need rebel xt buying help

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so i just did the calculations and determined that even on dell's best day, after sales tax it only matches the price buydig.com has all the time.

so should i get rebel with kit lens and the 100mm f/2.8 macro or 100mm f/2.0
or the rebel with no kit lens and the 17-85mm IS
?

Originally posted by: randomlinh
mmm... 100mm macro is niiiiice. but in your case, i'd lean more towards the 17-85 IS, much more versatility

any others? $1100 is about my price limit at the moment

 

[tfinch2]

Do you already have any Canon lenses? Don't you shoot film IIRC?

 

[DBL]

Why would you condsider the 100mm f/2 lens along with the kit lens? 100mm on a 1.6x crop body is too long for most general phtography and too short for telephoto work. You would be much better starting with the 17-85IS, which is a fantastic lens, and saviing for a macro lens later. In the meantime, you can buy some extension tubes and a cheap 50mm 1.8 lens and have macro capabilitites as well as available light and one of the sharper lenses available.

 

[Czar]

start with 17-85is
or 24-105 but thats probably too expensive

and, dont bother with the kit lense

and, get the 50mm f1.8, cheap and gooooood, very very good

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Do you already have any Canon lenses? Don't you shoot film IIRC?

i have the rebel 2k's kit lens and the 50 f/1.8 II, which is the lens i use most of the time. i've also got some FD mount lenses for an AE-1 program

 

[ElFenix]

i wanted the 100 f/2.0 because it should be a very good portrait lens. plus it'd work with the film camera

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i wanted the 100 f/2.0 because it should be a very good portrait lens. plus it'd work with the film camera

In that case, look at the 85mm f/1.8. Better compromise as the 100mm on a 1.6 body is a bit long for portraiture.

 

[tfinch2]

If I were you, I'd keep the 50mm f/1.8, use the 18-55 kit for wide, and get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and a flash.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
If I were you, I'd keep the 50mm f/1.8, use the 18-55 kit for wide, and get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and a flash.

this one?

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tfinch2
If I were you, I'd keep the 50mm f/1.8, use the 18-55 kit for wide, and get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and a flash.

this one?

It's cheaper here but yes.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...REY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

It's one of the best bang for the buck lenses from Canon. Fast and quiet focus with USM.

The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens, but you're limited with it's focal length making it pretty much useless for anything besides portraits.

You can see samples taken with the lens here:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_28105_35ii

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
If I were you, I'd keep the 50mm f/1.8, use the 18-55 kit for wide, and get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and a flash.

Personally, in that case I'd drop the kit lens and get the 17-85IS. That lens is better than both of the lenses you list, has IS and covers almost the whole range.
The only issue is the 17-85 will not work on your film camera.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: tfinch2
If I were you, I'd keep the 50mm f/1.8, use the 18-55 kit for wide, and get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and a flash.

Personally, in that case I'd drop the kit lens and get the 17-85IS. That lens is better than both of the lenses you list, has IS and covers almost the whole range.
The only issue is the 17-85 will not work on your film camera.

While IS is great, and the range is great, the lens is too slow and has wicked barrel distortion at the wide end.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: tfinch2
If I were you, I'd keep the 50mm f/1.8, use the 18-55 kit for wide, and get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and a flash.

Personally, in that case I'd drop the kit lens and get the 17-85IS. That lens is better than both of the lenses you list, has IS and covers almost the whole range.
The only issue is the 17-85 will not work on your film camera.

While IS is great, and the range is great, the lens is too slow and has wicked barrel distortion at the wide end.

Big deal unless you are shooting architecture. Besides, this is one of the easier things to fix in Photoshop. What 5x zoom does not have any barrel distortion at its widest setting?
The lens is only a bit slower overall and the IS should easily make up for this in many circumstances. No zoom in his price range is going to be fast anyway.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: tfinch2
If I were you, I'd keep the 50mm f/1.8, use the 18-55 kit for wide, and get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and a flash.

Personally, in that case I'd drop the kit lens and get the 17-85IS. That lens is better than both of the lenses you list, has IS and covers almost the whole range.
The only issue is the 17-85 will not work on your film camera.

While IS is great, and the range is great, the lens is too slow and has wicked barrel distortion at the wide end.

Big deal unless you are shooting architecture. Besides, this is one of the easier things to fix in Photoshop. What 5x zoom does not have any barrel distortion at its widest setting?
The lens is only a bit slower overall and the IS should easily make up for this in many circumstances. No zoom in his price range is going to be fast anyway.

Meh, there is no point in arguing. Some would rather have the 17-85mm, I'd rather have the 28-105mm with a flash. :beer:

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Meh, there is no point in arguing. Some would rather have the 17-85mm, I'd rather have the 28-105mm with a flash. :beer:

True. It's just that I started out with the 28-135IS and a 10D and quickly realized how limiting 28mm on a 1.6x body is.

 

[ElFenix]

ok, so the kit lens and the 28-105 would give a greater overall range and be slightly faster than the 17-85. but the 17-85 has IS and a slightly better useable range without changing lenses.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ok, so the kit lens and the 28-105 would give a greater overall range and be slightly faster than the 17-85. but the 17-85 has IS and a slightly better useable range without changing lenses.

Just like 28-135 range is considered optimal for 35mm , the 17-85 is considered optimal for a 1.6x body. The 17-85IS only exists b/c it is a perfect match to a cropped sensor DSLR. Having the extra 11mm on the wide end is going to be infinitely more useful than the extra 20mm on the long end.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ok, so the kit lens and the 28-105 would give a greater overall range and be slightly faster than the 17-85. but the 17-85 has IS and a slightly better useable range without changing lenses.

Just like 28-135 range is considered optimal for 35mm , the 17-85 is considered optimal for a 1.6x body. The 17-85IS only exists b/c it is a perfect match to a cropped sensor DSLR. Having the extra 11mm on the wide end is going to be infinitely more useful than the extra 20mm on the long end.

right but the kit lens goes down to 18 and is faster at 18.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i wanted the 100 f/2.0 because it should be a very good portrait lens. plus it'd work with the film camera

In that case, look at the 85mm f/1.8. Better compromise as the 100mm on a 1.6 body is a bit long for portraiture.

agreed... I thought you wanted the macro work more for some reason.. heh. I love my 85mm f/1.8... unfortunately, I really don't need it since I don't ever really do portrait work. But it's such a nice freakin' lens, I can't bear to let it go.

 

[aiex]

To be honest it really depends on what you want to shoot. I mainly shoot landscapes and as such the 17-40L is my primary lens. It is wide enough for almost anything on a 1.6 FOVCF body and will work on your old film camera. Colours are vibrant and its sharper then any of your other alternatives. I use a 50mm f/1.4 for any portrait work although the 17-40 also works well for that with flash.
Let us know what you intend to be shooting most and we may be able to help more.
Aleex

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DBL
Just like 28-135 range is considered optimal for 35mm , the 17-85 is considered optimal for a 1.6x body. The 17-85IS only exists b/c it is a perfect match to a cropped sensor DSLR. Having the extra 11mm on the wide end is going to be infinitely more useful than the extra 20mm on the long end.

right but the kit lens goes down to 18 and is faster at 18.

Irrelevant.

f/3.5 is 1/3 stop faster than f/4 which is a pretty small difference. The 17-85 is a MUCH better lens. It's noticeably sharper all-around, has IS, which easily negates (and then some) the slight speed difference at the wide end, is much better built, has FTMF (full time manual focus, goes 1mm wider (which is closer to 2mm on a 1.6x crop body) and 30mm longer (48mm on a 1.6x crop). The only real advantage the kit lens has is size weight and of course price, which is a legitimate concern for some.

I've had the 17-85 (I sold it when I bought my 24-105L) and I have used the kit lens on my friend?s rebel. There is a world of difference between the two lenses.

 

[PHiuR]

get the 17-85 zoom or a tamron 28-75/ sigman 24-70.(will work with your film body)