Recommend What Lens I Should Have Next?

[NaOH]

I just picked up a Rebel XTi from Adorama for 693 shipped. I have the kit lens and a
EF 75-300 1:4-5.6. I'm not really sure what lenses I would need....so yeah, that's the problem. What do you guys recommend? I'll be shooting mostly landscape, people, paintball and some animals.

 

[NaOH]

crap, just saw the sticky...mybad

 

[QueHuong]

You got most of the typical shooting range covered. I would pick a fast prime like the 50mm 1.8, which will allow you to shoot in low light and allows for a lot of freedom in choosing the depth of field in your photos.

 

[OdiN]

24-105 F/4L IS is a great lens. Though probably a bit pricey as it's over $1000.

For a cheaper lens, and a very good one, try this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/..._75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html


I think you will be amazed at the quality difference between those kit lenses and this one. Also at 2.8 aperture across it's entire range it's very fast and allows low light shooting.

Also provides excellent bokeh (background blur) for shooting people.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: OdiN
24-105 F/4L IS is a great lens. Though probably a bit pricey as it's over $1000.

For a cheaper lens, and a very good one, try this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/..._75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html


I think you will be amazed at the quality difference between those kit lenses and this one. Also at 2.8 aperture across it's entire range it's very fast and allows low light shooting.

Also provides excellent bokeh (background blur) for shooting people.

Haha, I don't even know if I can get myself to spend that much at this point. But the second lens seems to be recommended by a lot of people on these boards. I'll def. give it look, but prob won't pick it up until I get tired of the kit lens (not sure how long that'll take )

 

[essasin]

Get a 50mm f/1.8. Its about 80 bucks and it is a superb piece of glass. You would never know it was only 80 bucks. It's a great low light lens and is a decent focal length on a 1.6x crop.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: OdiN
24-105 F/4L IS is a great lens. Though probably a bit pricey as it's over $1000.

For a cheaper lens, and a very good one, try this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/..._75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html


I think you will be amazed at the quality difference between those kit lenses and this one. Also at 2.8 aperture across it's entire range it's very fast and allows low light shooting.

Also provides excellent bokeh (background blur) for shooting people.

Haha, I don't even know if I can get myself to spend that much at this point. But the second lens seems to be recommended by a lot of people on these boards. I'll def. give it look, but prob won't pick it up until I get tired of the kit lens (not sure how long that'll take )

I find the 28-75mm range very uncomfortable to use because the wide end simply isn't wide enough. An alternative would be to pick up a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, which should be wide enough for most purposes and a great walkaround range by itself, and simply stack on a good 1.4x TC for $100 when you need the extra reach. This transforms it into a lens with a focal range very close to the 28-75mm, although with a darker f/4 constant aperture. I find that when I do this with my own 17-50mm, I quickly switch back to not shooting with the TC because I constantly need the wide end.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny


I find the 28-75mm range very uncomfortable to use because the wide end simply isn't wide enough. An alternative would be to pick up a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, which should be wide enough for most purposes and a great walkaround range by itself, and simply stack on a good 1.4x TC for $100 when you need the extra reach. This transforms it into a lens with a focal range very close to the 28-75mm, although with a darker f/4 constant aperture. I find that when I do this with my own 17-50mm, I quickly switch back to not shooting with the TC because I constantly need the wide end.

the wide end is actually not wide at all on a canon 1.6x body. normal is 26.68 mm.

i've got the sigma 10-20 and the tamron 28-75 and the hole between 20 and 28 is very noticeable. i'll probably pick up something to cover it, though i don't know if selling the 28-75 and going with a 17-50 is the solution. if i go that way i'll have a gap between 50 and 70.

the lens lineup to go with might be
10-20 sigma
17-50 tamron
50-150 sigma
100-300 or 120-300 sigma
though that would get expensive fast.

 

[NaOH]

hmmm that prime seems like a good investment for 80 bucks.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: NaOH
hmmm that prime seems like a good investment for 80 bucks.

I prefer the 50mm F/1.4. It's quite a bit more but is one of the best pieces of glass Canon makes.

It is USM and the focus ring is tons better than the 1.4, but I always hate those plastic non-USM rings.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny


I find the 28-75mm range very uncomfortable to use because the wide end simply isn't wide enough. An alternative would be to pick up a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, which should be wide enough for most purposes and a great walkaround range by itself, and simply stack on a good 1.4x TC for $100 when you need the extra reach. This transforms it into a lens with a focal range very close to the 28-75mm, although with a darker f/4 constant aperture. I find that when I do this with my own 17-50mm, I quickly switch back to not shooting with the TC because I constantly need the wide end.

the wide end is actually not wide at all on a canon 1.6x body. normal is 26.68 mm.

i've got the sigma 10-20 and the tamron 28-75 and the hole between 20 and 28 is very noticeable. i'll probably pick up something to cover it, though i don't know if selling the 28-75 and going with a 17-50 is the solution. if i go that way i'll have a gap between 50 and 70.

the lens lineup to go with might be
10-20 sigma
17-50 tamron
50-150 sigma
100-300 or 120-300 sigma
though that would get expensive fast.

I have the same gap, sorta, only mine is between 50 and 100mm, but I find that I hardly ever use it. For those rare, rare times when I need it I just use my TC. I would still be tempted to pick up a 85mm prime or something.

 

[NaOH]

What does TC stand for?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: NaOH
What does TC stand for?

Teleconverter. The most common ones are 1.4x and 2x. 1.4x is the better choice for image quality but it will effectively decrease your maximum effective aperture by one stop. So a f/2.8 becomes an effective f/4. Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Kenko, and Nikon make them.

Canon is prohibitively expensive. Sigma has stupid design. Tamron and Kenko are nearly identical.

Kenko TC

 

[GTaudiophile]

Maybe wait for the two new "cheap" IS lenses from Canon:

EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250 F3.5-5.6 IS.

Probably not a bad starter combo at all. Each lens will cost around $200 I think. Perhaps throw in a EF 50 F1.4 for good measure.

Once you get a better idea for what range and types of shots you want to take, then sell them and buy something else.

Edit: More info on the lenses: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0...nefs18-55and55-250.asp

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Maybe wait for the two new "cheap" IS lenses from Canon:

EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250 F3.5-5.6 IS.

Probably not a bad starter combo at all. Each lens will cost around $200 I think. Perhaps throw in a EF 50 F1.4 for good measure.

Once you get a better idea for what range and types of shots you want to take, then sell them and buy something else.

Edit: More info on the lenses: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0...nefs18-55and55-250.asp

i'm guessing those lenses will show up in a 2 lens kit with rebel xt's and xti's for this coming holiday season. the d40x 2 lens kit is eating canon alive.

 

[Kelvrick]

I recommend the Sigma 18-200 OS. About 450 I think new from sigma4less.

EDIT: Didn't notice it was the 75-300, thought it was something else. Whats your price range? That'll make the biggest difference.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Maybe wait for the two new "cheap" IS lenses from Canon:

EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250 F3.5-5.6 IS.

Probably not a bad starter combo at all. Each lens will cost around $200 I think. Perhaps throw in a EF 50 F1.4 for good measure.

Once you get a better idea for what range and types of shots you want to take, then sell them and buy something else.

Edit: More info on the lenses: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0...nefs18-55and55-250.asp

i'm guessing those lenses will show up in a 2 lens kit with rebel xt's and xti's for this coming holiday season. the d40x 2 lens kit is eating canon alive.

hmmm those look real tempting, especially the telephoto. I think i'd prob pick up that and the canon 50mm 1.4 prime.

 

[Deadtrees]

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

 

[essasin]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

That or the Sigma 10-22mm for the wide is an awesome lens choice.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: essasin

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

That or the Sigma 10-22mm for the wide is an awesome lens choice.

I think you mean Sigma 10-20mm. And this is definitely not a replacement for a 17-50mm

Good as just a standalone wide though.