Help me, please...lens????

[epearson]

I'm very new to this, so bear with me...


I have a Canon Rebel XT with the standard lens. I love the camera and would like to invest in a zoom lens that would allow me to do more. I've searched the web and read all kinds of stuff and still...way too confused!


Here's the deal: I want a good, versatile lens. I will be shooting everything from my 2 year old child to horses, still and moving. The standard lens that came with it is fine, but the distance is the problem.


I thought the 75-300mm would be good but read in reviews that it was cheap and the pictures where grainy?? I don't care to pay a little more for better pictures. However, it doesn't make sense to spend more on the lens than I did the camera...


I'm in dire need of advice. I'd just as soon hear from someone straight than someone plugging a product. Please help...take pitty on me

[EdN]

If you don't mind spending some extra money, here's what I suggest, and it's from personal experience and that of two of my friends.


We all had Rebels and wanted more reach. I jumped first by going for the 70-200 F4 L. It's got excellent build quality. It focuses really fast and the image quality is outstanding. I showed my friends the pictures I got and they bought the same lens and are totally satisfied with it. If you have the 18-55 kit lens, you will only be missing 55-70 with that lens. And if you are planning to shoot pictures of your 2 year old, you want a good lens and the 70-200 F4L will give you excellent results. You buy quality and you get quality.


Hope this helps.

[Jon Ruyle]

I agree. The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens and it sounds like it will suit your needs.


BTW, I don't think it is neccessarily true that it doesn't make sense to spend more on a lens than the camera. Plenty of people do it. "Invest in glass, not bodies" is some people's mantra. Some things don't make sense (like spending a lot of money on a wide fast lens for a 1.6 fovcf camera (like the rebel) which makes lenses longer and slower), but getting a nice zoom isn't one of them IMO.

[Michael James]

However, it doesn't make sense to spend more on the lens than I did the camera...

I wouldn't try and create some kind of ratio to determine or justify your lens choice. The best lenses tend to be the most expensive (think "L").


A very decent step up from the kit lens is a lens that performs well on smaller sensor cameras than full frame, so it would be a decent choice for your XT. The...


Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


There is even a review about it here on this site. You can get then new around $399-$409 on discounters sites. Less if you shop for a refurb or a used one on ebay.


I took some stunning photos with that lens and a 30D back when I first started shooting a few years ago. Once you start creeping up into higher end products you truly start to appreciate good glass. A good sensor is key, but great glass is killer. If you can jump all the way to L's then definitely read the reviews here on this site.


Michael James

[Colin]

I bought a 28-135 for my XT. I was pretty happy with it. Then I got a 16-35 f/2.8L and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. I was freaking THRILLED! I got a kick out of how ridiculous my little rebel looked on that tank of the 70-200, and the images ROCKED! I eventually got a 24-105 f/4 IS L.and retired the 28-135, quite honorably....


When the XT went out as a loaner to a friend, the 28-135 went with it, and he loves it.


All lenses werefar more expensive than the body, and they were SO worth it.


You don't have to buy an 'L' lens to get really nice optics, (some of the EF-S lenses are great values on a 'crop' body)butL lenses aregenerally really good, and they feel NICE to use


If anything, I'd actually recommend, between the choices, going cheap on the body as opposed to the glass. Good glass you'll probably keep for quite a while. The body is far more likely to become obsolete compared to something cheaper, far sooner.

[epearson]

Okay, so it's worth splurging on a lens...I just didn't know if that made any sense or not...can you tell I new to this?


What about buying used lens? I'm a big ebayer and actually bought my camera off ebay. I'm not opposed to used things, I just wasn't about a used lens. I would love to save money and buy used, however, I don't know how to tell if it's in okay condition. What do you look for? Is ebay safe or should I use a reputable retailer? Problem with that is, there aren't many retailers in my area that I now of except for one. This particular place is big on Nikon and I got the impression that my Canon wasn't up to Nikon par....they really seemed to tout their 'home' product instead of helping me with what I've got. I love my Canon and I'm sticking with it.


So the EF 28-135? And this would be good for doing action-type horse shots? I've looked at the 70-200 and it is very impressive...very intimidating for a newbie such as myself.


I want a good starter lens to cut my teeth on, so to speak. I'm just now figuring out the settings on my camera and how to use it to it's full potential. I'd love a class, however, I'm not sure where I could find one. Again, I'm just not feeling the love from the Nikon people...


Thanks for all the help...you guys have been a great help!

[EdN]

I can't tell you too much about buying used but don't count out the retailers right away. If there isn't a good one locally, there are great places with great prices where you can purchase via phone or on-line if you know what you want.If you aren't in a big hurry, remember that Canon usually has two rebate promotions a yearand last year they had a "Buy More Save More" promotion program where they doubled the rebates if you bought two or more items. (A friend of mine bought a 40D and70-200 F4L and got back $400.)I can tell you about some good places to shop in Canada and I'm sure other forum members can tell you where to buy in the U.S.

[Bill M.]

The 28-135 isn't a bad option for you but just keepin mind that it isn't a very wide lens on your XTi. Sometimes it's nice to have something better at the wide end for your 2 year old (when your in close) but the 135mm at the other end will be nice for your horse pictures if you want to zoom in a little tighter.


Another option you may want to consider is the 17-85 IS lens if your willing to sacrifice a little on the long end and keep the wide angle about the same as your used to right now with your 18-55. The price really isn't that much different from the 28-135. If your willing to spend a little bit more, then the 18-200 might be a consideration as well. Optically, the other two lenses are probably a little better than the 18-200 but the versatility that the 18-200 will give you may make that up for you.


As far as buying used that is often fine if your allowed to really check out the lens first. E-bay I think relies a little more on faith. You can look at the refurbished lens at Adorama, which aren't bad deals. Or if your in the U.S. and near a metro area that has a Craigslist, you can at least see the lens up close before buying it.


Good luck!

[mattsartin]

Coming from someone who can't spend much money, I have the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 i get fine picture quality with it, albeit not "L" qulaity but still good. However it is not a fast lensby any means. I would think that the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would fill your needs nicely. Although not any faster it would be cheaper than an "L" lens and would have better build and image quality than the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 The USM will help track the horse and the IS would help hand holding in lowlight for pictures of your kid. However if you had the money the 70-200mm f/4 is probably your best bet, the f/2.8 even better, probably one of the best lenses I've used