Good, high quality lens for Canon Rebel XT

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by YS2003, Jul 9, 2006.

  1. YS2003 macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #1
    I am going to get the Canon Rebel XT SLR digital camera. I used to be a journalism student when I was in college and I took some photo journalism courses (at that time, B&W film with the dark room operations) as part of the prerequisites for the journalism major. I wish I studied photography more at that time and kept studying.... I moved away from the journalism to marketing/communication fields when I transferred to a 4 year college from a 2 year state college.

    I would like to get the a few lens for Rebel XT. There are so many choices for lens and I am searching web and reading various web site for more info on lens. I found Canon USA's web site is very helpful to get myself up to speed on basic knowledge of various lens.

    I thought I would post this question on this forum as I know there are many people on this forum who are professional or semi-professional photographers.

    I would appreciate it if you could recommend on the lens I can buy with Rebel XT.

    So far, based on my initial searching, I have the following list as the potential purchase:

    EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens (portrait and good background blur lens)

    EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (standard daily lens)

    EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (Macro lens)

    EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (telephoto zoom lens)

    EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (ultra-wide zoom lens)
    Or,
    EF 20mm f/2.8 USM (wide angle lens)

    So far, I am willing to spend up to US$3000 on the whole package (I am willing to spend more; but, I would rather like to save some for MBP/CS3 next year). I have been studying Photoshop CS2 for a while now and it is time for me to get more high quality pictures.
     
  2. snap58 macrumors 6502

    snap58

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Location:
    somewhere in kansas
    #2
    Those look like good choices to me. My favorite lens in the world (right now anyway) is the 135 2.0L, outstanding, I use it on the 1.6 crop and a FF. The 24 to 105 IS 4L is another I really like. Both work great with ET's and the 500D. Most of my flower shots are with these two. Depending on what you do though they may be a little long on a 1.6 crop. I may pick up the 17-40 4L in the future, or the 16-35 2.8L.

    http://homepage.mac.com/jbg007/Yellow Album/index.html

    Some might tell you the L's are only used as a "status" symbol, but I would guess they have never owned one to really know. Buy the best glass you can, you will have it longer than your body. I also think in the future the FF bodies will come down in price. For that reason (I already have one), I have limited the EF-s lens to the 10-22, which I really like also.


     
  3. Zeke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    #3
    You've doubled up in the 17-40 range. Why not get a fast wide angle (Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8) and keep that as your daily lens instead of having more (plus, the 17-85 isn't a great lens)

     
  4. YS2003 thread starter macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #4
    Thanks for the suggestion. I agree with your comment on doubling up with that particular range. I checked up EF-S 17-ff/2.8 and I found it on Amazon. I think that is fast lens as it is 2.8.
    I will ditch EF-S 17-85mm. I know I have to study more on lens choices. But, I would start shooing my own pictures with a pro-quality camera. I have gone through a few photoshop books and I think I desearve some reward on myself for my hard studying.

    By adding EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, the total amount on Amazon is a tad over $3000 bench mark, which I have no problem.

    Should I go ahead with ordering?
     
  5. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #5
    It all depends on the type of shooting you see yourself doing. If you have the budget, I would recommend a good L lens for your walk around.

    If possible, go with an IS lens over the 80mm mark. If you are going to be in/outdoors needing some zoom, I *love* the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
     
  6. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #6
    First off it is really hard to recommed a lens without knowing what
    subjects you like to shoot and if you are working near the house or
    if these will get put in a backpack and hauled up a mountain. Is this
    fr sports, landscapes or wildlife.

    I think you have to many lenses on your list. I'd buy maybe three.
    Also on a 1.6 "crop factor" camera a 17mm lens in NOT "ultra-wide" It is
    just "wide", about the same as a 27mm lens on a 35mm camera and the 20mm is not all that wide either.

    If you have the money why not go for the f/2.8 version of the 70-200?
    For that matter if you can spend $3k. Why not go with f/2.8 lenses all
    around?

    Be sure and budget for a good tripod
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #7
    I'm not a Canon guy, so I don't really know the cost of lenses, but instead of the 17-85 mm, get a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, Tamron/Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, or the Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 as a general walk-around lens. The Tamron 28-75 mm is fast if you need to use a lens in low-light or want better depth of field control. It also reaches pretty far at 85 mm, and it's sharp as a tack, even when used wide open.
    The other option of getting a Canon or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is also a good option because you'll then have a general walkaround lens that can go to 17 mm. The only problem with the Tamron 28-75 mm is that you can't go really wide (ie: to 17, 18, or 24 mm).


    And the 60 mm macro + 85 mm f/1.8 for portraits: I'm sure they're great lenses and would produce great images. Another alternative would be to get something like a 100/105 mm f/2.8 macro lens of some sort for both portraits and macros? I'm sure it'd be decent for both purposes and would save you from having to carry another lens, although a 100 or 105 mm macro lens may be a bit too sharp for portraits. It's just a possible alternative. It would let you stand further away from your subject during macro shots (ie: you won't leave a shadow or scare little critters away), and would save you from carrying 2 lenses instead of just one lens for 2 tasks.


    As long as you cross that 17-85 mm off your list, I think you've made good choices. ;)
     
  8. YS2003 thread starter macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #8
    I am planning to take pictures on:
    landsacpe (with wide view to capture the wide angle)
    wildlife (from some distance)
    close-up pictures on subjects
    daily use lens for various general uses
    Indoor pictures
    high ISO lens for night/evening lighting
    higher speed lens which I can capture fast moving objects (such as quick moving animal and sporting event

    As you can see, I would like to collect basic set of lens which cover most of the shooing reqirements.
     
  9. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #9
    Your wide angles are not really "ultra wide" on 1.6x crop bodies. I'd recommend the canon 10-22mm EF-S.
     
  10. form macrumors regular

    form

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    in a country
    #10
    To cover a wide range of lengths....If I had the money, I might pick...

    Ultra-Wide: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 - OR - Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6

    Walkaround Zoom: Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L - OR - Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 - OR Possibly - Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8
    *Update* Just saw some samples of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8; it looks very good, and might be an alternative walkaround lens.

    Combined Portrait+Macro: Pretty much any Macro lens by Canon, Tamron, etc., preferably with f/2.8 or faster - The longer the focal length, the narrower the DOF, which is preferable for portraits.

    If a separate portrait lens is desired, any fixed focal of about 50-60mm or longer, with a fast max aperture.

    Telephoto Zoom: Any variant of the Canon EF 70-200mm L lenses, such as f/4L, f/2.8L, or f/2.8L with IS.
     
  11. YS2003 thread starter macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #11
    Thanks for good suggestions. I have scratched 17-85 mm. I think everyone agrees that I need to get it off my list.
    As far as Macro and Portraits lens, can this "standard purpose" lens fit the bill?

    EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (Standard Zoom Lens)

    I really appreciate good advise I am getting here.

    Based upon the suggestions I received and my further search, I have updated the list to cover basic photographic needs with Rebel XT:

    EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens

    EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens (ultra wide zoom lens)

    EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM telephoto zoom lens (for long range telephoto lens)

    EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto lens (indoor, portrait lens, non-flash lens)

    I think EF 24-70mm f/2.8L cannot replace EF 85mm f/1.8 USM because the latter is able to capture pictures without flash in doors. But, I am hoping the former will double up as the macro lens for taking close-up pictures on plants, insects, and objects/products.
     
  12. snap58 macrumors 6502

    snap58

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Location:
    somewhere in kansas
    #12
    The 24-70 has a maximum magnification of 0.29 without attachments, with extension tubes you can get to 1.0 or higher, see attached PDF chart.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #13
    Christ, what is your budget? Over $3000?
     
  14. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #14
    the 85/1.8 isn't quite what you think is it when you put it on a 1.6 crop factor camera.

    the 50/1.4 would be a better indoor/portrait choice, in my opinion. if you do the math in the crop factor, you'll see why I think that! It also costs almost exactly the same amount.

    I would make another recommendation to you at this point....

    buy 2 lenses and don't spend so much money.

    You will take better photographs if you're focused on the images and not focused on what sorts of lenses you should have on the camera at any given moment. I find that unless I'm going on a trip, I actually prefer to leave the 50/1.4 on the camera, even though it doesn't have zoom. Unless I'm taking wildlife photos or I need a wider angle, the 50/1.4 (which is more like an 80/1.4 on the crop bodies) will do just about anything, and it takes very consistent, clear, distortion-free photos.

    Just a thought. Maybe 3 lenses. the kit lens doesn't count (maybe just for perspective), a very wide angle lens (the 10-22 is pretty good), a good 50mm (1.4 would be my recomendation, although the 65mm macro would also work), and a good zoom telephoto. The 70-200/4L series is a very good bargain, and weighs about 400 pounds less than the 2.8 IS.

    I would definitely recommend you get an L lense for your telephoto zoom. The non-L zooms are usually pretty clunky and fragile.

    Just some suggestions.
     
  15. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #15
    I am a Nikon user rather than a Canon user, but I'm going to put my tuppence in here anyway. :) IMHO, if you've got a fair amount of money to put into a Canon digital camera system right away, I'd skip the Digital Rebel XT body and go with the 20D (if it is still available) or the 30D, which will give you a body with better build quality, much more flexibility and more features to enhance functionality. In the long run I think you would be much, much happier with the 20D or 30D than the Rebel XT.

    The 24-70mm is NOT a macro lens and should not be considered as such; it is merely a mid-range "walkaround" lens which is great for shooting people having fun at events. To shoot images in macro you would need to add extension tubes or the Canon 500D diopter "filter" to one of your lenses or buy a dedicated macro lens in order to shoot macros with a 1:1 ratio.
     
  16. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #16


    Firstly, you don't need to get every lens from Canon. The Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 I recommended is sharper than the closest equivalent offered by Canon (I read over 200 replies to a thread at another forum regarding the Tamron, although I forgot the Canon lens (L glass as well) most of those people were referring to). They said it was too soft. I'm only saying this because it'll save you money and offer you as good or better results, so I don't see why not.

    EDIT: Haha, funny how I considered this lens to be not wide enough for a general lens. How about the Sigma 24-70 mm?? I'm hopefully getting that one very soon. :)


    Also, you lost a macro lens in your lineup. I'd get the 105 mm f/2.8 for both portraits and macros rather than the 85 mm f/1.8. Yes, the 85 mm can do portraits very well, but it can't do macros.

    If you want a wide-angle lens, then the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 mm are much cheaper (ie: around 50% or 60% off Canon's price) and likely equally as good as the Canon. Actually, I'm not sure about the Canon since I'm a Nikon user, but the Tokina 12-24mm is very popular for a reason. ;)

    If I had to make a list of lenses to buy for a Canon, here's what I'd get based on what you said you want:

    Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8
    Tokina 12-24 mm f/4
    Canon EF 70-200mm f/4
    Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro (1:1)
    Canon 50 mm f/1.8 (hey, it's cheap as chips and very fast, so why not?)
     
  17. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #17
    My $3k would get me:

    Canon 30D
    Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
    Canon 70-200 f/2.8
    Canon 50mm f/1.8
     
  18. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #18
    It occurred to me after I had posted that you CAN get fairly close with a 24-70mm lens, but not in the same way as with a true macro lens.

    This is a photo I shot last week with Nikon's 28-70mm f/2.8:

    [​IMG]

    While it IS close up it is not really at a 1:1 ratio. This lens range is very versatile, no question about it. I used that same lens to shoot musicians performing at the Smithsonian's Folklife Festival, close-in views of people weaving baskets and working with clay, as well as photos of an ornately decorated truck. I definitely would include a 24-70mm lens in your bag.

    By way of example, this next image is a true macro, shot with a macro lens, where I could get right up-close and personal with my subject:

    [​IMG]

    Nikon offers a 60mm macro, a 105mm macro, a 200mm macro and a couple of others which are older versions and which are available only through used equipment dealers.... I am sure that Canon also has macro lenses in various ranges. The 55-60mm range is great and it is fairly inexpensive, but it doesn't provide much working space between subject and lens. The 90-mm - 105mm range is better in that regard, so that one isn't nose-to-nose with skittish bugs. I know Tamron makes a highly-regarded 90mm macro lens.

    As I mentioned in my other post, one way of getting somewhat of a macro impact is to slip a Canon 500D diopter "filter" on a lens, and this can be surprisingly effective. Another way is to use extension tubes -- Kenko makes these -- and they can be used to good effect as well. These are ways to get that macro look or close to it while not investing right away in a macro lens. In the end, though, if one is going to be doing extensive macro work, a genuine macro lens is preferred and actually pretty necessary.
     
  19. YS2003 thread starter macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #19
    As you suggested, I checked up Tamron autofocus 28-75 mm f/2.8 and I think I would go with that Tamron. The price is almost the half and performance is on par with Canon lens.

    As far as the Macro lens is concerned, I would add Macro lens of over 90 mm. It is good to know 85mm lens (for portrait and indoor) is not the ideal choice as a true macro lens.

    It is a good point that Rebel XT has 1.6 crop. I believe 30D has larger crop I believe it is a higher end SLR camera. Now, I am considering to pick EOS 30D up instead of Rebel XT for more flexibility, as the previous poster recommended.

    I guess I have to do more searching on choices before I settle on these. But, I think I am now narrowing down on the choice lens now.
     
  20. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #20
    Just to clarify, the Rebel XT and 30D have the same 1.6x crop factor. "flexibility" in the latter has to do with 5fps vs. 3fps, a larger LCD, and spot metering.
     
  21. form macrumors regular

    form

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    in a country
    #21
    And better AF system, and 1/3-EV steps in ISO instead of 1 EV steps, and slightly faster flash sync of 1/250 instead of 1/200, and bigger buffer for bursts, and slightly larger sensor resolution, and slightly lower noise, and ISO3200 max instead of ISO1600, and 1/8000th sec. max shutter speed as opposed to 1/4000th, and Kelvin white balance adjustment, and better battery life, and more image parameter "Picture Styles," and wider ranges in custom parameters like saturation, sharpness, contrast (-4 to 4 or 0 to 7, etc., rather than -2 to 2), and a better shutter rating of 100,000 actuations, and PC-sync flash terminal.
     
  22. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #22
    Now that we are considering non OEM canon, you might check out the Sigma 24-70mm, which has even better macro performance.

    EDIT: Also from what I've seen the Sigma 10-20mm is on par with Canon's 10-22mm with everything except bad contra light. I cannot say the same for the Tokina 12-24mm.

    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1118_4556/index.htm

    Specifically the Chromatic aberration and sharpness.
     
  23. monkeydo_jb macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Location:
    Columbia, MO
    #23
    Is the Rebel XT included in your $3000 budget?
     
  24. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000

    bigbossbmb

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena/Hollywood
    #24
    30D is a great camera...I like the feel of it much more than the XT

    as far as lenses go...

    Canon's 70-200 f2.8 IS is a great telephoto lens.

    for a walkaround lens I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8

    and then get a decent prime like the Canon 50 f1.4

    Canon lenses are great if you can afford them since they hold their value much better than 3rd party lenses. Also the Tamron doesn't have USM which can get annoying.
     
  25. YS2003 thread starter macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #25
    Maybe I should go with EOS 30D as it is more "pro grade" compared to Rebel XT. There are so many lens options and I am now studying some of the lens mentioned on this thread. As far as the standard walk-around lens, I will go with Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 over Canon's.

    It seems, in general, Canon lens are in high quality and well-built (and priced as such for some models).

    By the way, how those lens manufacturers stack up against each other? Are some makers known for high end, value oriented, and what-not?
     

Share This Page