 Bobby R. Strange |
New lens assistance needed... Hi all. I'm getting ready to make a lens purchase, but I'm not sure what I should get. Here is what I have currently... Canon digital rebel xt Now, the 35-80 is on it's last leg, so I'm probably going to retire it. The macro is brand new and I'm using it the most. I rarely use the 75-300 except maybe for wildlife that I'm too afraid to get too close to ;) My main shooting is of nature/landscapes, but I am beginning to dabble in portraits and will be venturing into weddings in the future. So, that's my story. Any suggestions? I'm thinking about maybe a 28-105 or 28-200. Or maybe a 24-85. I would like that wider angle than I have now. Thanks in advance :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bobby R. Strange |
Oh, I might add that I can't really afford the L series lenses right now, hehe. Maybe way in the future :) And I'm not really looking at primes because I like the versatility of the zooms for now. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
If it were me, I'd want at least some moderate wide angle for landscapes and groups indoors. On the XT, that means lenses as short as 17mm or 18mm. Since "L" lenses are out, I assume that would also exclude the ~$1000 EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. More affordable alternatives are the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC. Other "usual suspects" are the Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM and Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. On the strictest of budgets, the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 is hard to beat.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bobby R. Strange |
My budget for a new one is around $350 or so. The 18-55...isn't that the same as the "kit lens" that comes with the XT? I've heard bad things about it. Or is this one different?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Yep, the kit lens. "bad" is relative. The optical performance of the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 is quite good, better than one should expect from a $100-$140 zoom. It's bad in that it is very cheaply made, doesn't have good manual focus ergonomics, and has relatively slow maximum aperture. But you'd have to spend at least 2 or 3 times as much to get a similar zoom that is any better.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael A. Bielat |
Tough call with what you have in plan for the future. Weddings usually require a fast zoom lens Amazon.com has Sigma lenses pretty decently priced. http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0002P19O4/sr=8-1/qid=1172759930/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7327921-3664152?ie=UTF8&s=electronics That will get you nice wide angle landscapes and group shots for groups in wedding portraits. Otherwise maybe a: Glass is an investment. If you don't have the cash to shell out for a good one you will always get caught up in having 20 slow lenses and wishing you had 2-3 fast ones that could replace all them and give you better results.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bobby R. Strange |
Seeing as I use mostly my 50mm lens for landscapes, I'm thinking it might be better to just get a fast, wide angle prime instead of a zoom. I rarely use the zoom that I have anyway.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolyn L. Fox |
It really depends whether or not you think you'll need a wider angle lens as mentioned in the above responses or if you just want something a little wider than what you have. Canon has a 28-135 lense that does a nice job & it's not too expensive. I think it's a 3.5-4,though, so it won't work as well in low light as a faster lens. Best of luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Who Me? |
use what you got till you can save up for a real lens
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||