• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canon Digital Rebel XT - With or Without Lens?

D

Dunbar

Platinum Member
I've decided to go halves on a Digital Rebel XT for my dad for x-mas. It's much more affordable if I buy just the body without a lens (at least $200 less.) My dad has a darkroom and everything so he'll have no problem picking out and buying a lens. I'm just wondering if it costs signifigantly more to buy a lens after the fact versus buying a bundle. BTW, I don't do rebates so please don't suggest any of those.

Thanks
 
From what I've seen, the kit is usually only ~$100 more than just the body alone. After shopping around and seeing what lenses sell for, I'd personally think the kit is better deal unless he already has lenses for it.
 
Depends on the lens. I just bought a Canon EF 24-105 F4L IS lens for $1250. One lens.

There are of course "high-value" lenses to choose from...

Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC for $499.
Canon 28-135 F3.5 - 5.6 IS for $419.95.
Tamron 28-75 XR Di for $389.95.
Canon 28-105 F3.5 - 4.5 II USM for $229.95.

 
The 350D kit lens isn't very good. It's slow, has a somewhat limited zoom range, slow focussing, and isn't built very well. Not to mention the soft images it makes. It'll be fine stopped down to f8-11, but very soft wide open. If you dad has a darkroom, I assume he already has a Canon film body which the EF-S 18-55 won't fit.

The Rebel XT kit lens is okay as a first lens, but very limiting if you are used to any of the Ls or the primes (a 50mm 1.8 is WAY, WAY, WAY sharper than the EF-S 18-55).
 
i love my sigma 18-50 2.8 🙂 Altho, I'm starting to think it has a slight focus problem 🙁 Just added a 70-200 4L.. hopefully it will work for me.. as I can't afford the 2.8's.

If you're dad is a photo buff, it's more likely he'll drop the kit lens quickly and pick up a nice lens. However, I've seen some pretty nice pictures w/ the kit lens (post processiong of course).
 
Instead of springing for the kit, add a little more and get the 20D body. Prices should be better now since the 5D announcement. He is a shuttebug and Rebel XT is probably too cosumer grade for him.
 
Agree with sdifox on the 20D. But, if budget constraints are real, and you have to go with the Rebel XT, get it w/o lens. The kit lens sucks. But, the EFS 17-85mm lens is pretty good as a general "walking around" lens.
 
I don't think the kit lens is all that bad. Quite useful as an everyday lens. A lot depends on the level of photography you (or your Dad) will be doing.

Whether it's better to get the body w/o the lens is a tough question. It's usually cheaper to buy them together. And if you decide you don't like the lens, they usually can be sold easily on EBay. But if you know the lens isn't what you want, doesn't make much sense to get it.

I started with the Digital Rebel with the kit lens. I evenutally sold both and have upgraded to the 20D. Nice camera.
 
The kit lens is horrid for manual focusing. I would recommend not to get a lens unless it has a manual focus ring (preferrably a USM lens) for much better/accurate manual focusing. The kit lens you just rotate this plastic element at the front and you cannot get critical focus because it just moves too much too easily.

I'd skip the lens and get him the body. Then if he's an amature shooter I would recommend he get the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM - it's an excellent walk-around lens that covers wide angle to zoom for most situations and he would probably only need that one lens unless he gets more into it.
 
I got the XT with the kit lens. Sharpness isn't that bad. Nothing a little photoshop won't fix up. However I DO find the 55mm zoom a little short sometimes and yes, the lens does feel a little on the cheap side since it's so light and plastic like. Takes decent pics though 🙂.
 
Have had one for about a year or so. Got it with the kit lens with plans of selling it brand new, but it offers a wider angle than all the other ef lenses I had for my elanll camera. If using older lenses, you must account for the 1.6 magnification factor over 35mm film format. In short the kit lens 18-50mm has a wider angle than my 17mm $500.00 sigma (which by the way doesn't work with the rebel because of chip incompabilities). So, in short, a wide angle lense for $100.00 is well worth it. It's not that bad for everyday shots.
You can always buy and sell canon lenses.
 
I regret getting the kit lens for my XT when some great shots of my g/f on her b-day were ruined by soft focus despite sufficient DOF. Lame. I went a bought a Sigma f/2.8 28-70 DG lens and it's awesome and a bargain at ~$300 (at sigma4less.com). Nice hunk of glass.

I'd go with the Rebel XT over the 20D because it's got 98% of the capability of the 20D, but is lighter and $500 cheaper. Use the difference to buy glass for it.
 
Originally posted by: DefRef
I regret getting the kit lens for my XT when some great shots of my g/f on her b-day were ruined by soft focus despite sufficient DOF. Lame. I went a bought a Sigma f/2.8 28-70 DG lens and it's awesome and a bargain at ~$300 (at sigma4less.com). Nice hunk of glass.

I'd go with the Rebel XT over the 20D because it's got 98% of the capability of the 20D, but is lighter and $500 cheaper. Use the difference to buy glass for it.
Click to expand...

Well - there's one thing the Rebel just doesn't do as well as the 20D - and that is low light work using ISO 1600. I do a lot of work in that area, and am always amazed that the image quality at that high speed is so good with no visible noise effect. Also, it is not as fast for action shots.

As for $500 - if that is a deal breaker you are in the wrong kitchen.🙂

BTW - the extra weight is also good when it comes to camera stability for low light work.

Besides - metal generally weighs more than plastic.

 
Well - there's one thing the Rebel just doesn't do as well as the 20D - and that is low light work using ISO 1600.
Click to expand...

*cough* Bull.

I have a 350D, and I use the 20D at work. Image quality is the same, if not better on the 350D. Even high iso (3200,6400) the 350D has less noise.

As for "not as fast" 5fps vs 3fps. Gimme a break. Learn to take good single shots, instead of relying on bursting. If you cant get clean shots at 3fps, you probably cant get them at 5fps either. Benefit = almost null.

as for stability.. get a monopod.
 
Stan handled the reply.

I'm not hating on the 20D - it's just that bang for buck, the 350D is a better value.
 
Originally posted by: Stan
Well - there's one thing the Rebel just doesn't do as well as the 20D - and that is low light work using ISO 1600.
Click to expand...

*cough* Bull.

I have a 350D, and I use the 20D at work. Image quality is the same, if not better on the 350D. Even high iso (3200,6400) the 350D has less noise.
Click to expand...

That's not supported by the tests I?ve seen. The noise levels are very slightly better on the 20D at ISO 800 and above but certainly not easily noticeable in everyday situations.

However, the extra wheel on the 20D should not be overlooked. It makes adjusting Av and Tv in M mode (Indoor Flash anyone?) so much easier. I'm not saying that alone is worth the difference but if you are someone who is used to this on Canon's bodies; you will certainly miss it on the 350D. That coupled with the construction, deeper RAW buffer and a selectable ISO 3200 make the 20D the correct choice for some.
 
Originally posted by: Stan
Even high iso (3200,6400) the 350D has less noise.
Click to expand...

I know this is a few weeks old now, but if anyone sees it - 3200 & 6400 aren't options on the XT. How do you know they have less noise at those ISO's when they can't shoot at those ISO's to begin with?

I ask because I own an XT. What do you know that I don't that allows that as an option?
 
Originally posted by: tracerbullet
Originally posted by: Stan
Even high iso (3200,6400) the 350D has less noise.
Click to expand...

I know this is a few weeks old now, but if anyone sees it - 3200 & 6400 aren't options on the XT. How do you know they have less noise at those ISO's when they can't shoot at those ISO's to begin with?

I ask because I own an XT. What do you know that I don't that allows that as an option?
Click to expand...

You need to push the exposure. Basically, shoot RAW at 1600 and +1 for ISO 3200 and +2 for ISO 6400 in whatever RAW program you use.
 
How weird, haven't checked this forum for a couple weeks and when I do this thread is at the top.

I ended up going with the body bundled with the kit lens. He can sell the lens ebay for $100 and upgrade if he wants to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top