Just bought Canon Rebel XS... which lens would you recommend?

U

UncleDavid218

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,734
There's a ton of options out there. I want both a macro and at least a 200mm lens.

Do I stick with Canon branded lenses? Is Image Stabilization worth the extra money? I'm finding a lot of conflicting information.

Keep in mind I don't plan to keep the body forever (I'll go up to a 50D once I'm comfortable with the XS).
 
what do you shot primarily?
what's the reason for 200mm?
what's your budget?
do you have a tripod?
do you need one?
 
northrop said:
what do you shot primarily?
what's the reason for 200mm?
what's your budget?
do you have a tripod?
do you need one?
Click to expand...

1. Outdoor scenery (in the woods) and flowers, bugs, etc.

2. I just want something with some zoom, and the 200mm seems like a good compromise.

3. $600 per lens but less is preferred.

4. Yes
 
Do you want a 200mm Macro or do you want a 200mm telephoto or zoom that can do macro? There's a big price difference between the two. The Canon 70-200 F/4L is a great lens and offers a ton of bang for the buck but if you need IS in that price range, you'll have to go with the consumer 70-300mm IS, which is slower and less sharp (Though to be fair, it's still very sharp). You could also find the Canon 200mm f/2.8L used in your price range. None of these lenses are "macro" lenses however, they all will shoot macro well. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is also a solid choice if you want something fast and versatile.
 
Last edited:
skyline889 said:
Do you want a 200mm Macro or do you want a 200mm telephoto or zoom that can do macro? There's a big price difference between the two. The Canon 70-200 F/4L is a great lens and offers a ton of bang for the buck but if you need IS in that price range, you'll have to go with the consumer 70-300mm IS, which is slower and less sharp (Though to be fair, it's still very sharp). You could also find the Canon 200mm f/2.8L used in your price range. None of these lenses are "macro" lenses however, they all will shoot macro well. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is also a solid choice if you want something fast and versatile.
Click to expand...
I want both a macro and telephoto.
 
Ahh, gotcha.

For macro, I'd pick up the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX. if you can swing the $650 price tag (Or go used). If you don't want to spend that kind of cash, pick up either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 mentioned earlier or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di.

For a telephoto zoom, I'd go with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L I mentioned earlier, it really is the best deal on the market; I wish Nikon would offer an equivalent. I like optical stabilization in the long end of this range but the 70-200mm IS is double the price, so it's kind of out of the question. If you think you'd be able to use IS and wouldn't need the constant f/4 (Depends on what you shoot), the 70-300mm IS is still a great lens, just not quite as good as the f/4L in terms of build and image quality.
 
I would recommend something like the EF-S 60mm Macro and then a telephoto like the 70-200 f4. Both of those are wonderful lenses with outstanding IQ, especially for the price.

For more info/tips/help check out www.photography-on-the.net/forum/

I am on there a lot, and we answer the lens question constantly (or try to!) ;)
 
I would say the Canon 18-200 with IS or the Tamron 18-270 Macro with VC are decent choices....
 
Or if you can find a good used copy I would highly recommend the Canon 24-105 f/4 with IS. I use to try and find low price substitute until I got my first L, man wish I would of done it sooner. Another suggestion might be the Canon 17-40L and a good macro lens such as the 60mm or 100mm.....
 
darktiger said:
I would say the Canon 18-200 with IS or the Tamron 18-270 Macro with VC are decent choices....
Click to expand...

Very good all rounders. The Sigma 18-200 OS and Canon 18-200 IS are both better than the Tamron 18-270 though. The tamron is weak at the end of its range as well.
 
Grentz said:
Very good all rounders. The Sigma 18-200 OS and Canon 18-200 IS are both better than the Tamron 18-270 though. The tamron is weak at the end of its range as well.
Click to expand...

I had the original Sigma 18-200 and my friend had the new one with OS and they both suck. I would get the Canon 18-200 over the sigma hands down.....(just my opinion). Personally it was the Sigma 18-200 that made me jump to the Canon 24-105. I just wished I did that sooner.
 
I have the same camera as you and ordered my first lens upgrade last night. I got the 70-300mm IS lens.
 
Good bang for the buck but that does not have IS is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG MACRO.. normally can find them new for around $200 and is supposed to be a great sharp and quick lens. Check it out on the POTN lens archive. I currently have an older Tamron 24-135 Macro that is great for that purpose. I have also picked up the Nifty Fifty (50mm F/1.8 a definite must for any owner) and just recently picked up a Tokina 19-35mm from craigslist. Soon I hope to get either the Nifty TwoFifty or something along those lines.
 
gregnash said:
Good bang for the buck but that does not have IS is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG MACRO.. normally can find them new for around $200 and is supposed to be a great sharp and quick lens.
Click to expand...

I've got that lens for my XTi. I've found it to be pretty soft at the telephoto end.
 
I would personally avoid any non EX line Sigma. Both image quality and build quality are usually lacking. There are a few exception, e.g. the 17-70mm DC Macro but even that lens had its share of quality control issues.
 
skyline889 said:
I would personally avoid any non EX line Sigma. Both image quality and build quality are usually lacking. There are a few exception, e.g. the 17-70mm DC Macro but even that lens had its share of quality control issues.
Click to expand...

stop putting down the 17-70mm!! I'm about to get one....
 
KollunZ said:
stop putting down the 17-70mm!! I'm about to get one....
Click to expand...
It's a great lens if you get a good copy. I almost bought one but the softness and back-focusing issues scared me away and I just went with the standard Nikon 18-70mm. I'm looking for a new normal zoom again so I might consider a good used one but idk, I'm not buying a new one.
 
skyline889 said:
It's a great lens if you get a good copy. I almost bought one but the softness and back-focusing issues scared me away and I just went with the standard Nikon 18-70mm. I'm looking for a new normal zoom again so I might consider a good used one but idk, I'm not buying a new one.
Click to expand...

Let's hope I get a good one, I'll report back in a few weeks after I get one and play around with it.
 
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Im just a lurker but i wanna know if someone tried(experience) this lens?..
 
DeViLdUdE said:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Im just a lurker but i wanna know if someone tried(experience) this lens?..
Click to expand...

I got mine a couple of weeks ago and absolutely love it. It feels like it is built for the 5d just a marvelous walk around lens! (also really sharp to:)
 
For full frame or crop? The 24-105 is supposed to have pretty good optics. Main criticisms are in regards to vignetting and distortion. It's also not a very useful focal length if you're shooting on a crop body and it's expensive for what it is.
 
darktiger said:
I had the original Sigma 18-200 and my friend had the new one with OS and they both suck. I would get the Canon 18-200 over the sigma hands down.....(just my opinion). Personally it was the Sigma 18-200 that made me jump to the Canon 24-105. I just wished I did that sooner.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think they all suck :p But they are good for beginners and many people who want lots of range in a single lens. Really the only decent one that I have used is the Nikon VR 18-200, but it still gets weak in many spots and is expensive. The 24-105 is a completely different beast than the super zooms.

DeViLdUdE said:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Im just a lurker but i wanna know if someone tried(experience) this lens?..
Click to expand...

Great lens, I love mine. Awesome range, great build, and the IS is superb.

skyline889 said:
For full frame or crop? The 24-105 is supposed to have pretty good optics. Main criticisms are in regards to vignetting and distortion. It's also not a very useful focal length if you're shooting on a crop body and it's expensive for what it is.
Click to expand...

It is still very usable on a crop depending on your shooting style. I find that 24 is plenty wide on a crop camera for my walk around and I love the longer reach of the 24-105. It is not expensive for what it is when you look at what it can do...it has one of the longest zoom ranges through a very tough area (wide -> mid -> semi long) and it really is one of the only lenses that can do it and provide awesome results.

It is made for full frame, but depending on your style it can be great on a crop camera (and does not have any vignetting or major distortion issues on a crop camera). It also pairs insanely well with the 10-22. Biggest downside that some find is that the bokeh is not always the greatest, I find it better than a lot of lenses out there though and plenty passable. If you dont have a super busy background it can look great as well.
 
Yeah I guess it really depends on your shooting preferences. For me the FoV equivalent of 36-157mm isn't particularly useful by itself. If paired with the 10-22mm or something like the Tokina 12-24mm, it would be a great combination but by itself, it just doesn't go wide enough for the bulk of shooting I'd do (I usually shoot at either end of the spectrum not much in between). It really depends on what the OP is going to be shooting though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top