Rebel XT Ensemble

[camerafox]

I took the dSLR plunge on Father's Day at Costco-I was planning to buy the Pentax *ist DS mainly because I have a few old Pentax K mount manual focus lenses that I thought I could reuse to save money. I had a few reservations abut the *ist DS, as most reviewers were not thrilled about the quality of the non-RAW images as compared to the competition. I figured that I would trade up eventually and that this camera would be just fine for my current needs. However, when I got to Costco, they also had the Rebel XT kit in stock, so I made a snap decision and got that one instead. I had read the reviews for both cameras here and at other web sites (Steve's, dpreview, etc), but I was only book smart and had no first hand experience with either camera. Today, I visited the local camera store and picked up several additional accessories, including a Tamron 28-300 F3.5-6.3 XR Di, a Canon 50/1.8 II, and a few other doodads (bag, filters, tripod and monopod, etc). After discussing my needs with the store owner, I decided that I was not a good or serious enough photographer at this point to justify the higher quality (and much more expensive) lenses that I would rather have and bought the two additional lenses that appear to cover most of my expected near term photo needs and capabilities.

Anyway, I would be most appreciative of any comments regarding my lens selections, as well as any alternate lens recommendations, if you are so inclined. TIA.

[timmciglobal]

Well...

Find out what you shoot most then buy 1 good lens for that. I don't think you need 12 L lenses to get good pictures but if you figure out where you shoot the most then buy 1 great lens for that you'll be happy.

Tim

[TheObiJuan]

Congrats on your purchase and recognizing what you need. ;)

[Rhys]

Well...

Find out what you shoot most then buy 1 good lens for that. I don't think you need 12 L lenses to get good pictures but if you figure out where you shoot the most then buy 1 great lens for that you'll be happy.

Tim

That's excellent advice. My personal observation from when I've been out and about is that one only needs 3 focal lengths plus macro and a doubler. I'd suggest for the XT 18mm(ish), 28mm and 50mm for landscape and portrait. For general out and about, 18mm, 50mm and 100mm.

[camerafox]

Well...

Find out what you shoot most then buy 1 good lens for that. I don't think you need 12 L lenses to get good pictures but if you figure out where you shoot the most then buy 1 great lens for that you'll be happy.

Tim

Tim, that is precisely what I am planning to do. I am not ready to take the plunge for a top quality lens at this point (the "finance committee" is still reeling from my latest expenditures and has imposed a near term spending moratorium!), so I want to play with my new setup for awhile and find out how I actually use the camera, then get the best cost vs. performance lens available for that application. There are several opportunities coming up this summer (July 4th fireworks, several gatherings of family and/or friends, a trip to Yosemite or Carmel, Sunday drives along the SoCal coast, a visit to the Getty museum), so I plan to test out my new gear in these settings.

[camerafox]

That's excellent advice. My personal observation from when I've been out and about is that one only needs 3 focal lengths plus macro and a doubler. I'd suggest for the XT 18mm(ish), 28mm and 50mm for landscape and portrait. For general out and about, 18mm, 50mm and 100mm.

Rhys, I am still on the fence relative to the zoom vs. prime trade, so I split the difference and got one of each (the 28-300 and the 50). The debate between the two approaches seems to be part technical, part emotional, so I need to see which side I end up on after I get more experience under my belt. In the past with my ME Super, I found myself not wanting to lug around lots of lenses and ended up using my 35-70 almost all the time (including a memorable backpacking trip up the side of Kings Canyon). I gave up picture quality but ended up getting a much wider range of shots because of the transportability advantages of a single lens. Ideally, I would like to have a collection of decent primes and zooms, but I know I can't afford or justify top-of-the-line lenses in both categories unless I change careers and find a way to make money at photography or win the lottery.

[camerafox]

Congrats on your purchase and recognizing what you need. ;)

Obijuan (great name, BTW!), thanks for your words of support-I tend to agonize endlessly over the minute details of a major purchase like this one, but this time I went with my gut and got accessories with capabilities I was relatively certain that I would use right now.

[slitman]

I am looking to go with the Rebel XT and trying to decide whether to go with the kit lens of the EF-S 18 - 55 mm II or buy just the body and go with the 35-70mm lens.

Starting out, I am looking for a general, all purpose, lens that will be flexible for most types of situations.

Suggestions?

[Rhys]

Rhys, I am still on the fence relative to the zoom vs. prime trade, so I split the difference and got one of each (the 28-300 and the 50). The debate between the two approaches seems to be part technical, part emotional, so I need to see which side I end up on after I get more experience under my belt. In the past with my ME Super, I found myself not wanting to lug around lots of lenses and ended up using my 35-70 almost all the time (including a memorable backpacking trip up the side of Kings Canyon). I gave up picture quality but ended up getting a much wider range of shots because of the transportability advantages of a single lens. Ideally, I would like to have a collection of decent primes and zooms, but I know I can't afford or justify top-of-the-line lenses in both categories unless I change careers and find a way to make money at photography or win the lottery.

Another alternative is to get overlapping zooms - 18 - 55, 28 - 70, 70-210 in order to maintain the focal length advantages and to keep the apertures low. By the time an 18-55 gets to 55, the aperture is so small it's virtually unusable. By the time a 70 - 210 gets to 210, it's so dark it's unusable.

Basically, you want to try to keep your apertures below f4 at all times or you'll suffer longer shutter times and higher ISOs.

[slitman]

Guess I am trying to determine if a 18 - 55 or 28 - 70 would involve the major of the pictures I would be taking for now; looking mainly for a general use lens and wondering which would be the best to go with to start out.

[Rhys]

Guess I am trying to determine if a 18 - 55 or 28 - 70 would involve the major of the pictures I would be taking for now; looking mainly for a general use lens and wondering which would be the best to go with to start out.

How about the Tamron 28 - 75 f2.8 or the Sigma 18 - 50 f2.8? Both have constant aperture throughout the range. Both cost $400/$500.

[jamison55]

Everyone keep in mind, that besides the photographer, the quality of the lens makes the most difference in the quality of your photos. You are better off buying a cheaper body (such as the 300D), and put the money towards nicer lenses than buying a more expensive body and cheap glass.

Rhys made a couple of excellent recommendations on good mid priced lenses. I own and use both lenses (though I'll be selling the Tamron soon), and am extremely happy with the color, contrast, and sharpness of both.

[timmciglobal]

Quality vs "required quality" is something you should consider too.

The 35 F 1.4L is probably the "Best" quality canon lens I've ever seen. It however does not fufill my "Required" quality.

Most of my pictures I take don't even need L lens quality. My use for my camera requires more versitilty then pure quality. I recently tried a 18>200 tamaron lens and I was pretty impressed. I'm kicking myself for not saving the sample shots I took at the store with the 18>200 to post right now because I think most would be shocked what an accepted "consumer" lens quality was vs an accepted "professional" lens.

I'm personally looking for a nice "middle range" too and debating vs a 28>75 2.8 for low light vs a 18>200 or 125 for "range" or skipping the 2.8 and buying a 17>85 IS for focus speed and IS.

Just have to consider what you want out of the lens before you pick a lens because everyones needs are different.

Tim

[Rhys]

Quality vs "required quality" is something you should consider too.

The 35 F 1.4L is probably the "Best" quality canon lens I've ever seen. It however does not fufill my "Required" quality.

Most of my pictures I take don't even need L lens quality. My use for my camera requires more versitilty then pure quality. I recently tried a 18>200 tamaron lens and I was pretty impressed. I'm kicking myself for not saving the sample shots I took at the store with the 18>200 to post right now because I think most would be shocked what an accepted "consumer" lens quality was vs an accepted "professional" lens.

I'm personally looking for a nice "middle range" too and debating vs a 28>75 2.8 for low light vs a 18>200 or 125 for "range" or skipping the 2.8 and buying a 17>85 IS for focus speed and IS.

Just have to consider what you want out of the lens before you pick a lens because everyones needs are different.

Tim

But when you buy a 27megapixel camera for $500 in 3 years time, you'll be glag you have your L glass or you'll regret having bought lower-quality glass and having to buy L glass as well.

[camerafox]

How about the Tamron 28 - 75 f2.8 or the Sigma 18 - 50 f2.8? Both have constant aperture throughout the range. Both cost $400/$500.

The Sigma 18-50 sounds like a great step-up lens from the Rebel XT kit lens-essentially the same range, but better speed (and presumably other specs as well) over that range.

[timmciglobal]

hehe.

I strongly doubt they will have a 26 megapixel in 3 or 10 years.

Why? 26 megapixels is useless for pretty much everyone doing 11X14 and under.

If 26 megapixels wasn't useless the 1dmk2 would of had a denser sensor and more megapixels.

L glass will hold value longer but it's also significantly more expensive to cover the same range.

375 will buy you an 18>200 MM lens.

375 will not buy you any peice of L glass. Nor will a 17>40 help one iota if you don't bring with you and change your lenses.

Quality alone can't be a judge of the lens merit or "Value" and nothing is worse then having a 70>200 F2.8 IS lens on your camera when your 5 year old runs up to you crying covered in birthday cake because they slipped and fell into the cake and you can't take a photo of it because his head fills the entire frame at 20 feet. I wouldn't use a 70>200 F2.8 Is to shoot a birthday party but if your not going to bring a bag of glass with you and swap it out then you probably will find yourself in that situation unless you buy a "consumer" lens with versitility over "quality".



Tim