Rebel XT: Body Only or w/ Kit Lens?

[Lionheart1827]

Hey, I'm kinda new to the Digital SLR world, and I'm planning on getting a Rebel XT. I'm not sure if I should go with body only and get a new lens, or just go with the kit lens. I'm not a serious photographer, so I wont be spending 300+ on lenses.

I have a Canon G5, but I decided to go SLR now because I just felt so restricted with the G5 and I like the feel of having more manual functions. I'm a college student so I am on a tight budget. If I go body only, what would be a good "all purpose" zoom lens for $200 or under that would be a good replacement for the kit lens? or should I just stick with getting the kit lens? I'm not looking for a super long telephoto but I'd like to have some good range with a single lens. I need a lens that will last a while since it will probably be a long time before I get another lens, if I even do get another one. I know I dont have much choice, but maybe some of you pros can point me in the right direction. Thanks. :D

[Rhys]

The Sigma 18-125 is tons better than the kit lens.

[aparmley]

My advice:

get the kit lens if you don't know what you want/need. . . add the 50 1.8 for a cheap low light alternative for about $70.

[Rhys]

My advice:

get the kit lens if you don't know what you want/need. . . add the 50 1.8 for a cheap low light alternative for about $70.

The kit is only really any good at f8 and f11 though. The 50 f1.8 was the worst lens I've ever had.

[drew_viii]

i disagree with Rhys, 50 1.8 is a good sharp and cheap lens! you can see most people will get this lens for amatteurs and some pros as well. I saw some pros using this lens for some portrait shots in weddings and other events, so this is a worh-it lens for a very very affordable price especially for a college studen like me and you!

replace your kit lens with sigma 18-125 or 18-200 if you want more reach! both are good and afforadable lens. I guess they exceed a bit for your budget, but its a good and descent investment after all. take some time to practice with it, then you'll come to the point to decide to get more lens, or descent and good quality lens.

you can check some of the sample photos posted by the members of this forums of this lens. I think somebody here has the XT with the sigma 18-125 and the photos are nice! good luck with your new camera, and welcome to the digital SLR world!:)

[aparmley]

The kit is only really any good at f8 and f11 though. The 50 f1.8 was the worst lens I've ever had.

Just so I can say I supplied a relevant retort - the Sigma 18-125 has been a lot people's worst lens.

But I'm not saying keep and use forever - I'm saying start with these two lenses, learn, feel out the focal lenghts and your needs - its best to do those things with the cheapest kit you can get your hands on so you don't waste money. Those two lenses are more than capable enough for beginners to learn what they need to wisely invest money in the second series. The Sigma 18-125 would be good - but it costs more than the 18-55 and the 50 1.8 combined and plus, the 50 1.8 will allow the beginner to learn DOF and the ability to shoot in lower light than both the kit and the 18-125.

These two lenses aren't really known for their excellent quality. But they are cheap and they are good enough to learn on - thats all you need in starter lenses.

[Lionheart1827]

Ack, now I'm unsure on what to get. I think I may just get it with the kit lens and maybe in the future I'll get a lens with more range. Please note that if there is a zoom lens that is better than the kit lens, for under or around 200(max I will go is 250), then I will get that lens, but if not I'll just get the kit lens. Hmmm, any other ideas?

[Sungrazer]

When I was also looking at cheaper lenses an alternative to the kit lens, I was recommended the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II. I believe it's a bit less than $250. It's just not very wide on a 1.6 crop.

[BonjiB]

I have a 28-105 3.5-4.5 in my bag and it's a great lens. It was my first zoom for my canon bodies. Of course i was using it primarily on my elan 7e which is film and therefor the 28 end behaves like a 28. On my 20d it tends to be a little long but for most of what i do that's fine. The thing that really frusterates me about it is the 3.5-4.5 part. It's really slow for anything indoors without flash and i'm an available light kind of guy (makes for a more natural looking picture.) So it's up to you. It's a good starter lens and i only paid 180 for mine on ebay. Good luck.

[aparmley]

Ack, now I'm unsure on what to get. I think I may just get it with the kit lens and maybe in the future I'll get a lens with more range. Please note that if there is a zoom lens that is better than the kit lens, for under or around 200(max I will go is 250), then I will get that lens, but if not I'll just get the kit lens. Hmmm, any other ideas?


there isn't a lens or a zoom lens worth buying under $200. and only 3 lenses comes to mind thats less than $350 worth buying and those are the Canon EF 35 F2.0 prime lens, 85 1.8 USM and the 50 1.4 USM. ;)

[Vich]

there isn't a lens or a zoom lens worth buying under $200. and only 3 lenses comes to mind thats less than $350 worth buying and those are the Canon EF 35 F2.0 prime lens, 85 1.8 USM and the 50 1.4 USM. ;)

I think I would add the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Macro to that list. It's about $350 after rebates. That is, if you get a decent copy, but at least the warranty is 6 or 7 years. Used is often less than $300. 28 is a tad long, but just a tad. I got by with just this + 50 f1.8 for a year and only got disinterested in it when I started getting the really expensive stuff (in my estimation, the real expensive ones only added about 5% more image quality, real perfectionist margin).

[Rhys]

I had the 50 f1.8 and found it to be a horrible lens. I sold it in the end for a bargain price and was glad to be shot of it.

I have the 18-55 and it's OK as long as it's on a tripod at f8.

Interestingly, my photography is now much more tripod based than it ever used to be. If only I could find an easy way to carry a tripod!

Generally, I'd say a lens in the range 17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24 - 55/60/70/80 would be the best. Many people would argue the 24-70L is all you need although I'd disagree. Personally, I'd prefer to split the wide zoom from the mid zoom and those again from the long lenses.

I did meet a professor of journalism from USC yesterday and he stated that on his next travel photography trip he was going to use 12-24 and 18-200 lenses. Having seen his stuff, he's more into wide angle views. Personally, I would not go for that combination. I'd go more for the 12-24 (or 11-18) and 24-70/28-80, forgoing the longer lengths. I have a very nice photo of a cave taken from across a valley in Lumbier, Spain, using the 3x zoom on my former Olympus C200Zoom.

It's nice to have longer lengths but to be quite honest I feel wider is better. In my 35mm days I found I used mostly 28 - 135 with occasional forays into 200 and 300 territory. I used my 600mm lens so rarely that I sold it and spent the money on other things.

[DonSchap]

best all round lens for an XT is the recently released (last April) TAmROn SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF).

Obviously, way better than that nasty ol' kit lens... it "effectively" acts just like the 28-75mm f/2.8 does on the 35mm cameras, so you have the wide to short-tele response.

Lightweight, good light response and reasonably priced... the magazines all seem to like it... what's the beef? Get one and find out just what good shooting can be like... even if you have to put it on a Rebel body. ;)

[Vich]

I had the 50 f1.8 and found it to be a horrible lens. I sold it in the end for a bargain price and was glad to be shot of it.

I have the 18-55 and it's OK as long as it's on a tripod at f8.

Interestingly, my photography is now much more tripod based than it ever used to be. If only I could find an easy way to carry a tripod!

Generally, I'd say a lens in the range 17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24 - 55/60/70/80 would be the best. Many people would argue the 24-70L is all you need although I'd disagree. Personally, I'd prefer to split the wide zoom from the mid zoom and those again from the long lenses.

I did meet a professor of journalism from USC yesterday and he stated that on his next travel photography trip he was going to use 12-24 and 18-200 lenses. Having seen his stuff, he's more into wide angle views. Personally, I would not go for that combination. I'd go more for the 12-24 (or 11-18) and 24-70/28-80, forgoing the longer lengths. I have a very nice photo of a cave taken from across a valley in Lumbier, Spain, using the 3x zoom on my former Olympus C200Zoom.

It's nice to have longer lengths but to be quite honest I feel wider is better. In my 35mm days I found I used mostly 28 - 135 with occasional forays into 200 and 300 territory. I used my 600mm lens so rarely that I sold it and spent the money on other things.
Your advice for the shorter version of the Tamron is reasonable.

Your "horible" rating for the 50 f1.8 is sharply in contrast with, well, just about everyone. Rhys; it sounds familiar - sort of like your general complaint with most Canon stuff. It's not unreasonable to conclude that you had a faulty camera itself. No slam to you, just putting your assessment into perspective for this newb.

That said; I also sold my 50 f1.8 due to focusing inconsistancies, and because I perfered the IQ offered by the more expensive 50 f1.4. It delivered a lot of fine photos, but also many OOF. However if I pre-focused a 2nd time, the hit-ratio increased by a lot. I wouldn't rank it as horrible; just "cheap but capable".

[Rhys]

Well Vich, it might indeed be a faulty body. I don't know. I know I have amassed some decent glass in my Tamron 17-35 and 28-75, some mediocre glass in my Tamron 70-300 and kit lens.

I wasn't very impressed with the sharpness of my 50mm f1.8. I have considered getting the 1.4 but came to the conclusion that my f2.8 Tamron does the same job.

Two goes at the AF seems to be the trick with all my lenses. The other trick seems to be to use the 420EX all the time.

Eventually I might upgrade and get a second body but I'm not sure what or when.

[Lionheart1827]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Although some of you may cringe at my decision, I decided to just go with the XT with the kit lens. I got a great deal on it, 620 bucks new with a 256mb card(even though I have one already).

I decided to go with the kit lens because I'm not sure how far I really will go in terms of buying lens and stuff. As I develop my skills further and get more experienced, maybe then I will start looking at new lenses. Thanks for your help everyone.:)

[forno]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Although some of you may cringe at my decision, I decided to just go with the XT with the kit lens. I got a great deal on it, 620 bucks new with a 256mb card(even though I have one already).

I decided to go with the kit lens because I'm not sure how far I really will go in terms of buying lens and stuff. As I develop my skills further and get more experienced, maybe then I will start looking at new lenses. Thanks for your help everyone.:)

The kit lens has gievn me hours of entertainment AND has produced soem pics I will have printed (6x4). One thing I would suggest is that you buy a 1 or 2 Gig card and put the 256MB card in your camera bag for those times when you run out of space on your primary card. 256MB card will fit less than 100 shots (JEPG-Fine)

[24Peter]

The kit lens has gievn me hours of entertainment AND has produced soem pics I will have printed (6x4). One thing I would suggest is that you buy a 1 or 2 Gig card and put the 256MB card in your camera bag for those times when you run out of space on your primary card. 256MB card will fit less than 100 shots (JEPG-Fine)

You must be kidding. I've printed photos 18"X24" from my kit lens and they look GREAT.

L'heart - you made a good choice and sound decision on the lens. But I think forno is right about the CF card. You can get 1GB cards now for $29.

[DonSchap]

I tried to actually use my "kit lens" as a prize and was told, "No thanks" by the winner. LOL... I have to say, "That's pretty sad." :(

Anyway... no matter what you have, unless you have a Full-Frame body like the 5D or 1D or even the 1Ds (coldman), you just can not go wrong having the TAmROn SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF) in your bag. It is the lens for all-seasons, in my book. ;) And will ya look at the time... it's Fall! Better break out the "color" film... LOL :D