Rebel XT or 20D?

[wxcloud9xw]

I have about 1,400 dollars to spend at the moment.

My options are either to get the Canon EOS Rebel XT with the (very good)Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens or get the Canon EOS 20D with the standard cheap Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens and save and buy the better 17-85mm lens at a later time. Both cost the same price with those lenses configured from where I'm buying them. I've already got memory cards and tripod and all that.

I guess what I want to know is the "spot metering", and faster shooting options on the 20D worth the extra money? I'm new to D-SLRs and I'm coming from a Nikon coolpix 8800 8mp fixed-lens camera. I don't need super fast shooting, 3fps/sec(rebel xt) is a big jump from the slow fixed lens 8800. The reason I'm moving up to D-SLR is because of the much beter low-light focusing, better pictures in more lighting conditions, and faster shooting. I never used spot metering on my nikon 8800...Also, I shoot primarily in RAW and edit my pictures in Photoshop.

Any help would be appreciated..thanks everyone.

[SNiperMarine]

flip a coin?

[wxcloud9xw]

I'm leaning towards the Rebel XT, just because of the virtually identical image quality and the fact that i can right off the bat get the 17-85 IS USM lens.. I'm still open to suggestion though.

[Clyde]

I have about 1,400 dollars to spend at the moment.

My options are either to get the Canon EOS Rebel XT with the (very good)Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens or get the Canon EOS 20D with the standard cheap Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens and save and buy the better 17-85mm lens at a later time.

Earlier there was a thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14176) that posed DSLR users here the question "what set up would you pick if you were starting from scratch?" The consensus seemed to be that folks would spend less on camera bodies, and more on lenses.

That is my feeling too, but that said... The 17-85 IS USM lens really doesn't get such good reviews (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=1). I would recomend either the tamron 28-75 or the canon 17-40 L to start. The canon "L" with the 50 1.8 prime would enable you to get a lot of the canon rebates, and would really be a top of the line lens. Frankly, the kit lens isn't really much worse than the 17-85, so just getting the kit lens for wide angle coverage and the tamron for low light flexibility is a pretty good combo. The kit lens adds around $100 to the camera, and is a much better bargain at that price than the 17-85.

Just something to think about...

Clyde

[Rhys]

Always invest in high-quality glass. Cameras will always come and go but the lenses when carefully chosen should last a lifetime.

[Rex914]

Earlier there was a thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14176) that posed DSLR users here the question "what set up would you pick if you were starting from scratch?" The consensus seemed to be that folks would spend less on camera bodies, and more on lenses.

That is my feeling too, but that said... The 17-85 IS USM lens really doesn't get such good reviews (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=1). I would recomend either the tamron 28-75 or the canon 17-40 L to start. The canon "L" with the 50 1.8 prime would enable you to get a lot of the canon rebates, and would really be a top of the line lens. Frankly, the kit lens isn't really much worse than the 17-85, so just getting the kit lens for wide angle coverage and the tamron for low light flexibility is a pretty good combo. The kit lens adds around $100 to the camera, and is a much better bargain at that price than the 17-85.

Just something to think about...

Clyde
Moreover, if you actually went for the more expensive 17-40 L, you would actually be spending exactly the same due to the rebate system. Allow me to explain...

If you bought the XT + 17-85, you'd be spending $750 + $550 = $1300 - $75 MIR = $1225 (or if it's a 20D, it's $1700 total)

However, if you bought the XT + 17-40L, you'd be spending $750 + $675 = $1425 - $150 - $50 = $1225

Because the 17-40 is on the rebate list, you qualify to get a double rebate off the camera AND the lens. :)

[wxcloud9xw]

I Primarily take portraits outdoor and indoor. I was searching around and found the newer Canon EF-S 60mm USM macro prime lens. That would be good for in-door/available-light Portraits and macro use...

But what would be best for outdoor portraits?

[Clyde]

I Primarily take portraits outdoor and indoor. I was searching around and found the newer Canon EF-S 60mm USM macro prime lens. That would be good for in-door/available-light Portraits and macro use...

But what would be best for outdoor portraits?

The 60 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=293&sort=7&cat=2&page=2) should be perfect for both purposes. Couple that with the 17-40L and you have a top of the line kit to start with. Play around with those lenses for a while, and you will get an idea of how to expand your lineup. The 17-40, 60 EF-S and 70-200 L (of some variety) would be a great kit.

Clyde

[wxcloud9xw]

I think the best two lenses I can come up with without spending too much would be to get the Rebel XT black body, Canon 17-40mm f/4 L, and Canon 50mm f/1.4. I suppose the L quality glass on the 17-40mm zoom would be as good as a canon 35mm prime lens correct? Thanks for all the help guys!@!

[Vich]

I think the best two lenses I can come up with without spending too much would be to get the Rebel XT black body, Canon 17-40mm f/4 L, and Canon 50mm f/1.4. I suppose the L quality glass on the 17-40mm zoom would be as good as a canon 35mm prime lens correct? Thanks for all the help guys!@!
The 17-40 is full-on L quality images, so I have heard (and read on many reviews).

The 35 (I'm assuming you don't mean the 35L, that costs about $1100) has good images but is a pretty cheap build. Its about like the 50mm f1.8, except much noisier.

An XT + 17-40L + 50 f1.4 would be a nice setup for what you want, albiet you will be missing more tele.

Note however that 17mm is pretty wide for people shots unless you want them to be a part of the environment (like say a street shot where the front few people are 3 times the size of those behind, or a beach scene that happens to have a kid in it). That length tends to encourage you to be too close to your subject and body proportions won't be right.

You may consider 17-40 + 85f1.8 instead, or getting a different zoom such as the 28-135 IS (several notches above the EF-S17-85IS). I think the former combo to be the better since they are both popular pro quality lenses. Clyde's suggestion for getting the EF-S 60 Macro is also good since that's also a top lens - and more universally useful than the 85 but comparable quality + Macro capability.

Just my pennies.

[wxcloud9xw]

I'd be using the 28-40mm range of the lens probably anyway for group shots, which would hopefully not cause people distortions? I'm just trying to figure out what to get since the 1.6x crop factor of the rebel xt and 20d comes into play. Alot of review sites use the 50mm f1.4 and the solo portrait shots look very sharp on the 20d and rebel xt and detailed.

[wxcloud9xw]

what would you guys pick if this is all I could get on my first purchase? It would be atleast a month or so before I could get another lens with either of these options.:confused:

These are my two choices: option 1: Rebel XT+Standard kit lens+EF 50mm f/1.4 prime lens

option 2: Rebel XT+EF17-40mm f/4 L lens

P.S. I do portrait work outdoor and indoor 95% of the time.
thanks!

[Clyde]

what would you guys pick if this is all I could get on my first purchase?

These are my two choices: option 1: Rebel XT+Standard kit lens+EF 50mm f/1.4 prime lens

option 2: Rebel XT+EF17-40mm f/4 L lens

thanks!

Oh no question. Door #2. The kit lens is not very good. The 50 1.8 is quite good. The 17-40 is "L" quality. In 20 years, the 17-40 will be one of the best lenses you own. You will have spent a couple of thousand dollars minimum on glass, and the 17-40 will still be one of your mainstays.

Start with the good stuff, instead of spending money on stuff you will want to replace later. Think of it this way. Buying the kit lens is effectively paying $100 for a lens you will stop using in 6 months, when you upgrade. Save that $100, and put it towards a lens you will keep using.

Clyde

[wxcloud9xw]

You make such a good point...I guess thats what I'll do first then. At what "mm" does this lens distort people and make them look larger and less detailed? I hope its just the 17mm end.

[Rex914]

Barrel distortion always happens at the wide end while pincushion distortion happens at the tele end. It's pretty bad at 17mm, but practically disappears by 24mm. And when you reach 40mm, there's none to speak of even if you run analysis programs.

[wxcloud9xw]

I think what I may do, since I am into portraits mainly rather than landscape after reading reviews of lenses is get the standard kit lens and then get the 50mm f/1.4 and the 35mm f/2.0. Or do you think I even need the kit lens if I get those two primes for indoor and outdoor portrait work? Ultimately I want to Save up for the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L zoom which cost 1,200 dollars.