM and focus distance (I'm sure there's a better term for that), spend the extra $200 and get the f1.4.
There's also excessories (sorry about the spelling) you can spend money on. Such as a battery grip, extra batteries, extra memory, remote shutter, UV filter, polerizer filter.
Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 05:04:59 PM · #5 |
Here's what I'd do:
Canon 10-22mm ($700ish) - Ultra wide but not fishy, if you want fishy look elsewhere
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP ($350ish) - Fantastic every day lens, usually never leaves my camera
Canon 100mm Macro ($400ish) or Canon 70-200mm f/4L ($560ish) - Both are good, I'd go for the 70-200 just because it would probably get more use than the 100mm prime macro. Get things to use all the time now and pick up the speacialty things later.
I'd also recommend the battery grip as it makes the Rebel much easier to hold, but you may find it to be just fine. That one is up to personal preference.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 05:11:37 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
I'd also recommend the battery grip as it makes the Rebel much easier to hold, but you may find it to be just fine. That one is up to personal preference. |
Only if you have big hands. If your hands are small don't bother with the extra weight of the grip.
I have a 30D and I guess I have normal hands but found that with the grip the camera was just too damn heavy.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 06:01:45 PM · #7 |
| The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is also an excellent straight replacement for the kit lens. |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 06:07:00 PM · #8 |
| I agree with Figaro the Tamron is EXCELLENT |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 07:59:12 PM · #9 |
Check out www.slrgear.com they will have every manufacturer of lenses. You can compare the lenses that have been tested and you can compare prices. The pros are on there testing the equipment and will give some very detailed info on what to look for and how the lens handles.
The cool thing about this site is that it has a Blur index. the lenses that they test will have an interactive graph that lets you slide the fstops and the focal range and it will show you in the image plain where it starts to get blurry. Very cool!!
I was all set to buy the canon 180mm f3.5 but compared it to the Sigma 150mm Macro EX DG and at half the price I went with the Sigma.
Check it out! |
|
|
|
12/14/2007 08:56:53 PM · #10 |
I am quite happy with my mix:
50mm f/1.4 - not all that much more than the f/1.8 and worth every damned penny.
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - I'm constantly surprised by what this lens manages to do well. I use it at the extremes of its ability as well as at every point in between. I use the curved focal field to my advantage (not always successfully, but that's user error). I sometimes throw it on the 24mm setting or 35mm setting (marks on the lens) to get used to those as if it were a prime. The 28-75 is a good lens too, but I chose the shorter one due to personal preference.
80-200 f/2.8 - I got this older lens due to availability. SamDoe's alternative choices are just as good.
For newer users, I often suggest going with the Sigma 70-300 APO... it's quite a cheap lens, but addresses the macro side of things as well as a decent range for telephoto. The quality is good enough for a while, but more importantly, the price is low enough that it allows you to get acquainted with the different areas of performance before you spend big dollars on a higher quality lens.. you might find that you don't use the long end much, so later on you might just go with the 100mm f/2.8. Or on the other hand, you might find that it's not long enough, so you want to spend money on a longer lens. Further, you might also find that you are often shooting lower light, so you can try to limit yourself to 200mm or less and see how you like it for the 70-200 f/2.8 compared to the 120-300 f/2.8 that sigma makes.
Later on you could sell it to recoup most of the costs, but even if you don't the learning that lens can provide is worth the entire cost... particularly if you later chose to go with a high quality telephoto that is different than what you initially expected. |
|
|
|
12/15/2007 12:18:25 AM · #11 |
| Don't forget to add a good camera bag, a tripod, a few filters, a remote/cable release, and a speedlight. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/21/2025 10:54:21 AM EDT.
