Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by g0tr00t
    Get the best lens you can afford and it will stay with your system longer than the camera.
    Good advice. IMHO, the camera should be considered as an accessory of the lenses, not the other way around.
    A manual-focus slide shooter lost in the world of digicams.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhys
    I think primes are still the way to go. Get an 18, 28, 50, 85 and you'll be set for most situations.
    I agree, but unfortunately my wallet doesn't.

    I made the mistake of pricing prime lenses in this range today... most sell at street prices in excess of US$300. The exceptions are the 50/1.8 (cheap at US$80!), 28/2.8 (about US$160), 35/2 (US $220). Canon's "least expensive" 20 mm lens is US$400 or so.

    Given that the lowly EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 sells for about US$150, and it could substitute for (not "replace") the three "inexpensive" lenses mentioned above, zooms do have a certain attraction for the DSLR newbie!

    There's something magical about the US$1000 mark for the combination of camera and lens.
    A manual-focus slide shooter lost in the world of digicams.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucko
    I agree, but unfortunately my wallet doesn't.

    I made the mistake of pricing prime lenses in this range today... most sell at street prices in excess of US$300. The exceptions are the 50/1.8 (cheap at US$80!), 28/2.8 (about US$160), 35/2 (US $220). Canon's "least expensive" 20 mm lens is US$400 or so.

    Given that the lowly EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 sells for about US$150, and it could substitute for (not "replace") the three "inexpensive" lenses mentioned above, zooms do have a certain attraction for the DSLR newbie!

    There's something magical about the US$1000 mark for the combination of camera and lens.
    Well, there we are... Get the 18-55, a 28 and a 50. Save up for an 18 or 20mm lens. Actually, the 28 isn't so bad at 42mm equivalence.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    8

    One light-weight lens ONLY

    There is no way I am going to climb money or hike carrying more than one lens and it should be light. Canon has done a fanastic job with the Rebel XT. Now could they come out with a lens similar to the 17-85 except make the actual lens of the light weight polymer used in high-in binoculars. Clearly they should be able to produce the 17-85 under 200 grams!http://www.dcresource.com/forums/new...ote=1&p=48845#

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4
    Very difficult to recommend a lens but the above are all good tips. It's all generally down to /$$$. I purchased the Sigma 18-125mm which was stuck on my 20D until I purchased the 70-200 f4L and the 100mm f2.8 Macro. Both absolutely stunning lenses. I found that the Sigma is an "ok" lens but nowhere near as sharp as the other two (or the 50mm f1.8 for that matter).

    For a starter lens with a zoom I'd agree with the Tamron 28-75 (I'm getting one soon to replace the Sigma) or even the Sigma 24-70mm. Both have nice large f2.8 appertures and will allow much more in photographic opportunities. I find my Sigma just a little slow on the long end at f5.6. My 50mm f1.8 is excellent in low light and I also use this a lot when flash can't be used.

    Buy the best you can afford and read the www.fredmiranda.com reviews. Oh and chack ebay for some great prices.
    Canon 20D
    Canon 70-200mm f4L ; Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro ; Canon 50mm f1.8; Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6; Sigma EF500 DG Super

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    What a terrible idea. Nikon tried this, 15 years ago with ghastly results with its E series of lenses.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Near New Orleans
    Posts
    1,264
    The Kit Lens is alright but not a top flight performer. As with most lens step it down an aperture or two for best results. As for that I've got one sitting going unused cause I noticed CA in bright contrast situations that I don't get with my Sigma 18-125mm or Tamron 28-75mm.
    .

    Canon EOS 30D | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS| Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Canon Speedlite 430EX + Sto-Fen Omni Bounce | Manfrotto 3001BD & 680B/486RC2 | Hoya Super HMC Pro1 Digital Filters | Hitech ND & GND Filters | Bags > Kata R-103 + Lowepro Nova 5 AW

    RawShooter | premium 2006 > My PBase Gallery

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    196
    The Kit lenses are okay. I wouldn't say they are great by any means. You're spending at least $1000 on a camera and you're getting a $100 lense with it.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tooele, UT
    Posts
    277
    Here is my opinion on the kit lenses that come with the 20D and the XT.

    "They are the good zoom lenses under $100."

    That being said, I sold my kit lens from my 20D less than a month after purchasing it. I now have a 50mm 1.8 mark 1 and a 28-80mm USM mark 1 lens. I bought them on eBay for just over $200 for both. By far my favorite is the 28-80mm zoom. It's not as wide as the 18-55mm lens that I first had, but the performance of the 28-80mm with ring USM makes up for that one short coming.

    I also recomend buying only EF lenses. The reason is that in the next few years we will start seeing digital SLR camera that have a full size sensor and won't be able to use the EF-S lenses. I don't want to start buying all new lenses when I retire the 20D.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by mcenut
    I also recomend buying only EF lenses. The reason is that in the next few years we will start seeing digital SLR camera that have a full size sensor and won't be able to use the EF-S lenses.
    I agree with the recommendation, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning.

    For me, one of the attractions of the EOS DSLRs is that they use the same lens mount as the EOS film cameras, so one lens can do double duty. Even though I haven't shot any film in a while, I can't imagine leaving it behind forever at this time.

    I had a look at the (film) Rebel T2 today, and I was astounded at how much camera you get for only US$250! Heck, that's the cost of a fair-to-middlin' EF lens.
    A manual-focus slide shooter lost in the world of digicams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •