Just got the XTi... need some advice.

P

Pinipig523

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
1,742
Ok, so I got the XTi and I really really enjoy using this camera!

Questions...
1. What does EF-S mean?
2. Can you recommend to me a good all-around lens (with IS) that has decent zoom, but not necessarily telephoto range?

Thanks!
 
EF-S is the type of mount your camera has, which is common to Canon's 1.6x crop dSLR consumer/prosumer cameras. It supports both EF (full frame) and EF-S (cropped) mount camera lenses.

An EF-S lens has an extra protrusion in the back, and the EF-S body has a space to accept this. This space is available because of the smaller mirror box that a 1.6x crop camera has. A full frame (EF mount) camera won't have this space and can't accept an EF-S lens. But they're not that common (nor are they cheap) so I don't expect you having to worry about this issue.

I don't have any IS lens recommendations since I don't have any experience with IS lenses in that range.
 
My recommendations for a IS Zoome would be:

-18-55 IS ~$180 - A step up from the kit lens and it adds IS if you like the range the kit lens gives you.

-28-135 IS ~$450 - Another step up, with a bit longer range but it lacks the range on the wide end.

-17-85 IS ~$500 - Similar quality to the 28-135, but it has less on the telephoto end and more on the wide end.

-17-55 IS ~$1000 - Awesome lens that is another step up from the above. Very good quality, but smaller range and much more expenisve.


Another option if you are Ok with third party is the new Sigma 18-200 OS super zoom. The OS version has optical stabilization (like IS) and is one of the best super zooms out there. It is a bit more of a compromise since it has such a large range, but it is a step up from the kit lens and you can get great results with it. It is ~$500 as well.
 
Thanks fellas... I'm going to bookmark this thread for future reference for me. :D

So the ones I'm interested in are the:

- 28-135 IS ~$450 - Another step up, with a bit longer range but it lacks the range on the wide end.

- Sigma 18-200 OS super zoom ~$500

Those prices are about right for me... but I'm thinking the 200 zoom is better to capture further shots. Would this be a compromise when shooting not so distant shots then? Is a 135 zoom sufficient?

Thanks.
 
The extra zoom of the 200 is really nice. In reality, you should not notice a huge difference between the two.

For normal use, both will take great pictures and provide very good results ;)
 
I have the Rebel XT and I went with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II for my walkaround lens.
I'm super happy with the decision and highly recommend it.

On the long end nothing comes close to the 70-200 L series glass from Canon.
The Sigma 18-200 is an alright lens, but the difference between the Sigma and the Canon L glass is night and day.

Heres a great site with reviews to a lot of the most popular lenses...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
 
The trade off for all that zoom range you are getting is that if you want a long/flexible/cheap lens you give up aperture speed. For most people IS isnt all that big a deal at normal focal lengths and you are much better off with something like a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for about $350

Of course if you are still in green box mode you wouldn't ever get the benefits of fast glass, so it really depends on what you know about SLRs and how willing you are to learn new things...

Sam
 
I think I am caught with the L lens fever. :D There are 2 affordable L lenses in the Canon line.

The 17-40 F4 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_17_40mm_f_4L_USM_Lens.html

The 70-200 F4 non IS
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html


Is IS important? On a longer focal length lens shooting indoor, still objects, IS can make the shot possible hand holding. I just got the IS version of th 70-200 F4. I can take sharp, clear pictures of indoor objects at full zoom 200mm x 1.6 = 320 at 1/20 shutter speed. Handheld. That wasn't possible with the non IS version. Long focal length lens without IS, you would need to take shots under good to very good light condition (outdoor and not too overcast) hand holding.
 
I don't discount the value of IS. It's terribly overpriced on first party gear tho and as more third parties add competitive solutions and other camera manufacturers add it into bodies it will cease to command the premium it fetches for. Now on longer lenses for sure I think the IS is truly beneficial and worth the price premium that Canon gets for it.

I'll put the optical qualities of the Tammy 28-75 up vice the Canon 24-70 2.8 or the 24-105F4IS any day tho and be happy paying a third of the price for that lens. Even if the canon lenses are moderately better they arent 3x as good to me.

I also have the 17-40F4 and love it on both my crop camera(20d) and Film (obviously Full frame) EOS1, and I have never ever wished for IS on that lens...
 
Also, and this isnt clear to photo noobies: even if the IS allows you to handhold a shot at 1/20th of a second that only allows you to take clean shots that don't have any moving objects in them! At 1/20th of a second you are gonna have a LOT bigger problem with motion blur than camera shake on a wide lens!
 
But IS is not worthless on shorter zooms and focal lengths.

I love the IS on my 24-105 and it makes a big difference in some situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top