Reading mode: Light Dark

lens to go with Rebel XTi in place of kit lens?

Go to last post
7

737Guy

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
Location
PA, US
From what I've read, the Rebel XTi is an excellent camera but the kit lens is not all that great. If I bought a body and a lense separately, what would be a great general-purpose lense to replace the kit lense?
 
Canon 17-85IS
Canon 17-40
Canon 17-55 2.8IS
Sigma 18-125, 18-200
Sigma 17-70
Sigma 18-50
Tamron 18-200

Take yer pic . . . a price range would help

--

 
I imagine the 17-85IS would be the most versatile, although maybe I'm wrong. How much does it sell for?
 
I'm sorry, I misread the lens. I was talking about the 17-55.
--
Canon 350D Digital Rebel XT
Canon EF-S 18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 (Kit Lens)
Canon 70mm-200mm/f2.8L
Canon 50mm/f1.8 II
 
I believe the 17-85IS goes for about $500 and yes, it's known to be a very versatile lens, although it has limitations, there is no perfect lens.
--

 
I've got two on their way. They should be in my hands Monday or Tuesday.

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

I had to sell my Barrett rifle to afford em', but I'm pretty sure they'll be worth it. If you're only getting one then get the 24-70 f/2.8
--

When a man abandons the upbringing of their children to their wives, a big loss is suffered by themselves. For what they lose is the possibility of growth in themselves for being human, which the stimulation of bringing up one's children gives.
 
if you want to spend $400-$500 then buy the Tamron 17-50mm. It meets a number of important criteria:

1. The zoom range is appropriate. Anything that starts at 24 or 28 is not wide enough for wide-angle photography. And wide-angle shots are important unless you're just planning on snapshots.

2. The build quality is reasonable and the sharpness is superb. This lens is sharper than lenses costing more than twice as much.

3. Good value for money--provided you take a lot of pictures.

Otherwise, buy a couple of primes, Canon 35mm is a good lens.
--
Nimnar
 
737Guy said:
From what I've read, the Rebel XTi is an excellent camera but the
kit lens is not all that great. If I bought a body and a lense
separately, what would be a great general-purpose lense to replace
the kit lense?
Click to expand...
The kit lens is OK and its so cheap you might as well get the body and kit lens and see how you get on with it. You might be pleasantly surprised (in fact I am sure you will be).

And if you don't like the kit lens, you can probably sell it on ebay for more than it cost you in the first place. So going for the body+kit lens is a no brainer in your circumstances.

The only reason to buy only the body is if you are 100% certain that you don't want the kit lens. And even then, I'd probably still buy it.

Chip
 
I imagine you'll get a lot more chances to shoot an XTi than a light .50 ...probably worth it.
 
LOL, true.

I did get a couple nice pictures with my Easy Share catching the brass flying from the ejection port, though. Now that I've upgraded to DSLR I wonder what it takes to catch a bullet in flight?
--

When a man abandons the upbringing of their children to their wives, a big loss is suffered by themselves. For what they lose is the possibility of growth in themselves for being human, which the stimulation of bringing up one's children gives.
 
I love my tamron f 2.8 xr di 28-75. Compared to my f 1.8 prime, it beats it!
my f 1.8-2.2 is worse than my xr di wide open f 2.8!

Some have compared the xr-di to the canon 24-70L and wins!

If you do get it, test, test, test, and trade it back in if you don't have a good copy.
--
http://timcodes.zenfolio.com
 
In good light a good kit lens is excellent. Stop it down to f/8 and it'll give results that compare to almost any lens. For landscapes in good light or on a tripod it is excellent.
Also, close minimum focus distance can be a plus (0.9 ft).

At 18mm it might be a bit distorted, but not much worse than more expensive lenses.
For the money you can't go wrong.
Also, if you sell the camera on it will have more appeal with the kit lens.
 
Image Obsessed said:
I love my tamron f 2.8 xr di 28-75. Compared to my f 1.8 prime, it
beats it!
my f 1.8-2.2 is worse than my xr di wide open f 2.8!
Click to expand...
But still, I'd like to see the tamron do 1.8-2.8 at all! ;-) It may be sharper wide open, I'll easily believe it, but it doesn't beat it for sharpness at those apertures. (And I think at 2.8, the prime should at least match the tamron...) Of course, it does beat it at 28mm...

Still, don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to get my hands on a 28-75... but the budget's run dry for now.

Richard
Image Obsessed said:
Some have compared the xr-di to the canon 24-70L and wins!

If you do get it, test, test, test, and trade it back in if you
don't have a good copy.
--
http://timcodes.zenfolio.com
Click to expand...
--
You can (finally) see some of my pictures at:
http://www.pbase.com/morty/
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=239439

Cano n 3 0 0 D with very simple lensjes
 
kones said:
Canon 17-85IS
Canon 17-40
Canon 17-55 2.8IS
Sigma 18-125, 18-200
Sigma 17-70
Sigma 18-50
Tamron 18-200

Take yer pic . . . a price range would help

--

Click to expand...
Yes, from cheap to more expensive, but all better than the kit lens.

I used to have the kit lens with the 350D but seldom used it, using instead a Sigma 28-200 most of the time. I sold the combo and got the XTi (400D) with the Sigma 18-200 which I'm using 98% of the time and have been very happy with it. I also have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk.II (also cheap but very sharp).

The Sigma 18-125 is quite good too - cheap with a good zoom range. Have a look at these links:

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/04/07/1335.html

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18125_3556/index.htm

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18-200_35-63_dc

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18-125_35-56_dc_if_asp

Cheers.
 
I don't know what lens came with the XT but my XTI came with a series II kit lens. I have compared it to the lens that came with my 300D and like it a lot better. Focuses faster and a crisper image IMHO. I no longer have it to compare with but I before I left the 300D go I tried a few shots and found it better. I seldom use any other lens than my Tam 28-75mm f/2.8 but when I need to go wide it gives me nice pictures, even in low light.

I once rented a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM, If a big pile of money ever falls in my lap I will get that one.
Below taken with the Series II kit lens



--
http://www.medlong.com
 
Use mostly the 17-40mm f4L. Haven't regretted the purchase at all. Probably the best deal in an L series lens and has great color, sharpness and range. About $600US.

Grant
 
My thoughts exactly...

You are talking less than $100...the kit lens is worth that easy...I mean for nothing more than a get started with the camera now lens or a back up.

I've been using mine for a couple days now and yes...my 70-200 L is much, much sharper...but the images out of the 17-55 kit lens are nice too...

Just seams silly not to get it...

Pugs
 
HarleyPugs said:
My thoughts exactly...

You are talking less than $100...the kit lens is worth that
easy...
Click to expand...
I agree 100%

Heck a circular polarizer costs more!

Chip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top