First Lens for Canon Rebel XTi (1 Viewer)

[Justin USA]

Thank you all who replied to my earlier post "Canon Rebel XTi vs. Sony Alpha 100." I have settled on the Canon as it is a more 'buildable' system that wont be limited from the get go.

So, now my search continues with lens considerations. Do I go with the cheap kit lens (17-55mm), or do I save $80 getting the body alone and buying a USM/IS lens? I am willing to spend more to get a better starter lens so I am considering two options. I would greatly appreciate your input for the following (or any other I may have missed):

* EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
* EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Also, what is the difference between the EF 28-135 and the EF-S 17-85? I have heard that they are very similar (both USM, IS, etc). If you could please dumb it down for me and discuss which would be a better beginner lens that would be great.

Thanks so much for any help you give.

 

[Words]

Others will have more informed views (I'm a new user of the XTi with a 70-300 lens). I'm considering both these lenses at the moment as I want something for close-up work).

There are two main differences. The EF-S lens is designed for the XTi range and won't fit on some of the other Canon bodies (so an issue if you upgrade later). The EF lens fits all their bodies, so in that sense is a better long term investment. But you probably won't upgrade the body for some time, so I would think it's an even call on that.

The second difference is that the 28-135 will give provide greater magnification for getting in close to subjects (the 135 end of the lens). The 17-85 would provide wide angle for large landscapes, room interiors etc (the 17 end of the zoom). For every day use and flexibility I would opt for the 28-135 for the extra 'reach'. (And be prepared to start saving for a long lens!)

 

[hollis_f]

OK, first of all the difference between EF and EF-S. EF lenses will work with any Canon EOS camera. EF-S lenses are specially designed for digital SLRs with a sensor that's smaller than a normal 35mm film. It allows the lens to be somewhat smaller and lighter. But it'll only work with some cameras. Luckily your XTi is one of them - so you can choose either type of lens.

Of the two that you've listed them main difference between them is the focal length. The 17-85mm will be able to take photos with a much wider field of view than the 28-135mm. Great for landscapes architecture, etc. But the latter lens will do a better job of bringing distant objects closer so it'd be more suitable for things like people photography or wildlife (although it's a bit short for birds).

Which one to go for depends on what type of photo you'll be more likely to take. As far as image quality, build and handling I think they're very similar.

If you do want to take shots of birds then you one route would be to aim for a setup with the following lenses...

17-85mm for landscapes and walking about
70-300mm for wildlife
50mm f/1.8 for low-light work

That last lens really should be in everybody's bag. The f/1.8 means that you can take shots in very dim light without having too slow a shutter speed. And it's very small, very light and very cheap.

 

[citrinella]

Thank you all who replied to my earlier post "Canon Rebel XTi vs. Sony Alpha 100." I have settled on the Canon as it is a more 'buildable' system that wont be limited from the get go.

So, now my search continues with lens considerations. Do I go with the cheap kit lens (17-55mm), or do I save $80 getting the body alone and buying a USM/IS lens? I am willing to spend more to get a better starter lens so I am considering two options. I would greatly appreciate your input for the following (or any other I may have missed):

* EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
* EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Also, what is the difference between the EF 28-135 and the EF-S 17-85? I have heard that they are very similar (both USM, IS, etc). If you could please dumb it down for me and discuss which would be a better beginner lens that would be great.

Thanks so much for any help you give.

Umm, I'm confused on one thing - the cheap kit lens I have is the 18-55. Has this changed ? The 17-55 EF-S I know about is reputed to be a cracking lens, described by many on Photography-on-the-net as being as good as an L, has IS, and is not cheap.

General advice. You face several compromises (such as weight and cost). Consider this one :
in general, the greater a lens zoom range, the harder it is to get top quality in all aspects, so a prime is easier to get quality from than any zoom, and a 70-200 easier than a 70-300;
there is a "rule of thumb" that the more lenses you carry, the fewer photos you take - because the more lenses you carry, the more chance you will think this photo would be better with such and such other lens which is not on the camera, so either you don't bother or you waste time changing lenses.

Both the lenses you suggest, 17-85 and 28-135 are medium quality lenses with IS. Quite good, not very fast, need care to get top shots (ideal aperture etc). I have a 28-135 and tried, but it didn't work, as an only lens for a 1.6 crop factor camera. It simply isn't wide enough for my purposes. The main use has been travelling in China - shooting landscape, candid, architecture, the lot. It has been great for shooting in good light (probably my favourite topic). In China wider angles are essential to allow you to get in close - stand back and there are 1.3 billion people trying to get in the way. I now have a 10-22

Multiple lenses have become a real issue for me. If you want to take birds, you want the lens on all the time. I have been carrying two bodies but the weight is simply ridiculous. It's no fun getting a migraine from all the weight hanging round your neck, despite all sorts of rigs to spread it. I have come to view my DSLR as specialist - use it for the special situations. Concentrate on one at a time, birds, wide angle, or candid (I have a 70-200 f2.8 now for that). I have bought a compact for all the "normal" shots I might encounter when I am shooting specialist. That is great too - I normally carry it, something I had given up doing with my heavy DSLR because I cycle about a hilly, windy area and usually can't be bothered with the weight. The compromises in the camera pretty much match the compromises in the lens, and that is not bad at all - whereas a DSLR body will be limited by a medium quality general purpose zoom assuming the photographer is not the most limiting factor ;-)

If this sounds like the sort of route you might head down, I'd be cautious about spending hard earned cash on general lenses. Consider whether it might suit your purposes better to concentrate on a pretty good lens for each of your special interests. That is where weight and cost become a real bind !

HTH, Mike.

 

[avan]

The 17-55 you are refering Mike are the new EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM lens, this lens as you saying it's much more expensive than the kit one.
So for the other lens: the 17-85mm are for digital only (mean camera with a crop factor), The 28-135mm are for every camera (crop + full frame) but are designed for full frame. In full frame a 28mm equal the 17mm on crop camera (17mm X 1.6= 27.2 mm). with the Xti both lens can work, it depend only on your need :wide angle for landscape or reach. An other alternative is to go with the new sigma 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens for around the same price of the Canon. so you can get wide angle and reach and the stabilisation in bonus.

 

[postcardcv]

I'd say your lens choice will depend on what the camera will mainly be used for. As others have suggested one of these lenses will give you a wider angle, while the other offers a bit more reach. Personally I wouldn't buy either of them. The vast majority of my photography is of birds so most of the time I need lots of reach (rarely want less than 300mm). When buying my camera I got it with the kit lens as this offers a cheap fairly wide angle lens for general shots and landscapes and then put all other money into a fund for a decent long lens. If the main interest is wildlife then I'd got for the cheap kit lens (it's not as bad as some say) and then save for a telephoto. However if the interest is landscapes or portraits then forget the kit lens a buy a top quality lens in the right range.

 

[macshark]

If you are looking for a versatile general purpose lens, and if you can afford it, the EF-S 17-85 IS is a good choice. It is not perfect, but there is no other Canon zoom lens out there that gives you wide angle on a XT/XTi body, 5x zoom range and image stabilization. The 28-135 is also a decent lens, but it simply won't be wide enough on the XTi (45mm effective FoV at the wide-end) for general purpose use. Even though the 17-85 IS has some distortion and CA at the very wide end, overall, its optical quality is somewhat better than the 28-135. It is also more compact.

If you are stretching your budget, I would seriously consider getting an XT instead of an XTi and spend the money you save on the body for the lens.

 

[Justin USA]

a summary and a decision

You all make great points and have helped me learn a great deal. I think I am going to go with the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Later, I think we will add a 70-300mm. Someone else mentioned a 50mm F/1.8 for low-light and portraits. A few have sounded off that the XTi is pretty worthless below 17mm, so there isn't much point going with a 10-22 or something.

So those three lenses? What about for the 70-300 and the 50mm... Would I need IS for those? I would guess no for both since they would likely be done on a tripod (which I plan to buy no matter what).

 

[RJL2005]

You all make great points and have helped me learn a great deal. I think I am going to go with the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Later, I think we will add a 70-300mm. Someone else mentioned a 50mm F/1.8 for low-light and portraits. A few have sounded off that the XTi is pretty worthless below 17mm, so there isn't much point going with a 10-22 or something.

So those three lenses? What about for the 70-300 and the 50mm... Would I need IS for those? I would guess no for both since they would likely be done on a tripod (which I plan to buy no matter what).

Hi Justin

I bought a 30d body, 18-55mm and the 70-300 IS zoom when I switched from digiscoping to dslr. Within two months I then got the 400mm 5.6L (Non IS). I now almost never use the 70-300 - it doesn't have either the reach or the quality I needed or liked. As for the 18-55mm that was recently part ex'd for the 17-85mm which I find much sharper and easier to use.

Rhod

 

[postcardcv]

So those three lenses? What about for the 70-300 and the 50mm... Would I need IS for those? I would guess no for both since they would likely be done on a tripod (which I plan to buy no matter what).

The 50mm f1.8 does not have IS, but it really doesn't need it, it's lightweight and the f1.8 means it works very well in low light. You can get the 70-300 with IS, but personally I wouldn't. If you plan to use a tripod then it's worth putting the money towards quality glass rather than paying for IS.

 

[macshark]

The 70-300mm IS is optically much better than any other consumer grade zoom lens in the same range. It is also more than twice as expensive as consumer-grade, non-IS 70-300/75-300 lenses from Canon, Sigma, etc.

There was a problem with the initial batch of 70-300 IS lenses, and Canon recalled them and fixed them free of charge. The current 70-300 IS is a very high quality lens. Check out this review:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/le...e/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm