Canon Lens Questiion

keeleysam

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2005
8,131
0
0
I just bought the Rebel XTi body, and have these two lenses:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens

I know both of these lenses are awesome, but 28mm* 1.6 = 44.8mm. I'd like something even shorter, like the 18-55mm USM (I can get one for $95).

I don't want to spend a lot, but what are good substitutes for it for <$200 or so?

Also, I'd like a polarizing filter, which should I get, and would one work for all my lenses?
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
28-135 is kinda a dumb range, the 50 with sneaker zoom ftw

a 35mm point and shoot in the right hands will outshoot a noob with a 17-40L, since your just starting out get the 18-55 and practice practice practice.

for some snobish reviews check out http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

and use the pbase search tool for real world photos from each lense.

also remember on a wide lense, things like usm and is are kinda pointless, so don't get too caught up on it.
 

keeleysam

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2005
8,131
0
0
I already had a Rebel XT with the other lenses, but I sold that with the kit lens.

I'd just be getting the USM version because it does not cost any more than the kit, and the noise from the kit lens drives me batty.
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
any particular reason for going from xt->xti? both are very nice capable cameras.

while i shoot nikon, i have a sigma 18-50 2.8 that i like quite a bit they make it in eos mount as well, and was only about 300 or so. i dont think canon has anything in the 100-600 dollar range in that focal length so if you want a canon lense i think its either the 18-55 or spend significantly more for a 17-40
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: keeleysam
I already had a Rebel XT with the other lenses, but I sold that with the kit lens.

I'd just be getting the USM version because it does not cost any more than the kit, and the noise from the kit lens drives me batty.

oh, you wouldn't like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I was about to suggest. By far the loudest lens I have heard.
 

keeleysam

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2005
8,131
0
0
I traded my XT for an E6600 and some badass TeamGroup DDR2 a month or two ago.

I was just going to buy another, but the price difference ended up being only $100 or so and I like the 9-point AF.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Yes, you need something on the wide end. The 18-55 is about all $200 will buy you. It's a so-so lens. Not good, not too bad.

I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for $449 if you can stretch your budget.
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
tamron is generally a little crappier than sigma (at least the ex line), but tamron's seem to work alot better with canon as far as auto focus goes (not such a problem on the wide lenses, but for super zooms its an issue)
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Sell the 28-135 and get the 17-85 mm IS.

not a bad option. most people have a 18-50 and a 70-200 the two most popular lenses. a 24-135 is just kinda wierd.

personally i would sell the 28-135 and buy the 17-40mm, that and the 50mm are two very solid performers.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: unsped
tamron is generally a little crappier than sigma (at least the ex line), but tamron's seem to work alot better with canon as far as auto focus goes (not such a problem on the wide lenses, but for super zooms its an issue)

What? This doesn't even make sense.
Sigma walkaround zooms suck lately. I have heard too many stories of people returning up to three copies. The only exception is the 17-70.
Tamron 28-75 and 17-50 lenses have been getting rave reader reviews lately.
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
i would probably rather use a 18-55 and keep the money for the 70-200, than get the 17-85

its totally your choice though, some people like certain lenses, try renting some lenses and see what you like.
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: unsped
tamron is generally a little crappier than sigma (at least the ex line), but tamron's seem to work alot better with canon as far as auto focus goes (not such a problem on the wide lenses, but for super zooms its an issue)

What? This doesn't even make sense.
Sigma walkaround zooms suck lately. I have heard too many stories of people returning up to three copies. The only exception is the 17-70.
Tamron 28-75 and 17-50 lenses have been getting rave reader reviews lately.

the 18-200 sigma is generally considered optically better, same with sigma 70-300 line, but they have autofocus issues on canon bodies so i don't reccomend them. same with the 18-125, but youll find these lenses have no real problems on non canon bodies.

as far as the sigma 18-50 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 120-300 2.8, they are a step above any tamron.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Well, the 18-55 lens is the standard kit lens. However, it looks like it's had a facelift and been upgraded with USM. No word on whether any of the actual optical parts have changed though (probably not).

The kit lens doesn't have a great reputation for quality - either image quality or build quality. But it's a very practical range.

However, just being cheap doesn't make it bad - it's a great general purpose lens with a reasonable macro capability.

There is a 17-55 USM IS. This has awesome image quality, USM, image stabiliser, better maximum aperture and better build quality. But it's expensive (about $1k).

Another one to consider is the 17-85 IS. However, it's f4 at maximum, and this could be a limitation, especially as you've already got a long lens.

There are also some lenses designed for full frame cameras (e.g. 16-35, 17-40), but their range isn't as good as the 17-55, and they're bigger, heavier and even more expensive.

If you are willing to use non canon, then the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC EX and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di-II Asph have both received good reviews and are cheaper than the canon equivalent at about $500 - but neither have image stabilisers. If you don't want such a fast lens then Sigma does a f3.5-5.6 version (essentially equivalent to the canon kit lens) at a similar (possibly slightly higher) price.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: unsped
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: unsped
tamron is generally a little crappier than sigma (at least the ex line), but tamron's seem to work alot better with canon as far as auto focus goes (not such a problem on the wide lenses, but for super zooms its an issue)

What? This doesn't even make sense.
Sigma walkaround zooms suck lately. I have heard too many stories of people returning up to three copies. The only exception is the 17-70.
Tamron 28-75 and 17-50 lenses have been getting rave reader reviews lately.

the 18-200 sigma is generally considered optically better, same with sigma 70-300 line, but they have autofocus issues on canon bodies so i don't reccomend them.

as far as the sigma 18-50 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 120-300 2.8, they are a step above any tamron.

We are talking about walkaround lenses. I have the Sigma HSM 70-200 2.8. Yes it does blow anything Tamron has out of the water.

The general consensus is that the Tamron will beat the 18-50 EX in the optics dept. And it will kick around any Sigma walkaround in QC.
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
image stablization and fast focus are not really and issue on wide angle zooms as much less twist is required for infinity focus and the angle the camera shakes has much less affect the wider the view.

foghorn the tamron is a pretty new lense i havent had much time to look at it, so you may be correct in that regards. the 18-50 sigma is generally well recieved though, i wouldnt say its that much worse. i personally wouldn't buy a non EX sigma lense.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
The best L-value combo you could buy would be the 17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L. ($627+$546) But I would personally opt for the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 + 70-200 F4L combo. Forget IS. Tripods are cheaper!
 

keeleysam

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2005
8,131
0
0
I'm generally looking for a lens I could walk around with.

I'd love to drop $525 on the 70-200mm f/4L, but the damn thing is giant.

The reason I bought the 28-135 is because it is small(ish), has a nice zoom, IS, and it's good glass.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: Mark R
Well, the 18-55 lens is the standard kit lens. However, it looks like it's had a facelift and been upgraded with USM. No word on whether any of the actual optical parts have changed though (probably not).

The kit lens doesn't have a great reputation for quality - either image quality or build quality. But it's a very practical range.

However, just being cheap doesn't make it bad - it's a great general purpose lens with a reasonable macro capability.

There is a 17-55 USM IS. This has awesome image quality, USM, image stabiliser, better maximum aperture and better build quality. But it's expensive (about $1k).

Another one to consider is the 17-85 IS. However, it's f4 at maximum, and this could be a limitation, especially as you've already got a long lens.

There are also some lenses designed for full frame cameras (e.g. 16-35, 17-40), but their range isn't as good as the 17-55, and they're bigger, heavier and even more expensive.

If you are willing to use non canon, then the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC EX and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di-II Asph have both received good reviews and are cheaper than the canon equivalent at about $500 - but neither have image stabilisers. If you don't want such a fast lens then Sigma does a f3.5-5.6 version (essentially equivalent to the canon kit lens) at a similar (possibly slightly higher) price.

I almost bought the 17-55 but recent reviews make me glad I didn't. I've read that the lens is a dust pump...many are hoping for a Canon recall.
 

unsped

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2000
2,323
0
0
its only a matter of time before canon has a nice 18-200mm IS USM like nikon does
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Mark R
Well, the 18-55 lens is the standard kit lens. However, it looks like it's had a facelift and been upgraded with USM. No word on whether any of the actual optical parts have changed though (probably not).

The kit lens doesn't have a great reputation for quality - either image quality or build quality. But it's a very practical range.

However, just being cheap doesn't make it bad - it's a great general purpose lens with a reasonable macro capability.

There is a 17-55 USM IS. This has awesome image quality, USM, image stabiliser, better maximum aperture and better build quality. But it's expensive (about $1k).

Another one to consider is the 17-85 IS. However, it's f4 at maximum, and this could be a limitation, especially as you've already got a long lens.

There are also some lenses designed for full frame cameras (e.g. 16-35, 17-40), but their range isn't as good as the 17-55, and they're bigger, heavier and even more expensive.

If you are willing to use non canon, then the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC EX and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di-II Asph have both received good reviews and are cheaper than the canon equivalent at about $500 - but neither have image stabilisers. If you don't want such a fast lens then Sigma does a f3.5-5.6 version (essentially equivalent to the canon kit lens) at a similar (possibly slightly higher) price.

I almost bought the 17-55 but recent reviews make me glad I didn't. I've read that the lens is a dust pump...many are hoping for a Canon recall.

I've owned it for about two months. No dust yet. I think it's over-hyped and it might relate to the first few months of production. Anybody that bought one recently isn't reporting these problems.