Best general overall lense for Canon Xti?

[Leshita]

I am currently deciding between purchasing the Canon Xti with the default lense or just buying the body and getting a separate lense.
I am going to be using the lense for basically everything (some macro, some zoom, general photos of everyday things, special events, etc.) and currently I am just looking for one general lense that is sufficient for all that.

If I were to get a separate lense, which would be the best one to get in terms of price and image quality? Thanks.

[eelfliw]

If you are looking for one single lens that will do macro, zoom, general photos, special events etc. on a SLR, then you'd better get a P&S and save a bundle.

One of many things that makes a SLR different than P&S is the ability to change lenses. But if you'll never change the lens, why bother with SLR?

[Leshita]

I will be changing lenses, but just not in the beginning when I am still experimenting with the camera.
Previously I was just going to stick with the default EF-S 18-55 lens for this purpose, but if I were to get just the body I would want some lens to act as a replacement for the EF-S 18-55 Lens.
Again right now I might as well go ahead with the Xti with the default EF-S 18-55 lens after I find the best price I can get it for.

[NiMSo]

Simply use the kit lens first, then learn its limitations. Based on your experiences, once you have figured out what you desire in a lens (e.g. more reach faster aperture, etc.), you can then upgrade appropriately. I wouldn't suggest buying nicer lenses until you have a better understanding of the equipment and what your needs are.

[cy]

Simply use the kit lens first, then learn its limitations. Based on your experiences, once you have figured out what you desire in a lens (e.g. more reach faster aperture, etc.), you can then upgrade appropriately. I wouldn't suggest buying nicer lenses until you have a better understanding of the equipment and what your needs are.

I agree. The kit lens is more capable than what most people thinks. Once you have mastered the kit lens, your next upgrade is going to be very enjoyable. If you must get another lens, get a Canon 50mm F1.8 to go with your kit lens, since the kit lens doesn't work too well in the low light, and the 50mm should take care of that for you - at a very good price vs performance perspective too.

[goofball]

I agree that you should get the kit lens first. Buying lenses before figuring out your real style gets expensive real quick. The first lens that comes to mind to be a decent replacement with good focal length would be the 17-85 IS but it's not cheap.

I don't recommend you go with the 50mm f/1.8 or another lens until you find that the 18-55 is too limiting. 50mm is an unusual focal length to have on your camera on a full time basis for some. Download Exposureplot and it will show you how often you use 50mm among your pictures. Granted, the kit lens only goes to 55mm so you may be at the max more often than not but it is a handy tool to have at your disposal.

I'm not against the 50mm, I just don't think that it should be a blind recommendation based on price. It's no good to you if you don't find it a handy focal length. I find it too close for indoor work in smaller rooms which tends to be where you might find the kit lens limiting due to it being "slow".

Something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 28mm f/1.8 might be more your style. Or the 50mm focal length might work and you could look into the Sigma f/2.8 macro lens, which is "ok" for indoor work and macro work at the same time.

[nden]

For my experience when I first bought a DSLR, it was a Nikon D70 with a kit lens. I loved it until I found out the kit lens wasn't my need. So I went out and got few lens that I wanted.

For example, I like taking close-up photos, I got a macro lens for it. Or: I like landscape, I went for a wide angle lens.... etc.

Man, lens is hardest choice you will come by. Good luck with your choices.

[cy]

I agree that you should get the kit lens first. Buying lenses before figuring out your real style gets expensive real quick. The first lens that comes to mind to be a decent replacement with good focal length would be the 17-85 IS but it's not cheap.

I don't recommend you go with the 50mm f/1.8 or another lens until you find that the 18-55 is too limiting. 50mm is an unusual focal length to have on your camera on a full time basis for some. Download Exposureplot and it will show you how often you use 50mm among your pictures. Granted, the kit lens only goes to 55mm so you may be at the max more often than not but it is a handy tool to have at your disposal.

I'm not against the 50mm, I just don't think that it should be a blind recommendation based on price. It's no good to you if you don't find it a handy focal length. I find it too close for indoor work in smaller rooms which tends to be where you might find the kit lens limiting due to it being "slow".

Something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 28mm f/1.8 might be more your style. Or the 50mm focal length might work and you could look into the Sigma f/2.8 macro lens, which is "ok" for indoor work and macro work at the same time.

The 50mm is not in a replacement for the kit lens. It is definitely a good prime for beginners (or even some pro have it in their bag) if they want to try out the primes without spending $400+ just to see whether they like to use prime.

The prime makes a VERY good portrait lens for beginners as well:
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/13.JPG
Indoor, bad lighting, ISO 1600, 1/125, F1.8, XTi

Prime is another aspect of photography, and regardless, for the price of $100 or under, it's being well regarded as one of the best lens for the value. It's almost a must have, unless you do have loads of money to spend on a prime just to try it out, then you can skip this and go for other ones.

[cy]

I agree that you should get the kit lens first. Buying lenses before figuring out your real style gets expensive real quick. The first lens that comes to mind to be a decent replacement with good focal length would be the 17-85 IS but it's not cheap.

I don't recommend you go with the 50mm f/1.8 or another lens until you find that the 18-55 is too limiting. 50mm is an unusual focal length to have on your camera on a full time basis for some. Download Exposureplot and it will show you how often you use 50mm among your pictures. Granted, the kit lens only goes to 55mm so you may be at the max more often than not but it is a handy tool to have at your disposal.

I'm not against the 50mm, I just don't think that it should be a blind recommendation based on price. It's no good to you if you don't find it a handy focal length. I find it too close for indoor work in smaller rooms which tends to be where you might find the kit lens limiting due to it being "slow".

Something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 28mm f/1.8 might be more your style. Or the 50mm focal length might work and you could look into the Sigma f/2.8 macro lens, which is "ok" for indoor work and macro work at the same time.

The 50mm is not in a replacement for the kit lens. It is definitely a good prime for beginners (or even some pro uses it) if they want to try out the primes without spending $400+ just to see whether they like to use prime.

The prime makes a VERY good portrait lens for beginners as well:
http://www.chrisyiu.com/images_personal/DSLR/13.JPG
Indoor, bad lighting, ISO 1600, 1/125, F1.8, XTi

Prime is another aspect of photography, and regardless, for the price of $100 or under, it's being well regarded as one of the best lens for the value. It's almost a must have, unless you do have loads of money to spend on a prime just to try it out, then you can skip this and go for other ones.

Having that said, with your "recommendation" of replacing the kit lens with the 17-85, I don't see how "good" it is. The 17-85 suffers horrible distortion at the wide end, slow, and the IS will give you a stop quicker but not to help you freeze action. Don't you need to find out what he shoot before you suggest him that?

[goofball]

The 50mm is not in a replacement for the kit lens. It is definitely a good prime for beginners (or even some pro have it in their bag) if they want to try out the primes without spending $400+ just to see whether they like to use prime.

The prime makes a VERY good portrait lens for beginners as well:
Indoor, bad lighting, ISO 1600, 1/125, F1.8, XTi

Prime is another aspect of photography, and regardless, for the price of $100 or under, it's being well regarded as one of the best lens for the value. It's almost a must have, unless you do have loads of money to spend on a prime just to try it out, then you can skip this and go for other ones.

I never said it was a replacement for the kit lens. I never even said that it wasn't a good lens. I just said that the focal length may not suit and at that point, what good reason is there to have a lens that won't get used, regardless of whether it only cost $100?

Most macro lenses are prime lenses as well. They could just go that route instead and have a lens that does double duty.

All I'm saying is that to blindly recommend a lens just because it is cheap isn't very good. I can count on one hand the number of times my 50mm has been on the camera in a year. Hardly a good way to spend $120 (Nikon is more expensive), wouldn't you say?

[cy]

I never said it was a replacement for the kit lens. I never even said that it wasn't a good lens. I just said that the focal length may not suit and at that point, what good reason is there to have a lens that won't get used, regardless of whether it only cost $100?

Most macro lenses are prime lenses as well. They could just go that route instead and have a lens that does double duty.

All I'm saying is that to blindly recommend a lens just because it is cheap isn't very good. I can count on one hand the number of times my 50mm has been on the camera in a year. Hardly a good way to spend $120 (Nikon is more expensive), wouldn't you say?

Sorry, to me, if i use the lens a few times and gave me good pictures, that's already worth it. Especially for $100. If you find $100 is too much, maybe you are not in the market of DSLR :lol: I am very positive that the OP will have some family members or friends that he wants to take pictures of, and I can bet you ANYTHING that the 50mm will give him a better result than the kit lens. On top, that is definitely one of the most suggested lens around and ultimately it's up to the OP to try it out in store and see whether he likes it.

Having that said, 50mm is one of the most popular focal length, and if one were to try prime, the 50mm f1.8 would most likely to be the case without breaking the bank. 50mm is the focal length of a human's eye sight, that's why it's also easy to work with. I have recommended this to countless of people and they've all been happy.

On the other hand, the 17-85 recommendation you have made is way off since you want the OP to spend $450-500 on a lens without knowing what he shoot?

What lenses you use? I would laugh if you tell me a kit lens.

[goofball]

Sorry, to me, if i use the lens a few times and gave me good pictures, that's already worth it. Especially for $100. If you find $100 is too much, maybe you are not in the market of DSLR :lol: I am very positive that the OP will have some family members or friends that he wants to take pictures of, and I can bet you ANYTHING that the 50mm will give him a better result than the kit lens. On top, that is definitely one of the most suggested lens around and ultimately it's up to the OP to try it out in store and see whether he likes it.

Having that said, 50mm is one of the most popular focal length, and if one were to try prime, the 50mm f1.8 would most likely to be the case without breaking the bank. 50mm is the focal length of a human's eye sight, that's why it's also easy to work with. I have recommended this to countless of people and they've all been happy.

On the other hand, the 17-85 recommendation you have made is way off since you want the OP to spend $450-500 on a lens without knowing what he shoot?

What lenses you use? I would laugh if you tell me a kit lens.

Why would it matter if I did use a kit lens? The photographer is still the most important aspect of photography. I can take beautiful pictures with a POS camera.

50mm is very popular, I'm not debating that. We're not here to talk about what is popular though, are we? What works for you and me and other's isn't what might work for this other person. 50mm on a full frame is normal. 50mm on an APS-C sensor is not normal FOV.

17-85 gives a beginner a longer focal length along and IS. I've easily recommended Nikon 18-200VR as first lens for most first time Nikon DSLR users, is that also a mistake? Not everyone wants to have to change lenses. On an XTi, this equates to 27-136mm in 35mm terms, a very popular focal length for most coming from standard P&S camera's (5x zoom). They said what they shot in their original post.

[cy]

Why would it matter if I did use a kit lens? The photographer is still the most important aspect of photography. I can take beautiful pictures with a POS camera.

50mm is very popular, I'm not debating that. We're not here to talk about what is popular though, are we? What works for you and me and other's isn't what might work for this other person. 50mm on a full frame is normal. 50mm on an APS-C sensor is not normal FOV.

17-85 gives a beginner a longer focal length along and IS. I've easily recommended Nikon 18-200VR as first lens for most first time Nikon DSLR users, is that also a mistake? Not everyone wants to have to change lenses. On an XTi, this equates to 27-136mm in 35mm terms, a very popular focal length for most coming from standard P&S camera's (5x zoom). They said what they shot in their original post.


If you dont' want to change lens, go back to P&S. Thanks.

Bottom line is, i am making an suggestion, you are too. Don't get at me for making a suggestion that is not the same as what you have in mind. I have plenty of reaosns to support mine, and so do you. That's what I am trying to tell you.

Now i will leave this thread alone. Enjoy your kit lens goofball.

[goofball]

If you dont' want to change lens, go back to P&S. Thanks.


I never said I didn't want to. If you read the OP's post, they are saying they wanted a general purpose lens. They also said what they would like to do with it too. Clearly they state that they would like some zoom. Yes, you can foot zoom with a prime but there's not always room to foot zoom.

Bottom line is, i am making an suggestion, you are too. Don't get at me for making a suggestion that is not the same as what you have in mind. I have plenty of reaosns to support mine, and so do you. That's what I am trying to tell you.

I never said that they should never consider 50mm lens. I just said they need to see if the focal length suited them. I said this before you posted and I'm still saying it now. Remember, you came at me first ;)


Now i will leave this thread alone. Enjoy your kit lens goofball.

I never admitted or denied I have a kit lens (I still don't see the relevance to the kit lens point...) but it seems like you don't really read the posts thoroughly anyways.

Now let's all just get along. :cheesygri

[KorruptioN]

What lenses you use? I would laugh if you tell me a kit lens.

Now i will leave this thread alone. Enjoy your kit lens goofball.

You've now established yourself as a gear-wh0re who cares more about the hardware in the configuration rather than the images it can produce. You're branding all kit lenses as being bad and absolute garbage, when that is simply not true.

Canon's kit 18-55mm is indeed built quite poorly, but stopped down a few stops certainly helps sharpness. Same goes for Nikon's 18-55mm kit. Your logic would also dictate that Nikon's 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 "kit" lens is trash as well. Far from it - this walkaround is well-built and very sharp for the money. Pentax's 18-55mm kit has a de-coupled AF motor so you can manually override focus at any time. Not bad at all for a kit lens.

If the OP gets a 50mm f1.8 prime lens that you suggest, but has no idea how to use it, "how do I zoom out?", then it is $100 wasted for the sake of having a cool lens and adding to the elitist gear-wh0re factor.

No L, no care, right?

[cy]

You've now established yourself as a gear-wh0re who cares more about the hardware in the configuration rather than the images it can produce. You're branding all kit lenses as being bad and absolute garbage, when that is simply not true.

Canon's kit 18-55mm is indeed built quite poorly, but stopped down a few stops certainly helps sharpness. Same goes for Nikon's 18-55mm kit. Your logic would also dictate that Nikon's 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 "kit" lens is trash as well. Far from it - this walkaround is well-built and very sharp for the money. Pentax's 18-55mm kit has a de-coupled AF motor so you can manually override focus at any time. Not bad at all for a kit lens.

If the OP gets a 50mm f1.8 prime lens that you suggest, but has no idea how to use it, "how do I zoom out?", then it is $100 wasted for the sake of having a cool lens and adding to the elitist gear-wh0re factor.

No L, no care, right?

If you are really into this discussion, you should have read where i said "kit lens is a very capable lens". On top, all i did is to make a suggestion, i didn't force him to buy. Having that said, I bet you didn't know in the early photography age, there's only primes but no zoom? It is actually very critical to learn how to use a prime soon or later as they do provide better quality. At which point did I talk about L lens? As a matter of fact, I own only 1 L. It is also proven that L lenses provide better quality (most of the time), even tho their marketing is over hyped.

I feel like i am arguing with a bunch of kids. For real, i'll just leave this section alone. Kiddos just like to bite on people that owns L, sigh.

*un-subscribing it - heading back to a forum with adults in it*

[KorruptioN]

If you are really into this discussion, you should have read where i said "kit lens is a very capable lens". On top, all i did is to make a suggestion, i didn't force him to buy. Having that said, I bet you didn't know in the early photography age, there's only primes but no zoom? It is actually very critical to learn how to use a prime soon or later as they do provide better quality. At which point did I talk about L lens? As a matter of fact, I own only 1 L. It is also proven that L lenses provide better quality (most of the time), even tho their marketing is over hyped.

I feel like i am arguing with a bunch of kids. For real, i'll just leave this section alone. Kiddos just like to bite on people that owns L, sigh.

*un-subscribing it - heading back to a forum with adults in it*

Then why are you bashing it all while bashing goofball at the same time? You'd laugh if he told you he primarily used the kit, and told him to enjoy his kit lens as an end to your flamebait filled post? It certainly wasn't a positive post, I know that for a fact.

You're making terrible assumptions - assuming I don't know anything about primes and zooms? To be fair, I made an assumption about you as well. There are lots of people out there who will bash the kit lens just because it is the kit lens, in an effort to try and justify their expensive L-glass purchase. That sounded a lot like you, so I brought it up as an assumption.

There are plenty of mature adults with good knowledge here. Damaging information is frowned upon everywhere you go, so please stop. Gear-whores who like to bite on the kit lens, don't let the bandwagon leave you behind :rolleyes:

[demi2004]

I am currently deciding between purchasing the Canon Xti with the default lense or just buying the body and getting a separate lense.
I am going to be using the lense for basically everything (some macro, some zoom, general photos of everyday things, special events, etc.) and currently I am just looking for one general lense that is sufficient for all that.

If I were to get a separate lense, which would be the best one to get in terms of price and image quality? Thanks.


I've posted a few pictures in here,taken with 24-135 Tamron and 10D. I doubt there's anything cheaper or better(it's all for sale btw:) )
here's unedited(except the crop and proof) photo. it's 100% crop!

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9903/819844ly5.th.jpg (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=819844ly5.jpg)

[shervin2]

I say go and try out the new superzooms available, like the Sigma 18-200 OC, or the Tamron 18-250, good bang for the buck if your not a professional photographer and you dont like spending money on lenses.

Personally? My choice is to sell off the XTi and get a Canon G9 Point & Shoot, man the things you can do with that tiny ass camera...

[KorruptioN]

I say go and try out the new superzooms available, like the Sigma 18-200 OC, or the Tamron 18-250, good bang for the buck if your not a professional photographer and you dont like spending money on lenses.

Personally? My choice is to sell off the XTi and get a Canon G9 Point & Shoot, man the things you can do with that tiny ass camera...

The Tamron 18-200mm (and 18-250mm) both exhibit really bad bokeh. It is distracting and far from "creamy". I guess it is one of the compromises of a compact superzoom. The 18-200mm has a plastic mount (still).

The G9 is still pretty useless at higher ISO values. At least they added the RAW capture function.

[NiMSo]

The Tamron 18-200mm (and 18-250mm) both exhibit really bad bokeh. It is distracting and far from "creamy". I guess it is one of the compromises of a compact superzoom. The 18-200mm has a plastic mount (still).

I doubt the OP's concerned about bokeh quality at this stage. The superzooms seem to be a good all-in-one solution for casual usage, and would be a good choice for a beginner. Also, nothing wrong with plastic mounts - anyways, it's not like Rebels are built like tanks themselves.

[KorruptioN]

Agreed. I have personally never liked superzooms, but they are useful for what they are and are decent for the market they target. That said, a $500+ lens shouldn't be limited to a plastic mount...

[CameraBill]

I'm a believer of primes for a 1st lens. To me getting the exposure right is more important than zooming in.

[goofball]

I'm a believer of primes for a 1st lens. To me getting the exposure right is more important than zooming in.

I don't see the relation between primes and getting the exposure right, in relation to using a zoom instead? :confused: Regardless of the lens type (fixed focal length vs zoom), getting the exposure right is important?

[silly]

Back to the OP's post

I would recommend Canon's 28-135 IS zoom lens,

It is a general all purpose lens for some, it is a very versatile lens with a good focal length range plus it has image stablizer for the times you may need it when you dont have the shutter speeds you want - especially when you're at the longer focal lengths.

You can find it used or close to new for around $450ish

What I really like about it, ring USM for fast and silent focusing + image stabilizer and the zoom range.

[goofball]

Back to the OP's post

I would recommend Canon's 28-135 IS zoom lens,

It is a general all purpose lens for some, it is a very versatile lens with a good focal length range plus it has image stablizer for the times you may need it when you dont have the shutter speeds you want - especially when you're at the longer focal lengths.

You can find it used or close to new for around $450ish

What I really like about it, ring USM for fast and silent focusing + image stabilizer and the zoom range.

Good recommendation. 28-135mm is more of a classic 35mm film range though because on digital APS-C sensors, it is not very wide FOV which may deter some. That is where the 17-85mm fills in because on digital APS-C, FOV is 27-135mm in 35mm equivalent. It depends on if wider angle is needed than 45mm.

[CameraBill]

I don't see the relation between primes and getting the exposure right, in relation to using a zoom instead? :confused: Regardless of the lens type (fixed focal length vs zoom), getting the exposure right is important?

ungh my brain wasn't turned on. What I meant was that primes give you more latitude as to what ambient lighting conditions you can get your pictures in. In the process you learn about controling and getting the exposure right.
I find it so painful taking indoor pictures with incandesent lighting with a f3.5 lens. I'ld take that 50 f1.8.

[goofball]

ungh my brain wasn't turned on. What I meant was that primes give you more latitude as to what ambient lighting conditions you can get your pictures in. In the process you learn about controling and getting the exposure right.
I find it so painful taking indoor pictures with incandesent lighting with a f3.5 lens. I'ld take that 50 f1.8.

That is true, you do get the opportunity for more pictures with a wider aperture lens but you also have to learn to control DOF as it is pretty thin at f/2 and wider, though that also depends on the usual parameters (focal length, distance to subject).

Indoors, I still find the 50mm too tight though that might have just been me. Yes, it is cheap and all that but I wasn't able to frame the shot I wanted, so it didn't help me get the right shots. I backed into walls several times and as much as I wanted to push the wall back, I couldn't. Didn't allow for very candid party photos, which was what I was going for.

I prefer a wider lens indoors. Something like the 35mm f/2 (1/3rd stop slower but still very good) or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (2/3 stop faster than the 50mm f/1.8). True, they do cost 3-4 times as much but I'd rather pay that than not get the shot. Even as a nice walkabout, the 35mm is pretty close to standard FOV on APS-C sensors.

It does all depend on what works though. If 50mm is good enough, then it is good enough. It is a good lens at a cheap price. If only all primes could cost this little

[silly]

That is true, you do get the opportunity for more pictures with a wider aperture lens but you also have to learn to control DOF as it is pretty thin at f/2 and wider, though that also depends on the usual parameters (focal length, distance to subject).

Indoors, I still find the 50mm too tight though that might have just been me. Yes, it is cheap and all that but I wasn't able to frame the shot I wanted, so it didn't help me get the right shots. I backed into walls several times and as much as I wanted to push the wall back, I couldn't. Didn't allow for very candid party photos, which was what I was going for.

I prefer a wider lens indoors. Something like the 35mm f/2 (1/3rd stop slower but still very good) or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (2/3 stop faster than the 50mm f/1.8). True, they do cost 3-4 times as much but I'd rather pay that than not get the shot. Even as a nice walkabout, the 35mm is pretty close to standard FOV on APS-C sensors.

It does all depend on what works though. If 50mm is good enough, then it is good enough. It is a good lens at a cheap price. If only all primes could cost this little

For me as well 50mm too tight indoors but outdoors it becomes fun :)

28-135 I find a bit too zoomed, so my current walkaround lens became the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 -
I haven't used my 28-135 IS since I got it. I am shocked at the resolution and contrast of this lens. It is one of my favorite lens in my remaining collection (50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4 IS L).

However if I did not own any other lenses, I would get the 28-135 IS :)

Forgot to mention I am using a crop body 30D.

[shinichi]

Here is my suggestion:

1. These are really good lens. You will like it and use it for years.
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L $650ish
OR
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS $1000ish

2.
Prime Lens:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II: cheap! even if you don't like it, it costs less than $100. In the future you can buy 50mm f/1.4 or even f/1.2 L.

I don't think you really need zoom to start with. But if zoom is a must and you don't want to carry more than 1 lens then get this one:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS

[2000fordfocus]

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 I know this guy uses it for majority of his shoot: http://koroshino.deviantart.com/