My First SLR

[Caladin2]

I am purchasing a Canon EOS Rebel XSi next month. I am looking over lenses. Here is what I have think I will get. Please help me decide if these are right for me. Im looking to spend middle of the road costs.

--

Landscape/Ultra Wide-Angle lenses:
Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG IF Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens $300 Used


General Purpose Walkaround Zooms:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras $455


General Purpose Telephoto Zooms:
Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM $674
or
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens $529

 

[dougp]

You should look into a prime lens, between 30mm-50mm with f/1.7 max. Personally, I'm looking to get a 17mm-50mm f/2.8 or the like, something with a constant aperture is nice to have, it's a big reason why I went with a Minolta beercan over my Sony DT 70-300mm.

The 28-135mm might feel heavy for you walking around.

 

[ElFenix]

28 is a bit long for general use. you'll find yourself running out of room to back up and/or swapping with that sigma. it's a great lens for 135 use but is kinda weird on APS

 

[dougp]

28 is a bit long for general use. you'll find yourself running out of room to back up and/or swapping with that sigma. it's a great lens for 135 use but is kinda weird on APS

He'll probably use the Sigma as a walk around lens - I've found I typically won't go above 50mm and would prefer to shoot wide if I can. I would love to get a 20-28mm prime for my A33 ...

 

[Caladin2]

So you both feel that I should get a "Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens" for example and it would cover me on both the landscape wide angle and general walk around in one lens?

Do you guy have a preferance with those 2 telephotos?

 

[ElFenix]

He'll probably use the Sigma as a walk around lens - I've found I typically won't go above 50mm and would prefer to shoot wide if I can. I would love to get a 20-28mm prime for my A33 ...

yeah that sigma is pretty good for most stuff. 24-50 basically. really useful range there.

OP: maybe you'd consider the canon 15-85 rather than the pair of the 15-30 and 28-135. as long as you're getting the 70-200 or longer then you'll have all your range covered anyway.


the 70-200 is a much better lens critically but does not have IS nor the length. between the two i'd say its a very tough decision. you might want to rent and see which works better for you.

 

[dougp]

So you both feel that I should get a "Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens" for example and it would cover me on both the landscape wide angle and general walk around in one lens?

Do you guy have a preferance with those 2 telephotos?

Only speaking from a Sony standpoint, but the guys on Dyxum think the Tamron 17-50 has better IQ than the Sigma with the same specs - it's sharper without having to step down.

I wouldn't purchase a lens without IS though, especially when it comes to telephotos.

 

[adairusmc]

So you both feel that I should get a "Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens" for example and it would cover me on both the landscape wide angle and general walk around in one lens?

Do you guy have a preferance with those 2 telephotos?

Though I have my copy of the lens up for sale on the forums due to it being replaced that 70-200 F/4 L lens is fantastic IMO. I cant say anything about the other, as I have never used it.

 

[twistedlogic]

Do you guy have a preferance with those 2 telephotos?

Is there a reason you need F4 on the telephoto end?

The Canon 55-250mm IS a great bargain for general telephoto use. Pair it with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and you've only got $700 invested and 17-250mm covered. You could always use a flash, it's cheaper to make light than buy fast glass, .

 

[speg]

Are you coming from a strong photography background or will you be a n00b?

 

[GoSharks]

28-135mm on crop is not "General Purpose Walkaround."

 

[Sp12]

1. Why the Xsi? You could use CLP to get the T2i or a Nikon D3100 (or a Pentax or Sony a33) with quite a few more features/performance for not much (any?) more.

2. The 28-135 isn't really a general purpose walkaround, it's just an awkward lens. I'd probably opt for the Canon 18-55 kit lens or a Siggy 2.8 version. For the telephoto the Tamron 70-300 VC is much nicer than the Canon 70-300 and costs less to boot. For the landscape a Tokina 11-16 or Siggy 10-20.

One option to consider is condensing your landscape and general purpose needs into one lens with the EF-S 15-85.

Actually, what's your budget and intended shooting conditions?

 

[dougp]

Is there a reason you need F4 on the telephoto end?

The Canon 55-250mm IS a great bargain for general telephoto use. Pair it with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and you've only got $700 invested and 17-250mm covered. You could always use a flash, it's cheaper to make light than buy fast glass, .

Forced f/4 at 300mm is helpful if you're shooting indoors or wildlife that's in shadows, etc. Typically going below f/4 on a telephoto lens, you are looking at a LOT of money.

 

[Madwand1]

Landscape/Ultra Wide-Angle lenses:
Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG IF Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens $300 Used

General Purpose Walkaround Zooms:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras $455

This much combined cost puts the EF-S 15-85 within reach. I'd get that instead. 15-85 is a great range on a crop for a general purpose lens -- it's like a 24-135 on a FF.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef-s_15-85_review.html

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=1

 

[Kanalua]

I second the EF-S 15-85mm...great starter lens, great walk around lens. You can sell if you decide to upgrade to a full frame body.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Go for the 55-250 instead of the 70-300. You will get better IQ and IS in a smaller, lighter package with only 50mm missing on the long end. If you went for the 70-200 then I would not try to talk you out of it, but the 70-300 simply doesn't deserve to be in the running, period.

Also you can pick up a 28-135 for like $300 used, AFAIK. $350, max. These are/were kit lenses for the XXD models for a long time and just aren't well-suited to crop bodies. I would go with the 18-55 IS over the 28-135 for a walkaround any day. 15-85, even better. I have the 24-105 for my full-frame 5D and love the extra couple of mm on the wide end.

 

[4x4expy]

So you both feel that I should get a "Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens" for example and it would cover me on both the landscape wide angle and general walk around in one lens?

Do you guy have a preferance with those 2 telephotos?

Short answer for the Tamron question is Yes. It's a fine lens and at a bargain price. The Canon 15-85IS is a decent little lens but I would only consider it if I could get it WAAYY cheaper than the Tamron 17-50, and I don't think that's gonna happen. I've owned this lens in Canon mount and own the Nikon mount version now since I no longer shoot Canon.

In regards to the 2 telephotos, there really isn't a bad choice there. You get what you pay for. The 70-200/4 L is a better lens any way you slice it, but it costs a bit more. You'll never regret the $ you spend on it. The 70-300IS is no slouch and well worth it's price. You'll love it too. Only possible regret is that you may wish you had spent the extra $ on the 70-200. For this focal range, I would stick with your Canon choices. There isn't a great 3rd party lens to steal the show the way the 17-50 above does for the wide end.

I always recommend adding a simple and cheap 50 f1.8 to the mix for some cheap low light and shallow DOF shots. It's amazing the images that come from this $90 lens.

 

[Sp12]

Short answer for the Tamron question is Yes. It's a fine lens and at a bargain price. The Canon 15-85IS is a decent little lens but I would only consider it if I could get it WAAYY cheaper than the Tamron 17-50, and I don't think that's gonna happen. I've owned this lens in Canon mount and own the Nikon mount version now since I no longer shoot Canon.

The Tamron would definitely be my pick for an inexpensive wide-normal 2.8 lens, but the 15-85 is a different sort of class (very wide zoom range variable aperture lens). They're not comparable lenses. It (along with the EF-s 17-55 IS and 60/2.8 Macro) have been called the EF-S Ls. All are certainly in a different price range than the Tamron, which is why it would be my choice.

In regards to the 2 telephotos, there really isn't a bad choice there. You get what you pay for. The 70-200/4 L is a better lens any way you slice it, but it costs a bit more. You'll never regret the $ you spend on it. The 70-300IS is no slouch and well worth it's price. You'll love it too. Only possible regret is that you may wish you had spent the extra $ on the 70-200. For this focal range, I would stick with your Canon choices. There isn't a great 3rd party lens to steal the show the way the 17-50 above does for the wide end.

I would argue the new Tamron 70-300 VC does. Beats the 70-200L on the short end, does slightly worse (but still better than the Canon 70-300) in the mid, and beats the 70-300 overall at the long end (where the 70-200 doesn't go). TDP's copy isn't even as sharp as most of the later Tamrons to be produced. It costs less than the Canon 70-300 (and by extension, 70-200L), has it beat on IQ, and has it beat on build/features, with better IS, USM-motor, non-rotating front element, parfocal focusing, and more solid construction. One big advantage of the 70-200 is the constant aperture.

I always recommend adding a simple and cheap 50 f1.8 to the mix for some cheap low light and shallow DOF shots. It's amazing the images that come from this $90 lens.

Very strong recommendation. One alternative I like to bring up is getting an old manual 50mm lens+adaptor. SMC Takumars (F/1.4) and old Zeiss F/2s are often in this price range. If you can live without AF this is a cheap way of getting some very high quality prime glass.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

For a first SLR, you are getting alot of stuff. Why not get 2 lenses and see what your likes/dislikes are?

That's the route I went and I am next getting a $90 prime lens instead of $500 on a Sigma which I considered at first.

 

[Caladin2]

Are you coming from a strong photography background or will you be a n00b?

Im a noob

 

[Caladin2]

1. Why the Xsi? You could use CLP to get the T2i or a Nikon D3100 (or a Pentax or Sony a33) with quite a few more features/performance for not much (any?) more.

2. The 28-135 isn't really a general purpose walkaround, it's just an awkward lens. I'd probably opt for the Canon 18-55 kit lens or a Siggy 2.8 version. For the telephoto the Tamron 70-300 VC is much nicer than the Canon 70-300 and costs less to boot. For the landscape a Tokina 11-16 or Siggy 10-20.

One option to consider is condensing your landscape and general purpose needs into one lens with the EF-S 15-85.

Actually, what's your budget and intended shooting conditions?

I choose that camera because I work with some people who recommend it as they use it. I looked over the 60D, the 50D, and the TI2/3 but I was always under the impression that a camera should be about shooting pics and not not shooting pics and vid. Keep it simple I guess. Maybe my approach is wrong. I am open to suggestions.

Well I'm trying to keep the $ to a min but I don't want to try to save a dime and get a crap lens either. I'm new to dslr cameras and have always taken pics with my point and shoot but I am and will be taking alot of trips (Sking, Camping, water sports, rock-climbing, etc.) this year and for the as long as my ability allows so I though It would be nice to have some memory's on film. Pardon my poor spelling.

 

[Caladin2]

For a first SLR, you are getting alot of stuff. Why not get 2 lenses and see what your likes/dislikes are?

That's the route I went and I am next getting a $90 prime lens instead of $500 on a Sigma which I considered at first.

2 lens works for me as long as it covers what I need.

 

[4x4expy]

..

The Tamron would definitely be my pick for an inexpensive wide-normal 2.8 lens, but the 15-85 is a different sort of class (very wide zoom range variable aperture lens). They're not comparable lenses. It (along with the EF-s 17-55 IS and 60/2.8 Macro) have been called the EF-S Ls. All are certainly in a different price range than the Tamron, which is why it would be my choice.

I guess my post sounded harsh toward the 15-85. Canon really did fix what the originally blew with the pathetic 17-85mm performance. The 15-85 offers a great FL range, and high image quality throughout. But it is still a variable aperture zoom (f3.5-5.6). For me that makes it most closely comparable to the 18-55IS kit lens, which of course is inferior to the 15-85, but still the closest thing in the Canon lineup. So the $700 or so price tag is out of range for this lens IMO. The 17-50 Tamron trails but is closest in performance to the 17-55IS in the Canon lineup, totally a different class of lens from the 15-85.

I would argue the new Tamron 70-300 VC does. Beats the 70-200L on the short end, does slightly worse (but still better than the Canon 70-300) in the mid, and beats the 70-300 overall at the long end (where the 70-200 doesn't go). TDP's copy isn't even as sharp as most of the later Tamrons to be produced. It costs less than the Canon 70-300 (and by extension, 70-200L), has it beat on IQ, and has it beat on build/features, with better IS, USM-motor, non-rotating front element, parfocal focusing, and more solid construction. One big advantage of the 70-200 is the constant aperture.

I'm glad some are happy with the Tamron 70-300, but for proven performance, reliability, durability, and resale value, I would stand by the 70-200/4L.

 

[ElFenix]

I would argue the new Tamron 70-300 VC does.

that's pretty darn nice. $400 it's difficult to beat that with a stick.

 

[twistedlogic]

I'm glad some are happy with the Tamron 70-300, but for proven performance, reliability, durability, and resale value, I would stand by the 70-200/4L.

True, but the L lens costs 1.5X as much. The Tamron offers VC (IS) and +100mm more focal length, so depending on his use it might be a better fit. Plus the Tamron is not WHITE, screaming "steal me", he he.

that's pretty darn nice. $400 it's difficult to beat that with a stick.

Yeah I've also read from the Nikon side that it exceeds the 70-300 VR in image stabilization and optical quality. I know when Tamron announced this lens every one was , but it has made a name for itself.

2 lens works for me as long as it covers what I need.

You haven't listed what you need to shoot, which is understandable as you are just now starting. What are your interests? Portraits, landscapes, Macro, Astor-photography, photo journalism, wildlife, sports?