considering lenses for Canon XTi (novice)

[cshontz]

Lenses that I don't have yet, but I am thinking about buying.

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

The price is right, and I've found that I'd like to have more reach. Plus, I've heard positive reviews that this is a good walk around lens. The thought of having IS is also appealing.

2) Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

The "nifty fifty". Supposedly a dirt cheap prime lens, that even feels cheap, but takes beautiful pictures with nice bokeh. They say you can't afford not to buy this one.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1192/1041208787_eee990f5ba.jpg

I'm not new to taking pictures - I've been a snapshooter for as long as I can remember. But I find I am new to photography. This camera is a whole different ballgame, and I love it. It makes you work for good pictures, but the results are extremely rewarding.

[jeffryscott]

what do you have on there now? what is the budget you are trying to stay within? Those are the first two questions I'd want answers for.

That said, Canon makes three exceptionally good L lenses that have a fixed F4 aperture which I heartily recommend - the 17-40, 70-200 and 24-105. They are reasonably priced, well built, light and optically superb.

[dan chain]

our most commonly used lense is the 28-135mm i/s USM the other favorite would be the 10-22mm wide angle i/s usm, third is our 28-300mm i/s usm even though the last one has a huge range it is just to heavy and expensive for most regular work. So I would definetly look at the 10-22mm wide angle lens, and I always prefer the image stabilized lenses when possible.

[cshontz]

what do you have on there now? what is the budget you are trying to stay within?

I have the 18-55 kit lens on there now. My budget is fairly low - I'd say around $500, which is the approximate cost of the 28-135, and the 50 1.8 is around $75 which should be easy to squeeze in.

For the most part, I don't think I've graduated to L glass yet - and I'm still getting over the sticker shock on those lenses! The 17-40 is almost within reach at $675 (B&H) however, and one that I'll definitely have to consider. Thanks for the suggestions, Jeffry.

[whipp]

I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II and love it, especially for the price.

On the XTi, it will have the equivalent focal length of 80mm, due to the APS sized sensor (focal length factor of 1.6). If you want the 50mm perspective, you'll need to get a EF 35mm lens.

[goodtimes]

I have the 18-55 kit lens on there now. My budget is fairly low - I'd say around $500, which is the approximate cost of the 28-135, and the 50 1.8 is around $75 which should be easy to squeeze in.

For the most part, I don't think I've graduated to L glass yet - and I'm still getting over the sticker shock on those lenses! The 17-40 is almost within reach at $675 (B&H) however, and one that I'll definitely have to consider. Thanks for the suggestions, Jeffry.

If you find that you really enjoy using the dSLR, and expect to use it for some time to come, then do not skimp on the glass. You will grow into it. In the long run, it is cheaper to buy the quality glass now, rather than buy the lower grade parts, then turn around and buy the higher grade stuff later.

My personal opinion (which really doesn't carry much weight with all these uber-experienced photographers around), is that if you already have the 18 - 55mm EF, add lens(es) which will bring new capability to your kit. While the 18 - 55 is not the best lens out there, but it is still quite usable. 90% of the images I take are with that lens. There are days I would like to replace it, but in the end I always decide to add a new capability instead. Since I am not earning a living with my photographs, it is not a big deal if they go soft as I wander away from f/9.0 with the 18 - 55 EF. And it is really nice to have the added ability of the other lenses when the situation calls for it.

As for sticker shock....well, yea. Hard to get around that one. I have seen some good deals here in the 'for sale' section. You might also consider one of the many rental businesses out there. If you want a specific lens for a short period of time (weekend trip, etc), or just to try it out, the prices are not that out of line.

[cshontz]

Now I'm torn. I definitely find myself wanting more zoom, but at the same rate, I'm not really satisfied with my 18-55 lens. I have two complaints: 1) the softness, and 2) underexposed "dark" images.

What I'm not sure about is how much the lens is responsible for images appearing "dark", if at all. Even though the images appear dark, the detail is there in the shadows, and whites aren't overblown. That would tell me its a good exposure, but on the other hand... they just look "dark" overall.

I have been using the camera with the exposure stepped up to 1/3 most of the time, but I've found this to be a little too much in bright sunlight. So in bright sunlight, I leave it at 0, and when cloud cover comes in, or if I'm in the woods, I step it up to 1/3. Its not too much inconvenience because its easy to do - but I still wish I wouldn't have to hop back and forth like this.

Would a higher quality lens such as the 17-40 L remedy this to some extent?

EDIT: For instance, I struggled with this white truck this past weekend.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/1516560998_d4035659b0.jpg

[goodtimes]

Now I'm torn. I definitely find myself wanting more zoom, but at the same rate, I'm not really satisfied with my 18-55 lens. I have two complaints: 1) the softness, and 2) underexposed "dark" images.

I had the exact same problems with my dRebel, which had me thinking the same thing you are. Seriously--same damn thing!

On the issue of being soft, I try to shoot around f/9.0, where that lens is the sharpest. Yes, it reduces some of the capability of the lens, but again, for 95% of the photo's I take, it works well enough to keep me from spending lots of money on a replacement lens.

To resolve the exposure issue, I set my camera to over-expose by 1/3 stop as the default. This has resolved the issue 90% of the time. Just like you, I get some blown out areas in full sun, and some dark shadows when it is cloudy. But those are minor enough that I can compensate for it in Lightroom.

On the subject of Lightroom or Aperture (for the mac geeks) these are great tools for the novice photographer. They give you the ability to tweak the exposure and white balance in the post processing, so you can see the results of those changes. As you spend time doing this, you will notice trends...like all of the images are over/under exposed, white balance being wrong, etc. You can take those trends and modify either how your camera is set up (default settings), or modify how *you* operate, and end up with better images. When I first installed Lightroom early this year, I spent a lot of time in post processing. Now I don't spend 1/4 of the time....they just don't need as much work...in fact, most of them don't need work at all. I credit Lightroom for allowing me to see the trends, and some helpful advice from friends to solve the issues.

After learning to deal with the shortfalls of the 18 - 55 EF lens, I am satisfied enough to not replace it....yet. Eventually, yes ... but there are still other pieces of gear that will make a better addition than a replacement lens....for me anyway.

[pcgb34]

I have the 50mm 1.8 for my XT and love it. Focusing gets a little tough sometimes, especially in Low Light. And the motor is a little bit noisy, but still, for the price, it's fantastic.

Oh, and when you are at 1.8, you will forget just how thin the DOF is.

[esh]

cshontz- filters may help you out, depending on the situation. a graduated ND will help with overcast skies. It seems like the contrast balance/under-over exposure issues trend more to bodies. I have seen shots from 5Ds that would never come out as well on a 20D. Still not worth the extra few grand to me. :)

If you are looking for lenses, I really like the 17-40L.. one of my favorites for what I usually shoot. Another quality "value" lens is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.. 1/3 the price of the canon 24-70L, lighter, and very very close in sharpness. With both those lenses, you won't ever need to worry about the lenses sweet spots- every spot is sweet.

Not a huge IS fan.. it is more of a tool in a bag of tools and has situational use for me- more to do with what you're shooting than using that feature as a selling point.

[cshontz]

For the past couple months, I've been leaning toward the 17-40L. Although I could probably live with the lack of IS, I'm afraid I'll find it too slow when I'm out on the trail in the woods. The weather-sealed construction and build quality are considerable pros, but some have reported the lens to be soft - which is something that I've been wanting to avoid.

Now, just this morning, I read up on the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. People seem to be raving at the IQ and low-light performance of this lens. On the other hand, build-quality is meh, and the assembly is monstrous. Too big for a walk-around lens? The $1,000 price tag is also a little difficult, but if its that good, I could eventually make it happen.

Sooo... I don't know. Any thoughts?

[articulate]

I rented that 17-40L two weeks ago and had a blast. My reaction with wide zooms like this is to simply leave it at 17mm and have a ball, taking advantage of the widest angle.

Of course, I was shooting with a film camera so the wide angle I got was the full shebang. That's what I loved about the lens. I'd take that one over the 17-55 for film use since it's a higher quality lens (arguably). The extra 15mm don't mean much to me for my style and output.

I suspect that you'd be happier with the 17-55, though. :)

Do you have a camera shop nearby where you can rent? That would be ideal.

[nwoods]

I had the nifty-fifty, I had the Tamron listed earlier, and the EF-S 17-85, and the EF-S 10-22mm, and the 17-40mm F4 L

My EF-S 17-85 was extremely useful range initially, but built poorly and suffered from heavy dust infiltration.

In my opinion, the 17-40 L was a very good all around lens, but never had quite the pop I was looking for. The Tameron was an amazing lens. Very sharp and brightt, with excellent saturation. It makes the nifty fify redundant and I never used it after I had the Tameron.

However, the Tameron focus ring action is opposite the Canon action, and I never got used to it. So I sold them all and got a used 17-35 F2.8L and it was terrific. 90% of the shots on my website are with that lens. Eventually, it got a little bit beat up from all the off road use, and I refurbed it and then exchanged it for a new 16-35mm F2.8 MkII L and OMG is it amazing.

Still have the 10-22 and LOVE it though. It takes some really fun shots. It's weird holding it up to your eye, aim at the horizon and thinking that you can see your own shoes. LOVE that huge wide angle shot, and it's terrific for close up portrait shots.

[cshontz]

Still have the 10-22 and LOVE it though.

Today I'm leaning toward the 10-22. It'd open up more shots for me, and most folks seem to love it. I still like the 17-55 IS, but the price point is a little too ambitious right now. Aside from the construction, the 17-40L doesn't seem to offer much of an advantage over other lenses.

I'm loving my 50mm 1.8. :wings:

[pwc]

Take a serious look at the Sigma 18-200. It doesn't have IS, which is annoyig until you get more used to it (I've been spoiled with IS on all my telephoto lenses).
Otherwise it is a really nice lens. My wife kept one on her Xti on a one month trek in Nepal this October. Last october she took my 5D and 24-105 and 100-400 L lenses and she MUCH prefered the smaller setup for an extended trip. No lens changing meant less dust, which was a problem on the first trip.

I don't have her photos handy enough to post right now but will in a bit. The results are great and as I mentioned the most blur is on the long end of the range in lower light when she wasn't being careful. It's in your price range and just might fit the bill.

Personally, having a 5D, I just purchased a 28-300L which is about the same range as the 18-200 on th XTi but WAY heavier. It works quite well. I'm considering getting the 14mmL to accompany it and dump my 16-35L which doesnt' get much use. but that's just me and I'm blabbing

[articulate]

Chris, you kill me with your indecision. :)

You'll probably walk away from all this with a 100-400mm just to make us laugh. So here I go: the 10-22 is nearly a whole new ballgame, but I love wide. Wide wide. Really wide. One of my next lenses shall be a fisheye. I think you'll have fun with that 10-22, and you'll open up some new creative choices.

Ever use pbase.com to search photos based on lens? Check this out, samples of pictures shot with the 10-22 EF-S (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_10-22_35-45_usm)

[cshontz]

Chris, you kill me with your indecision. :)

Although I am notoriously indecisive, not really in this case. I'm just so new to the SLR scene that I'm soaking up info like a sponge, and getting a feel on what lenses people like and why. As a result, I am easily swayed - but I'm having a blast learning! :D

Also, I think the 50mm 1.8 opened my mind a little. I've been thrilled with its performance and it just makes the majority of my shots look more interesting - even the blurry ones. I feel like I've taken a step away from being a "snapshooter" and I'm inspired to try other goofy lenses - like the 10-22... to shoot close, shoot far, to climb and crawl around my subjects, and to find out in how many different ways I can capture this world's essence. (its late, give me a break)

For instance, I give you a row of tacky candy cane Christmas lights. No, certainly not an award winning picture, but... it interests me. I don't know why.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2123541458_c8293bc1e7.jpg

Thanks for the pbase link, Mark. Good stuff! I'm sure I'll go through those pictures pretty thoroughly within the next couple weeks. I do the same thing on Flickr. Whenever I'm curious about a lens, there is always a Flickr group where people discuss and show pictures. That's where I do most of my research.

[cshontz]

I have the funds for new glass! I'm just waiting for the money to move around, and then I'm going to go for it. I'm stoked! :D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-USA/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html

[LJRockstar]

Chris, I just recently got 17-40 "L" lens. I LOVE IT! everything is so much more crisp It has a nice wide angle and a little bit of zoom.

I also have a 70-300 1:4-5.6 IS USM. I find that on a normal basis It rarely comes out of the bag.

I use the 17-40 for darn near everything. I am no Pro, but I can see a BIG difference between it and the kit lens.

Another accessory you might be interested in is:
Battery grip (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/373932-REG/Canon_0211B001_BG_E3_Vertical_Grip_Battery_Holder. html)

It makes tanking portraits so much nicer and gives you more leverage when you have a long lens on. Doubles your battery life, and on top of all that it makes your XTI look like one of the big boys!

[cshontz]

Chris, I just recently got 17-40 "L" lens. I LOVE IT! everything is so much more crisp It has a nice wide angle and a little bit of zoom.

I also have a 70-300 1:4-5.6 IS USM. I find that on a normal basis It rarely comes out of the bag.

I use the 17-40 for darn near everything. I am no Pro, but I can see a BIG difference between it and the kit lens.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the 17-40. I'd love to take a look at it, if you find yourself at OK on a Thursday. Don't go out of your way, though. I just placed my order for the 10-22, so I'm all tapped out again - but I'd still like to upgrade the 18-55 someday.

[\\'anderer]

I bought my wife the 10-22 for Christmas, It is sooo cool, you will love it.

[cshontz]

Finally, my driveway shots will be better than ever! Behold, my first 10-22 picture!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2183/2158749523_5d07dd4b39_b.jpg

I am already ecstatic with the lens. Just kidding about the driveway shots thing, though I do have too many. Now I just have to get out there and take pics. :wings:

[articulate]

Excellent, Chris.

More driveway. I need more driveway.

[PhoenixGSU]

The only canon lenses I have are the two you listed. The 50 is a good fixed lens and the 28-135 is a good walkaround lens.

[cshontz]

The 10-22 is going to require some discipline. Not necessarily the best choice for a 5 year old's birthday party. I am also more aware that wide angle can be misused easily. Do you guys plan most of your shots, or do more "walk around"?

[articulate]

I am also more aware that wide angle can be misused easily. Do you guys plan most of your shots, or do more "walk around"?
Go vertical. Get close. Don't point it straight (parallel with the ground).

The cover shot on Overland Journal Fall '07 is a great example of a wide angle shot with the foreground being very close to the camera (although it's horizontal). The camera is practically pointed downward. Dramatic technique.

The 10-22 allows you to get as close as about 10" I think. That's sweet.

[cshontz]

The 10-22 allows you to get as close as about 10" I think.

Yesterday, when it was time for the pinata, I wasn't that brave!

Thanks for the great advice, Mark!

[LJRockstar]

Hey Chris, are you going to be at OK this thurs? I am going to try and get up there... I NEEED to pick up that pair of wheels that have been sitting there since I was in Moab! I'll bring my Camera gear if you want to take a look.:eek:

[Lost Canadian]

The 10-22 is going to require some discipline. Not necessarily the best choice for a 5 year old's birthday party. I am also more aware that wide angle can be misused easily. Do you guys plan most of your shots, or do more "walk around"?
Play around some more. I have a Sigma 10-20 on my Nikon and I love it now that I know how to use it. I used it almost exclusively over the holidays at various functions and parties, all in doors. What I've come to learn is wide is best used to show perspective, like how the forground and background play off each other. That cover Mark is talking about is a great example, as it really gives you a real sense of distance. Looking at that cover you feel as though you are standing, with rock below your feet, and way off in the distance you can see a truck.

Here's another example, not the best pic but it illustrates what I'm trying to say. You can sense that my dad is close to me and the girls on the other side of the table are not.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/adventurenorth/General%20and%20Travel%20Pics/winter30.jpg

[alvarorb]

I'm on my second dSRL. My first one was the original Digital rebel. At first the lens that it came with felt wonderful. But soon I started to see it's shortcomings. So I upgraded to a 24-105 Canon lens. It is great as an every day lens. I liked it so much that I stopped using the 17-55 all together.

Last year I replaced my Digital Rebel for an XTi and a couple of months later got a 10-22 lens from Canon. Wow, what a difference. Now it's the lens that I use most of the time. I'm super happy with it. Pictures take a whole new dramatic feel when properly used.

Last week my wife and I took a trip through Nevada, Utah and Arizona. Near Page, AZ we stopped to look at the Colorado river and one of it's famous bends, "Horseshoe Bend". While I was taking pics another person with a Canon dSLR started taking pics as well. My wife pointed him out to me and we started talking about cameras. Soon I lent him my lens and he lent me his.

Here is a comparison between his 17-40 and my 10-22.

http://homepage.mac.com/alvarorb/.Pictures/mud/17mm.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/alvarorb/.Pictures/mud/10mm.jpg

I agree with the comment about Aperture/Light Room. With the 10-22 lens it's hard to take pictures indoors with the built in flash. You end up seeing the shadow of the upper edge of the lens on the pictures. What I've been doing lately is to take the picture without a flash and then in Aperture/iPhoto modify the color temperature. I take all my pictures in RAW format.

fredmiranda.com is a site for camera info
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Regards

Alvaro

[nwoods]

The 10-22 is terrific fun, but you have to watch the angles and closeness. It's pretty neat to get up SO close, but you are going to get some funky distortion (parallax error?) as a result unless you are really carefull. As an example:

http://www.nextstepdesigns.com/images/offroving/sedona/Sedona_Album-29.jpg

http://www.nextstepdesigns.com/images/offroving/sedona/IMG_5817

[nwoods]

http://homepage.mac.com/alvarorb/.Pictures/mud/10mm.jpg


Alvaro, that is a really great composition. Too bad about the time of day. If you could have been there around the edges of the day, what a dramatic photo that would have made!

I think your file name of the images speaks volumes. The tighter shot is labeled as 17mm, wheras the wide shot is 10mm. What a difference a few milimeters makes, eh?

[cshontz]

Hey Chris, are you going to be at OK this thurs? I am going to try and get up there... I NEEED to pick up that pair of wheels that have been sitting there since I was in Moab! I'll bring my Camera gear if you want to take a look.:eek:

You bet! If I'm not milling around, I'll probably be up in the conference room. Just ask for me, and they'll either send you up or come get me if I don't see ya first. :)

Thanks for the great advice and samples, everyone. I have actually been ill for all of 2008 so far. Severe sinusitis, I think. Its gross - I just took pills, and then untook them only a short time later. What a waste. Anyway, really excited to mess with the 10-22 in the wild.

[alvarorb]

Alvaro, that is a really great composition. Too bad about the time of day. If you could have been there around the edges of the day, what a dramatic photo that would have made!

I think your file name of the images speaks volumes. The tighter shot is labeled as 17mm, wheras the wide shot is 10mm. What a difference a few milimeters makes, eh?

NWoods,

I got a text message the day before we got to Page, AZ from a fellow cruiserhead who is a professional photographer. He told me about the place and my lens.
Because we had done Antelope Canyon just before, we were there at around noon. We still had 200 miles to complete that day. I would have liked to stay and take more pictures.
I will post the rest of the trip's pics on my blog soon.

Regards

Alvaro

[cshontz]

Hey Chris, are you going to be at OK this thurs? I am going to try and get up there... I NEEED to pick up that pair of wheels that have been sitting there since I was in Moab! I'll bring my Camera gear if you want to take a look.:eek:

Hey Erik, scratch that. I don't think I'm going to make it in on 1/10 because I'm still recovering from being ill. Very likely the next Thursday though! See ya soon-ish!

[LJRockstar]

No worries, see you next week!