XTi + ??? Lense for first SLR User/Architecture Student

[arkitec]

Hi there,

I've used my Nikon 5700 for several years and recently purchased a Nikon P5000 a few days ago since my 5700 died. However, I realized I'm tired of P&S and I'm going to move up into the DSLR world.

I have basicaly decided on the XTi because it seems like the better deal than the D40 and the D80 is out of the price range/not a first timer DSLR camera really. I speculated over the XT but I just like newere stuff =p

Not sure if any of the above thought process is logical so feel free to correct me. Not even sure if the XTi is a good call.

Now I'm kind of at lost to what kind of lense I should buy for my first one (I'll only be using one for several months due to budget). I've heard the kit lense is not a good one to go for - not sure if it's justified and based on what context though.

I'm doing my Masters in Architecture and plan to shoot buidings/landscapes more than anything, especialy in low light.

Budget is important but I also dont want to hit a brick wall in expanding my future with my tools by shortchanging myself due to cost in the beginning. Any advice would help.

Here are a few shots I"ve taken with my trusty 5700 that has been great to me (they were taken without a tripod due to circumstance).

 

[Cr4zYH3aD]

Xti is nice but requires extensive learning and tend to underexpose, But the image quality between xti and my P&S is not comparable. I'm sold to dSLR.

but you need to know/learn how to use it

 

[arkitec]

Xti is nice but requires extensive learning and tend to
underexpose, But the image quality between xti and my P&S is not
comparable. I'm sold to dSLR.

but you need to know/learn how to use it

So would you recommend something other than the Xti then? Or was your comment just a warning/observation.

I've used manual SLRs fequently before and have taken classes for it as it was mandatory for my bachelor's education.

 

[lespurgeon]

If you have used a manual SLR, the XTi will be a quick learn.

How about a 24mm T=S lens and tripod for architecture photos? I know - that will not be your everyday lens.

My choice has been to carry a 24 f/2.8 and a 50 f/1.8 prime lenses around with me. I also have a 100 mm macro and a 200 f/2.8 to round out the range. These last 2 have little use in architecture photography.

 

[arkitec]

If you have used a manual SLR, the XTi will be a quick learn.

How about a 24mm T=S lens and tripod for architecture photos? I
know - that will not be your everyday lens.

My choice has been to carry a 24 f/2.8 and a 50 f/1.8 prime lenses
around with me. I also have a 100 mm macro and a 200 f/2.8 to
round out the range. These last 2 have little use in architecture
photography.

Sorry I'm not really familiar with the lenses. I wont be able to afford two lenses right on the get go and so the first will have to last be several months. Not sure if the 24 will be an adequiet general use lense being the first and only one.

The 100 macro will defeinitly be on the list - I love closeup shots so it'll easily be the second lense on the list.

 

[Dave Lewis]

Look further at the Pentax K100D. It is at the top of the 6 megapixel camera offerings. The XTi is a good bit more expensive for very little more in features. I have both and for the money the Pentax has the XTi beat.
--
Dave Lewis

 

[arkitec]

Look further at the Pentax K100D. It is at the top of the 6
megapixel camera offerings. The XTi is a good bit more expensive
for very little more in features. I have both and for the money the
Pentax has the XTi beat.
--
Dave Lewis

Thanks for the pointer I'll look into the Pentax.

 

[WhoDak]

The tilt/shift lenses aren't so useful anymore with DSLR's like the XTi with high resolutions. Just use a small aperture so everythings in focus. You can shoot raw, bring it in 16bit and fix the perspective distortion and crop with plenty of image left.

A lot of tilt/shift lenses loose some quality, or have vignetting issues once they're adjusted to the extreme, they're nothing compared to how accurate you can get with a view camera though.

--
Student.

 

[PaulPaul]

In my opinion the best option is to use kit lens for a while and see what you are missing. You may miss wide angle or telephoto or maybe you want wider apertures.

I chose sigma 17-70 to replace the kit lens. I liked the range, f/2.8 at wide end and much nicer optical quality.
Other options that would be good are sigma and tamron 17-50 or sigma 18-200 OS.

--
THIS camera VS THAT camera
http://yessnoo.com

 

[Zephyr von Bobo]

In my opinion the best option is to use kit lens for a while and
see what you are missing. You may miss wide angle or telephoto or
maybe you want wider apertures.
I chose sigma 17-70 to replace the kit lens. I liked the range,
f/2.8 at wide end and much nicer optical quality.
Other options that would be good are sigma and tamron 17-50 or
sigma 18-200 OS.

--
THIS camera VS THAT camera
http://yessnoo.com

The kit lens is only bashed by professionals who need more IQ and versatility than a $70 lens can produce, or by random individuals who quickly blame the lens instead of their inexperience.

This will also leave you with budget room to supplement the kit with something like the 50 1.8 for darker interiors, a flash, or to even splurge on something like an ultra wide lens to capture up close shots of entire facades or cramped (typical) interiors.

 

[arkitec]

In my opinion the best option is to use kit lens for a while and
see what you are missing. You may miss wide angle or telephoto or
maybe you want wider apertures.
I chose sigma 17-70 to replace the kit lens. I liked the range,
f/2.8 at wide end and much nicer optical quality.
Other options that would be good are sigma and tamron 17-50 or
sigma 18-200 OS.

--
THIS camera VS THAT camera
http://yessnoo.com

The kit lens is only bashed by professionals who need more IQ and
versatility than a $70 lens can produce, or by random individuals
who quickly blame the lens instead of their inexperience.

This will also leave you with budget room to supplement the kit
with something like the 50 1.8 for darker interiors, a flash, or to
even splurge on something like an ultra wide lens to capture up
close shots of entire facades or cramped (typical) interiors.

Both your commends are noted.

 

[Krishna Das]

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

This lens is sweet (for $410. at Adorama). It is not cheap but much better than any kit lens or the Canon 17-85mm IS. It has a 27-80mm (equiv) vs the 5700's 35-280. For architecture the wider the better.
The XTi is a great camera, you will love it.
Later you can add a 10-22mm for ultra wide building shots, amazing!

 

[arkitec]

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

This lens is sweet (for $410. at Adorama). It is not cheap but
much better than any kit lens or the Canon 17-85mm IS. It has a
27-80mm (equiv) vs the 5700's 35-280. For architecture the wider
the better.
The XTi is a great camera, you will love it.
Later you can add a 10-22mm for ultra wide building shots, amazing!

Ahhh kit lens, no kit lens, kit lens, no kit lens... !

I feel like I want to start with the 85/1.8 for portrait and 50/1.5 for low light as opose to a Tamron 17-50... not sure how wise that is but I have inclination to use primes as a start. The kit i may or may not get. I'd probably get a canon 10-20 down the line.. or even the canon 17-55

 

[dougbailey]

Keep in mind that with the xti (or most other dSLRs) you have the "crop factor". The crop factor on the xti and most of the other Canon dSLRs is 1.6. That means your Xmm lens will shoot with an effective focal length of 1.6Xmm. If you remember what it's like to shoot with the SLR "standard" 50mm from a film SLR, consider that the same 50mm lens on your XTI will be equivalent to an 80mm lens on a film SLR.

That makes wide angle shots a little more difficult... I'm guessing you might want some wide angle capability for your architectural shots.

One thing the kit lens gives you is wide angle (is it 18mm?) for next to no money...

You say you can only afford one lens, but consider than the kit lens and a 50mm prime together cost much less than any lens upgrade.

I bought the kit lens with my XTI. I don't tend to use it, because I quickly dropped the extra money on a 17-85IS. But the kit lens will still serve as a "beach" lens...

 

[arkitec]

Keep in mind that with the xti (or most other dSLRs) you have the
"crop factor". The crop factor on the xti and most of the other
Canon dSLRs is 1.6. That means your Xmm lens will shoot with an
effective focal length of 1.6Xmm. If you remember what it's like
to shoot with the SLR "standard" 50mm from a film SLR, consider
that the same 50mm lens on your XTI will be equivalent to an 80mm
lens on a film SLR.

That makes wide angle shots a little more difficult... I'm
guessing you might want some wide angle capability for your
architectural shots.

One thing the kit lens gives you is wide angle (is it 18mm?) for
next to no money...

You say you can only afford one lens, but consider than the kit
lens and a 50mm prime together cost much less than any lens upgrade.

I bought the kit lens with my XTI. I don't tend to use it, because
I quickly dropped the extra money on a 17-85IS. But the kit lens
will still serve as a "beach" lens...

For the price of the Canon 17-55, I can get the Canon 10-22, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 for a hundred or so more... the latter sounds better for arch/low light conditions. The 85 would be my walkaround street/portrit shots.

 

[highpriest]

In my opinion the best option is to use kit lens for a while and
see what you are missing. You may miss wide angle or telephoto or
maybe you want wider apertures.

I personally found the kit lens extremely disappointing (still do). The images look muddy and soft. The colours just don't look right (too much yellow?) and the contrast is poor. In short, the images just don't 'pop.'

I know there are people with good copies of the kit lens and I know some people take breath-taking photos with the kit lens but for a beginner to DSLR like me it was very frustrating initially.

My intentions are not to bash the kit lens, go for it if money is a concern but for people who have the spare cash, a better standard lens like the 17-85 (or the 17-55 if you are seriously rich) is highly recommended.

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers

 

[wibbs]

The kit lens is only bashed by professionals who need more IQ and
versatility than a $70 lens can produce, or by random individuals
who quickly blame the lens instead of their inexperience.

This will also leave you with budget room to supplement the kit
with something like the 50 1.8 for darker interiors, a flash, or to
even splurge on something like an ultra wide lens to capture up
close shots of entire facades or cramped (typical) interiors.

I generally agree that the kit is a great place to start. Figure out what it's limitations are for your shooting style and buy from there. However, in this case the specified uses are really not good for the kit + 50mm combination. The kit doesn't open to a wide enough aperture and the 50 is too tight for architecutre (IMHO of course ;-)). Paul did list a couple of other choices that seemed sensible, though I don't know those lenses and can't comment on their quality.

 

[arkitec]

In my opinion the best option is to use kit lens for a while and
see what you are missing. You may miss wide angle or telephoto or
maybe you want wider apertures.

I personally found the kit lens extremely disappointing (still do).
The images look muddy and soft. The colours just don't look right
(too much yellow?) and the contrast is poor. In short, the images
just don't 'pop.'

I know there are people with good copies of the kit lens and I know
some people take breath-taking photos with the kit lens but for a
beginner to DSLR like me it was very frustrating initially.

My intentions are not to bash the kit lens, go for it if money is a
concern but for people who have the spare cash, a better standard
lens like the 17-85 (or the 17-55 if you are seriously rich) is
highly recommended.

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers

I think I'm going to not get the kit lens. I'd spend that 80$ on the 50/1.8 for some low light work that I enjoy doing too. I wont have the cash for 17-55 and instead of the 17-85 I'd rather invest that money in the 10-22 which serves me specific style. I'll throw in the 85/1.8 in month after that for portrait work and I think I'm good to go for a little bit.

I'd shoot low light urban as much as I should bulidings .. if anything achitecture is about the context - the poeple and environment - more than anything. Therefore I'm going for the portrait/low light lens at the same time as the 10-22 wide architeture one.

Does that thought-proces make sense?

 

[arkitec]

1.4 Years later... here are some of my shots on a 40D, 50 1.4, 10-22.... see my site
--
Street Photography
http://www.esmondlee.com

 

[wiseleo]

Congrats on your IPA award!

It's funny, isn't it, to look back at what we posted many months ago and laugh at the questions we asked and the lenses with which we eventually wind up.