General Purpose Lens for D-Rebel XT (EOS-350D)

[Frank Zhao]

Hello everyone!


I have a Digital Rebel XT (EOS 350D) with a 8 MPixel sensor for two years now, and I've been shooting with the stock kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6, no IS) ever since. I really love the camera, even though it's a bit old, but she serves me very well. However, it's about time to upgrade the lens, and since I've never purchased a lens before, I'd really appreciate any advice you can give.


I want something to replace the kit lens, for hopefully less than $1000 (paying for it out of summer job money). I usually shoot nature, landscapes, and occasionally people. I also want to move into animal photography if/when I get a telephoto lens.


I've been considering mainly:

• Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 - excellent optical quality, good focal range
• Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 - huge focal range - never had a telephoto lens before!

Unfortunately I can't afford to buy a full set of lenses - will have to do that next year!


So do you think that the 18-200's poorer optical quality is going to be apparent on a 8MP sensor? Maybe, since the resolution of the DRebel XT is so low, I can get away with it? The reach of this lens is really quite impressive. Also, do you think the upgrade over the kit lens is going to be worth the money?


Thanks a lot!
Frank Zhao

[MrGreenBug]

I may be corrected on this but I would really consider the 17-55mm f/2.8 to replace the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 non-IS. It would be very much the same with the 18-55 in terms of reach but IQ wise and the ability to stay wide open through out the focal range. I'm sure you would be very happy with this lens. I don't have it but I wish I can have it and replace my current kit lens 18-55mm IS.


I'm sure other great people in TDP will chip in some recommendations for you soon.


Cheers!


- Angelo

[neuroanatomist]

From those two choices, I'd recommend the EF-S 15-85mm lens. You don't mention indoor uses, or portraits, and for most nature/landscape shots the slower aperture of that lens won't be a huge issue.


The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is another excellent general purpose lens - I love mine!


I'd stay away from the 18-200mm superzoom - the most noticeable optical issues with that lens are distortions, and you'll see them just as badly with an 8 MP sensor as with an 18 MP sensor.

[Sheiky]

Hey Frank, welcome to the forum![Y]

So do you think that the 18-200's poorer optical quality is going to be apparent on a 8MP sensor? Maybe, since the resolution of the DRebel XT is so low, I can get away with it? The reach of this lens is really quite impressive. Also, do you think the upgrade over the kit lens is going to be worth the money?

Yeah I think you'll still see the poorer optical quality on your sensor. And to be honest, I guess one day you'll want to upgrade your body and you'll have to sell and buy another lens. My advice: if you buy, buy the best you can get, even if you don't need it right away. You'll be disappointed later on if you don't.


An upgrade over the kit-lens is certainly worth it. You are looking at a hard choice though. Personally I would buy the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but I don't know if it is in your budget. Between the 2 I'd vote for the 15-85, but to be honest I wouldn't want any of them.


Also let me try to give you a hint in another direction: what about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? Very good optical quality and for a lot less money than the 17-55 or the 15-85. This way you could with the remaining money save up and try to buy a 70-200 f4 as a telelens. This way you'll have both ends covered in great image-quality. I think this option is best value you can get for your money.


Jan

[Frank Zhao]

Hey guys,


Thanks very much for the helpful advice - I'm convinced that I should stay away from the 18-200. And it seems like the 17-55 f/2.8 is very popular here, but I'm afraid I might not be able to afford one. The Tamron 17-50 does seem to be a good substitute, though.


Is the 17-55 preferred for its wide aperture, or is there something else I'm missing? Jan, is there a reason you wouldn't want to shoot with a 15-85? And how much would you personally miss the loss in focal length from a 15-85 to a 17-50?


Thanks a lot!


Frank Zhao

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Frank,


The 17-55mm is preferred for it's constant f/2.8 aperture, yes - that's a big advantage for moving subjects in low light and for creating a desirable portrait-like out-of-focus background blur. (Side note - the 17-55mm has a significant image quality advantage over the predecessor of the 15-85mm lens, the now-discontinued 17-85mm lens; but the IQ of the 15-85 is reportedly very good). Above 38mm, the 15-85mm is already at f/5, which is 1 2/3 stops slower than the 17-55mm, and for decent OOF blur at f/5 the background needs to be a good distance behind your subject.


Personally, I don't 'miss' the 55-85mm part of the range. But then, I've got that covered as long as I'm willing to mount a different lens. If I only had the 17/18-55mm range, I'd certainly want something longer. I would miss the constant f/2.8 aperture, a lot. But that's pretty dependent on what and how you're shooting.


The 15-85mm looks like a very nice lens, especially for tripod-mounted shots or when paired with an external flash. If you plan to shoot indoors with it, I'd definitely recommend also getting an external flash like the 430EX II. As long as you don't have an aversion to 3rd party lenses, the Tamron seems like a good choice, too.

[Brendan7]

Remember that the 15-85 is distorted and vignettes badly. The 17-55 might be a better alternative.

[Sheiky]

And it seems like the 17-55 f/2.8 is very popular here, but I'm afraid I might not be able to afford one

I had that same problem at first when I searched for a good replacement of my kit-lens [:P] As I was in a tight budget myself I bought the Tamron 17-50 and I was very pleased with the results that I got from it. I also had the Canon 17-55 later on, but only because I missed USM (and full-time manual overrule) on the Tamron and the only thing I shot was sports so...

The Tamron 17-50 does seem to be a good substitute, though.

I think so yes. For your budget it is a very good choice. I really like the constant aperture over the variable aperture of the canon 15-85. The f2.8 gives you more to play with and to be honest f2.8 really pushes your photos into a new dimension. Image-qualitywise the Tamron does a real good job, also read Bryans review of it. I was very pleased with that lens.


The only big downside vs the canons is the IS system that the Tamron lacks, but since you're used of shooting without IS I doubt this will be a major issue. But I could be wrong.


Also this way you keep to save some money which you could take apart for saving for a 70-200 f4L for your tele-needs later on. This is exactly the lenscombination I started with and I enjoyed every single bit of it.

Is the 17-55 preferred for its wide aperture, or is there something else I'm missing? Jan, is there a reason you wouldn't want to shoot with a 15-85? And how much would you personally miss the loss in focal length from a 15-85 to a 17-50?

It's known for it's wide constant aperture yes and therefor can make your picture much more interesting.


The main reason I why I wouldn't want a 15-85 is the variable and small aperture. I really don't like it, it gives me less control. And there are a lot of times I'd rather set my aperture at f2.8 than at f5.6 wide open. A lot of times f5.6 just doesn't do it for me and I need to increase my ISO or decrease my shutterspeed for either one and I just don't like that.


About missing focal length. The 15-17 difference I wouldn't miss. 17mm is wide enough for the normal use of a wide-angle. So unless you live in the grand-canyon or something, 17 will do just fine [:P] 50-85mm is a very noticable difference and you'll find yourself wanting to zoom further than 50mm sometimes, but to be honest I would rather buy a tele-zoomlens for those occasions because often 85mm won't work either []


I got to go swimming now, didn't notice time went by so fast[:O]good luck with your decision, it's a hard one [] If you have the opportunity to try some of these lenses....it is worth it.


Jan

[barba]

If your budget is really limited, I would pick up the 18-55IS used (it is cheap/plentiful used and is much better optically). Save your money until you can afford a lens that will serve you for the long run, like the 17-55IS.

[neuroanatomist]

If your budget is really limited, I would pick up the 18-55IS used (it is cheap/plentiful used and is much better optically)

Frank mentioned a budget of up to $1000. I think 'upgrading' from the non-IS to the IS version of the 18-55mm kit lens is rather like getting a Canadian quarter in change, and having the cashier switch it for an American quarter. Just being able to use it in a vending machine doesn't make it an 'upgrade'. [:P]


Jokes aside, I really don't think it's ever worth 'buying' an 18-55mm kit lens as anything other than part of a kit. With the XSi, the kit lens currently adds $75 (today's Amazon pricing). On FM and CL, the usual asking price is $90-110. So, you're getting a used lens, and the person you're buying it from is making a profit. That's not too bad, relatively speaking. But, unlike quality Canon lenses, the 18-55mm is very cheaply built, meaning it doesn't hold up well to even moderate mistreatment. I'll bet many noobie users turn the focus ring without setting it to MF - that can misalign the focus gears, and a mis-focusing lens sure won't be optically better.