Lens question for Canon Xti

[goatboy413]

Hey all,

I'm new to the forum. First post actually. I visit several forums and I know most people get irritated by noobie questions that are repeated over and over. I did however try to read several posts but didn't see an answer to my question.

I'm buying a XTi (still debating the XT). I'm wondering what lens would fit me best.

I'm looking to shoot:
Outdoor portraits
indoor portraits
my son
buildings
tree tops
landscapes

A specific shot I want has the object 300-350 yards away lying between two trees that are 100 yards aways. It would be a truly amazing shot.

For the former I was told Canon 28-135 by the guy at the photo store. The latter I just noticed tonight and I haven't mentioned to anyone yet.

Any suggestions for either?

Also what is a good lens for weddings and portraits?

Also is the xti worth getting over the xt? I believe the price difference is $200

 

[Montana]

Hello. I'm a newbie as well, but I have the XTi. The lens most often attached to my camera is a Sigma 17-70mm. Works great wide and good for portraits as well. However, the 350yard shot (depending on many things) may be quite a stretch for this lens. I find myself using my 75-300 quite often as well. I think the lens refered by the photostore would be very practical for you. After shooting with it a few months, you may have a better idea what other lenses you may want to add in the future.

Derrick

 

[Alfred D.]

I'm buying a XTi (still debating the XT).

In your shoes I would also consider the new Canon XSi carefully as well. It has a great review, just released, and considerable advantages over the XTi, it seems.

I'm wondering what lens would fit me best.

I'm looking to shoot:
Outdoor portraits
indoor portraits
my son
buildings
tree tops
landscapes

A specific shot I want has the object 300-350 yards away lying between two trees that are 100 yards aways. It would be a truly amazing shot.

If it is technically/physically feasible.

For the former I was told Canon 28-135 by the guy at the photo store.

The focal length range is about right. Image Quality and the max aperture would be the dealbreakers here for me: that probably means expensive glass!
Thing is, affordable prices = terrible IQ and a max F/stop of 6.3... If I'm lucky.
I don't think there is much choice here. Good glass is simply very expensive. But then you tend to get what you pay for.
But I'll choose quality over price anytime.

The latter I just noticed tonight and I haven't mentioned to anyone yet.

Any suggestions for either?

This sounds like you would need 300mm minimum (35mm equivalent).
That could turn out to be one very expensive photo!
Again: if it is technically/physically feasible at all.

Also what is a good lens for weddings and portraits?

For weddings anything between 28mm and 150mm. For portraits between 80mm and 100mm.
(All in 35mm film equivalent).

Also is the xti worth getting over the xt? I believe the price difference is $200

I wouldn't look backward, to the XT, but forward, to the XSi...

 

[Dao]

What kind of budget do you have for the lenses?

 

[Village Idiot]

OP - ??? You'd need three entirely different lenses. You're list is all over the place. An $80 Canon 50mm f/1.8 would do portraits well for the price, but wanting to do landscapes would mean you'd need a wide angle, like the $500 Sigma 10-20. Then you'd need something at least 300mm for your long shot, and depending on how much zoom you want, that probably won't even be enough.

Of course, I could have just reccomended these:

Canon 10-20
Canon 24-70 f/2.8
Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS

That's only $8300 in lenses.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, letting us know your budget will help to narrow down the options.

When looking at lenses, there are a few things to consider. First is the focal length. That's an easy one. If you want a more distant (narrower) view, then you need a longer lens. If you want a wider view, then you need a shorter focal length.

Then you will want to consider the maximum aperture. This is represented by the F number (ratio) in the name of the lens. The lower the number, the bigger the maximum aperture. A larger aperture has many benefits, including the ability to use faster shutter speeds and to get a shallow Depth of Field.

Then you will want to consider image and build quality. It can be convenient to have a lens that can zoom from 30mm to 300mm...but the image quality is going to be compromised.
Some lenses are designed to be light and less expensive, but the quality usually isn't great. Other lenses are designed to optically fantastic...but they can be very expensive. And of course, price is also part of the equation.

 

[Mav]

Most affordable lenses are perfectly capable of delivering great image quality provided you know how to use them (and your camera) well. For the long shot with the thing 300-350 yards away with the two trees 100 yards away, do you want to include those two trees in the photo too? Somebody whose done geometry in the past 10 years could work that out for you, but the angle of view you'd need to capture that isn't anything out of the ordinary. If you want to zoom right into that object and ignore the two trees, then yeah, you're looking at a ton of money.

 

[goatboy413]

My lens budget is around $500 each.

I want the trees in the shot. The object 350 yards away does not need to be zoomed in on a lot.

Look at it like this. I'm the dot the trees are the o and the object is the O. The object is higher than the trees but looks the same heigth due to the distance. It is feasible for the shot I want. I don't need to be incredibly zoomed in. Just enough for it to be clear as to what I'm shooting at. The object in the background is huge.

. o O
0ft 100ft 300ft

^I think I'll need a decent zoom for this though^

Isn't 75-300 a decent zoom?

Most of "landscapes" will not really need to be wide angle. Well I could be wrong. I'm shooting streams, trees and people. No action. I'm so clueless when it comes to lenses.

I mentioned weddings because I would consider it the same as people acting casual. I'm a casual photographer also.

 

[visualpoetry]

I use the Xti and love it. If you plan on purchasing Canon lenses, the 'EF' lenses will fit your camera body. I definitly suggest purchasing one f/1.8 and the rest f/2.8. Those work best for portraits, in my opinion. Another suggestion, if you plan on purchasing a long focal length lens, invest in the IS (image stabilizer). I have a 200mm lens (canon) and it's SO heavy. It's weight really causes a problem when I am shooting with a long shutter. A tripod will cure that problem, or the IS upgrade.
If you want something more affordable than Canon, check out Tamron. They make some pretty nice lenses that are more affordable.
Yes, 75-300 is a good zoom. Get yourself a handy tripod.

 

[ovjamaica]

Also is the xti worth getting over the xt? I believe the price difference is $200

I just went through this same debate when deciding on a body for my wife. I chose the XT, simply because the differences between the XTI and the XT aren't enough to justify the price difference. You get a larger LCD screen, which is nice, but not necessary. And an additional 2 megapixels. Which really don't matter. Plus the sensor is better at fighting dust.

But the XT is a half-stop more sensitive, which I liked. If you are just starting out and planning on getting good lenses then I would go with the cheaper body. The XT, like many cameras, are quite adequate as long as you know/learn how to use them. Start with the cheap body and better glass, then upgrade the body as the price comes down. The XSI is a nice body, but better glass will help you more than the latest body.

 

[JustAnEngineer]

You might start with the Rebel XSi with the kit EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, add the $89 "nifty fifty" EF 50mm f/1.8 II and then a telephoto lens (e.g.: EF 70-200 f/4L) and a flash.