About to choose lenses for an XT

Hello. I'm very glad this site exists. So much information, so little time. When I buy my new lenses for my XT, I plan on doing my part by buying through this site.


Background - I upgraded from a high-end Nikon P&S to a Rebel XT in December 2007, after I outgrew it. I have the 18-55 kit lens and I bought a 70-300mm IS USM lens for roughly $500. It had a mishap and has been sold, so now I'm looking for lenses. Instead of just buying a zoom lens, I'm going the whole way and evaluating all of the lenses to see which ones will be long term investments as I would add more to my collection at a later date.


I believe my optimum solution will be 2 solid multi-use lenses in the $1000-$1500 range, and possibly some others that are cheaper to fill in any gaps. The fewer lens changes in the field, the better. I lean towards nature photography, especially birds, and find that I always feel that I don't have enough zoom. And I am a graphic designer as well, so when I do post-processing, I dislike the lack of clarity with consumer lenses. So I believe these 2 things are leaning me towards the L line of lenses. In theory, I'd love a long zoom prime lens and a 70-200mm L lens (probably the f/4 IS USM), but no way am I ready to pay several thousand dollars on a single lens (and I doubt I ever will be unless I suddenly find myself making a living off of this camera -- not likely).


I know that no one can make the decisions for me, but I was hoping for a bit of a sanity check from people who know more about this. I'm currently leaning towards the "Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens" for its IS, clarity, and range, and the "Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens" for its ultimate zoom (and those test images look spectacular at 400mm).


Another set I am considering is the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens" with a similarly good wide angle lens that offers f/2.8. The 24-105 and the 100-400 doesn't include a fast lens, and I tend to get a lot of blur and ask people to turn up the lights so I can take pictures inside. I don't think I'm ready yet to start experimenting with external flashes and I don't like what the on-board flash does to my pictures. I am aware the problem here is the human not the gear, but I can only learn so fast. :)


What do you think? Am I on the right track? It'll be several weeks more of research before I'll commit to buy anything, but the more I work at it, the more I am leaning towards the 100-400 and the 24-105. And then later on reviewing the cheaper lenses to see if they should also be added (like the 55mm lens for $80 that seems so highly recommended).

Heather, welcome!


You can get away with any type of shooting with 2 lenses on a 1.6x camera: a 70-200 and a superwide zoom. The 70-200 f4 is a great little lens, personally I hate IS and never use it when using IS capable lenses. The 24-70 is a nice lens, but one of the most over priced pieces of glass out there. The 17-40 f4 is a goodgeneral lens asis the 24-105, albeit weighing about the same as a bag of Joeys from Moe's.


If you want to escuethe 70-200, a 24-105 and 100-400 will give you a great range in the standard to long end.


Don't feel like you need to stick to L lenses. I have sworn by Tokina's AT-X Pro line for years in both Canon and Minolta. The AT-X line is built like a tank, all metal bodies and the glass is high quality. The 28-80 2.8 I have competes eye for eye against the Canon 24-70.


Also don't shy away from used or "old" gear. Canon made a 17-35 2.8 years ago that kicks tail. I recently scored a 300 f4 used for $600 post shipping. Adorama and BH get tons of props here, but give KEH.com a good hard look. Their EX- and many of their BGN category lenses look almost brand new. And they have a much much larger selection.

Heather, welcome also:


I think you have made some excellent selections in the 24-105 F4L IS and the 100-400 F4.5-5.6L. I have the 24-105 and it's superb for a general purpose walkaround lens. With an XT, it's not so wide at the bottom end but probably won't be a big deal for your application. I don't have a 100-400 but a lot of the forum members swear by it and it should be ideal for wildlife shooting.


If you think you may need something wider at the low end, the 17-40 F4L is also a great lens. You just have to fill the gap between 40mm and 100mm in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heather

What do you think? Am I on the right track?

---

That depends. You didn't mention what you want to shoot. It would be a great setup for outdoors and nature, but not for indoors or low light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heather

Another set I am considering is the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens" with a similarly good wide angle lens that offers f/2.8. The 24-105 and the 100-400 doesn't include a fast lens, and I tend to get a lot of blur and ask people to turn up the lights so I can take pictures inside. I don't think I'm ready yet to start experimenting with external flashes and I don't like what the on-board flash does to my pictures.

---

This will do much better in low light, but the f4 IS won't stop action. I would suggest the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM + Canon EF 70-200/4L IS + Canon EF 85/1.8. If you find yourself wanting more telephoto reach, I would then suggest buying either a 1.4x extender, the 300/4L or the 100-400L.


Hope this helps.


--Johan

Most of my indoors/low light photos are family deals where my Nikon P&S and Rebel with kit lens are acceptable for my needs. I think maybe if I later decided I needed an indoor lens I could purchase one that has a nice low /f?


I haven't been nearly as disappointed over the indoor shots as I have with missing details when photographing birds and the lack of clarity in my landscape photos. Some of this is caused by the amateur holding the camera, too. But I had a 70-300, and didn't like its lack of reach (for birds, especially), and neither that or the kit lenses seemed sharp when photographing the woods.


I'm just not going to be an events, portrait, or senior picture photographer. With more practice I think I can be passable for landscapes, nature, and flowers.


I picked the 24-105 because it looks good for the landscapes and flower pictures. I picked the 100-400 to catch shy deer and birds, etc. How about adding the 50 f/1.4 lens to that? They are cheap and should do well to capture the indoor events, and I'll have the 18-55 kit lens and the Nikon still.

The 24-105 and 100-400 are my most used lenses.


The IS in the 24-105 makes up for it not being a fast lens. it gives you about 3 extra stops. My only issue with it is, you aren't blurring the backgrounds with it on the wide end, but I'm not too sure 2.8 will either.


I have a 24 1.4L and 50 1.4 for my low light stuff. I'd recommend getting the 50 1.4 also. It is relatively inexpensive and very good.


My 100-400 stays on my 40D most of the time for optimum outside stuff but I've used it on my 5Dmk2 inside at higher ISOs with decent results. I've even used it on the 5D for portrait type stuff too. I find it to be pretty sharp between 100 and 200. I get great air show shots at 400 but can't really say how fine the focus is on planes and jet at 500-700 miles an hour and 1000 feet away.


I'd definitely recommend these 2 lenses with the addition of the 50 1.4.

Thanks very much to all who commented. I'll research the other suggested lenses.


$3000 (with taxes and all other associated costs) is a lot of money, but it doesn't have to be all at once. Plus not many things you can purchase for that much retain value so well...


Anyway, this site is very very very helpful.