Could someone recommend a good walk around lens for the rebel xt. Something 3rd party since they're cheaper (Sigma. Tamron). Something in the 17-85mm range. I've seen pics from the kit lens and I am not impressed. I'm not about to think about spending over $1000 to take blurry photos. Thanks.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Rebel XT kit lens alternative?
- Thread starter se7en1ne
- Start date
From what I've heard the kit lens is about as sharp as the Canon 17-85 IS, and I've had some pretty good results with it the 17-85
For 3rd party lenses in that range, there's the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-125 f/3.5-5.6. Both are pretty affordable and I've heard some really good things about the Tamron. I don't know if the Sigma is going to be sharper than the kit lens.
For 3rd party lenses in that range, there's the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-125 f/3.5-5.6. Both are pretty affordable and I've heard some really good things about the Tamron. I don't know if the Sigma is going to be sharper than the kit lens.
BillLeeLee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,486
The blur in the pictures you've seen might have been more a result of factors like camera shake. Pictures I've seen with the XT kit lens are pretty sharp.
Actually, the pics I'm talking about are from a Canon EOS 20D with the 18-55mm kit lens. I know this is the older version that comes with the rebel xt, but the images aren't sharp at all. Is the rebel xt version much better than the original version of this lens?
BillLeeLee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,486
Rebel XT's kit lens is the same, just with some cosmetic changes.
BillLeeLee said:
Although that is the statement from Canon, www.dpreview.com had a review of the Rebel XT and they noticed a slightly sharper image with that kit lense over the 20D's kit lense. They have pictures in the review which show them side by side. Check them out.
cmosdos said:
Ya, I've been looking at those and the ones on steve's digicams and I agree the new lens is slightly sharper. It still looks somewhat disappointing to me though. I admit, I am a novice so maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about here. I have an olympus c-4000 that takes really nice sharp pics now and I'd hate to get a new camera that didn't please me on the same level, as far as quality of the picture goes. What about these Canon lenses in the 28-80mm or 28-90mm range? Anyone have any experience with them?
se7en1ne said:
I'm not trying to be rude but what your asking: "I want something better but cheaper" is just not all that realistic of a question.
Thats not to say there arnt other options, the Canon 28-135 IS is about $400 i think and it's a great walk around lens.
Tamron makes a good 28-75 F/2.8 that seems to be well liked
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=246&sort=7&cat=43&page=1
and a better 17-35 f/2.8
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=191&sort=7&cat=43&page=1
In the long run though you get what you pay for...You really ought to not look at the investment of the camera as your primary investment, your lenses are what matter. As you stated; you did not spend $1000 to take blurry pictures. But what i can tell you is that if you buy quality glass you can get quality pictures on any camera both from the past, current, and in the future. More importantly though...the value of your camera is already much less then what you paid for. However the value of a lens if treated well really does not change all that much.
Spend the bulk of your cash on the lenses, not your camera. Cameras come and go, lenses...for the most part, are here to stay.
[TQ] said:
I realize what you're saying about "I want something better but cheaper" but I didn't exactly word it like that
. I'd like something better than the kit lens but cheaper than the 17-85mm canon lens. Thank you for your lens suggestions, they all look pretty good.The kit lens really isn't all that "terrible" for a <$100 lens. I still have mine because I use it for wide angle (18mm) shots from time-to-time. It certainly isnt the sharpest lens around, but I find it works quite well for a walk-around lens.
Examples:
The lens I probably use the most is the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8. It is extremely sharp and quite versatile, however there have been times where 28mm is not wide enough (ie: the autoshow.) Its a great lens and can be picked up used for about $315.
Examples:
The lens I probably use the most is the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8. It is extremely sharp and quite versatile, however there have been times where 28mm is not wide enough (ie: the autoshow.) Its a great lens and can be picked up used for about $315.
se7en1ne said:
Taken with the kit lens? Or the Tamron? Or both?
Edit: From the kit lens (taken at ISO 200)
Full size #1
Full size #2
Full size #3 (taken in Maui over a year ago.)
Thats actually an interesting point that i use to make very often (but have forgoten now that i no longer own the lens).
For $100...that kit lens kicks butt.
It's not "sharp", it's not "contrasty"...but it is only $100. And that really is something you need to keep in mind. Becuase it is in most cases sharp enough and contrasty enough...
For $100...that kit lens kicks butt.
It's not "sharp", it's not "contrasty"...but it is only $100. And that really is something you need to keep in mind. Becuase it is in most cases sharp enough and contrasty enough...
fixxxer said:
These are taken with the original rebel kit lens that comes on the original rebel and 20D right? Not the newer kit lens that comes on the rebel xt? Also. did you use a tripod for any of those? They're just pretty far off from the images ive been seeing from that lens...yours being much better than what I've been seeing.
se7en1ne said:
Yes, those photos were taken with the original kit lens that came with the original 300D (I've had mine for about 2 years I believe). No tripod was used - I actually don't even own one at the moment.
And as far as I know, the "new" kit lens just has some cosmetic changes.
I have the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. It is a good lens for the price. Some reviews on the net try to make it out to be comprable to an L series but I doubt it is really as good. I don't have an L lens but at least for this lens, you usually have to stop it down some to get great pictures out of it. If not, you may get some noticeable geometric issues with the shot but of course this is average from most consumer lenses. I think this is why Canon lenses all start at 4.0.