Canon XTi/400D

[SKORPI0]

Got this last month.

So far its a nice upgrade to the Rebel/300D I had for the last 2 1/2 years. I need a better all around lens than the one that came with it. Budget is <$500. What would you get if you were in my shoes.

 

[imported_Mike]

17-85IS is a nice "walk around" lens. 17-40 F4 L is also extremely popular...for good reason.

 

[Brainonska511]

I have an XT myself and at the moment, I have a cheap Sigma 28-70 f/2.8-4 lens instead of the kit. This summer, I plan on getting two lenses: a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 (~$300, has a $10 rebate till 8/31) and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (~$360, has the same rebate). I thought about getting the Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens, but it doesn't seem like it would be good for some indoor stuff and it is slightly more money at around $400. But going with only a 28-xxx lens is probably not a good idea since you'll lose a lot on the wide-angle.

 

[drifter106]

Hello,


FYI...

This website may be something that you want to look at. Many people say the 17-85IS does a pretty good job and provides them with adequate photographs. If I may be so bold and make this statement....If it was me I would try my best to stretch my funds out and get the canon 17-55IS. L quality glass and can be had right now for less than $900. They compare the IQ, color and saturation of this lense to be equal to the big L's, the 24-70 and the 24-105IS. I would consider it an investment....Canon lenses hold their value real well. Just my $.02.

Website...POTN


This website have provided me with a TON of information and has given me directions to good deals on quality items.

good luck!!

John

 

[Jawo]

I've been debating over what general use lense I should get. I got the 70-300 IS USM when I purchased the XTi, but been just recently decided. I was looking at the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Canon 17-55 IS USM, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I would like to get the 17-55 IS USM, but at ~$1,000 its a little expensive for me at this time. The debate came down to f/4-5.6 w/ IS or f/2.8 w/o IS. After reading extensively about each, I decided on the Tamron since it has better optics then the Canon, and is cheaper ($450 vs $520). The Canon also has some extreme "pin cushion" effect at 17mm and possibility of some horrible CA.

Very helpful review sites: Photozone, Fred Miranda

 

[Slitherythesnake]

Originally posted by: drifter106
Hello,


FYI...

This website may be something that you want to look at. Many people say the 17-85IS does a pretty good job and provides them with adequate photographs. If I may be so bold and make this statement....If it was me I would try my best to stretch my funds out and get the canon 17-55IS. L quality glass and can be had right now for less than $900. They compare the IQ, color and saturation of this lense to be equal to the big L's, the 24-70 and the 24-105IS. I would consider it an investment....Canon lenses hold their value real well. Just my $.02.

Website...POTN


This website have provided me with a TON of information and has given me directions to good deals on quality items.

good luck!!

John

QFT; I also "splurged" on the 17-55mm and it is a fantastic lens. Granted, it took me two copies to get a good one (first one backfocused and had inconsistent focusing on my XTi). It's worth the $1000 you pay for and as drifter said, these lens retain value very well. I know I'll be using mine for many years to come. If the 17-55mm is indeed out of your range, I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, the new Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 that has a 1/3 macro, or the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8 with a 1/2 macro capability. And one last note, try the lenses before you purchase.

 

[ElFenix]

tamron 17-50 f/2.8. hands down the best lens over that range for that money.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
tamron 17-50 f/2.8. hands down the best lens over that range for that money.

I've got the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and is an awesome lens as well. Very sharp. I've got 12-24 covered with another lens and some people like a little wider than 28mm. But I find this range very useful.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: ElFenix
tamron 17-50 f/2.8. hands down the best lens over that range for that money.

I've got the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and is an awesome lens as well. Very sharp. I've got 12-24 covered with another lens and some people like a little wider than 28mm. But I find this range very useful.

28 isn't wide on a canon crop body. in fact, it's about as normal as you can get (a normal lens on a canon crop body would be 26.7 mm).

i pair my 28-75 with a sigma 10-20, and i miss that chunk of range a lot. some of the most useful photography occurs in that area. with a 12-24 you're not missing quite as much as i am.

 

[effekt]

It's a toss up between

Tamron 17-50

or

Sigma 17-70



The sigma gives you a bit more range, but is built less durable. For the money my vote is for Tamron.

 

[Mrvile]

Tamron 17-50 or 28-75, depending on what range you prefer. I would probably get a Tamron over any equivalent Sigmas because the Tamrons within that range have better optics. As long as you can handle the lighter build (which I'm sure you can, considering you got a Rebel ), the Tamrons are GREAT lenses.

 

[jamesbond007]

The Tamron 28-75 was my first 'serious' lens that I bought. Sporting a fixed f/2.8 aperture, a great focal range, and spectacular optics for the price, it was my most-used lens. For me, the focal range makes for a great portraiture lens, walk-around (although perhaps a bit long sometimes on a 1.6x crop body like your XTi), and just a plain ol' fun lens.

I just ordered a 24-70L a couple days ago, so I will be parting with my beloved Tamron. If you're interested in this lens (sharp copy, can provide samples) PM me and we can work out a deal. I also have a Hoya S-HMC Pro1 67mm UV filter on this lens that has been on since day 1 that I will include.

Happy shooting!
~Travis

 

[beatle]

Another vote for the 17-85 IS. It'll be a nice upgrade from the kit lens. You'll love the IS. When you realize its limitations, then consider buying the 17-55. I find myself wanting a bit more speed out of my 17-85, but I don't want to give up the reach, so I'm keeping it.