please review this setupfor a newbie

doug494 · Jan 5, 2009

My wife and I have been reading alot of the past posts. We are buying our first DSLR for family pictures (general variety) and kids sports (soccer and football,so both outdoors) and kids school programs (gym lighting).

This is what I have come up with under $1,000

Canon XTi

Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 EF-S IS Lens
for general purpose use, so I wanted Image Stabilization

Then for sports either

Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO

or

Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG IF Macro

3.5 seemed to be as low as I could find without getting into several hundred $$$ for a lens, but these look better than the Canon package version. I am thinking I don't need stabilization for sports, cause I'll be shooting fast. But might miss it if we do any landscape stuff.

Total bill is about $850. So still some room for accessories.

What do you think?

Icould save some with a refurb XTi which comes with a lens but it is not IS

DavidSR · Jan 5, 2009

Hmmm..quick question..why not get the XSi with kit lens which is the 18-55 IS instead of purchasing the XTi (body only) and THEN purchasing the 18-55 IS. It might be slightly cheaper just to buy an XSi kit. Not sure what your reasoning is, but I'm just telling you what I would do.

samal · Jan 5, 2009

if you will go with 18-200, I don't see why would you need the kit lens at all, just get sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 OS with optical stabilization for about 300 - I used one for a while and loved it - took some amazing quality pictures with it.

also, keep in mind that all those lenses are 3.5 at only first few mm of their zooms at 20mm, I think Sigma is already 4.0, 30mm - 4.5, 50mm - 5.0

doug494 · Jan 5, 2009

I have not been able to find an XTi w/ the IS lens. I am trying to stick with more reputable dealers, so not every deal on amazon is for me.

doug494 · Jan 5, 2009

So would I be better served with something like this?

Tamron AF 28-200mm Super Zoom f/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical IF Macro Lens

It doesn't go as low, but it tops out at 5.6 vs 6.3. It is still reasonable in price.

Or for that matter, the standard canon 70-300 which is 4-5.6.

When does the bottom number matter vs the top?

samal · Jan 5, 2009

doug494 said:
So would I be better served with something like this?

Tamron AF 28-200mm Super Zoom f/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical IF Macro Lens

It doesn't go as low, but it tops out at 5.6 vs 6.3. It is still reasonable in price.

Or for that matter, the standard canon 70-300 which is 4-5.6.

When does the bottom number matter vs the top?

if you go with 28 or 24 as your widest angle - I think you will limit yourself when indoors you will not have enough distance for a subject - with crop factor it will be closer to 45mm. 18-24 is very usable range.

the first number is your max aperture at wide angle - shortest zoom, second number is the max aperture at your longest zoom. camera will change you aperture depending on the focal length of your lens at given moment

look at my signature and see if it's a good setup for your needs

ANDS! · Jan 5, 2009

For sports photography, in direct daylight, I would not be concerned with the Aperture so much as overall image quality. You'll be in direct daylight. At worst, you might be shooting at 1/100th of a second at ISO 200.

As someone mentioned, if you do go for the 18-200 lens (which I personally wouldn't recommend), you are making things redundant by going with the kits lens AND the super wide to telephoto lens. Split it up and get a 24-60/70 3rd party lens at F/2.8 and a dedicated telephoto lens (maybe an old school 70-200). You should still be able to come in under budget, epsecially if you are going to get the XTi.

doug494 · Jan 5, 2009

With that lens I was still keeping the 18-55 for gp use.

Why do the experts say I need a 2.8 lens for action, when I will most likely be zooming out and the longest zoom max aperture seems to be the more important number?

gsgary · Jan 5, 2009

Non of the lenses above will cut it in a gym, and soccer and football you will have to wait for the action to come to you

maulrat · Jan 5, 2009

samal said:
if you will go with 18-200, I don't see why would you need the kit lens at all, just get sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 OS with optical stabilization for about 300 - I used one for a while and loved it - took some amazing quality pictures with it.

This is a good suggestion. I picked up my XTi body with a Nifty-50. I now have the Sigma 18-200 and I am absolutely certain that if I had the kit lens, it would be used as a paperweight. I believe the XTi are starting to get phased out so you might be getting a great deal on a new one.

gsgary · Jan 5, 2009

doug494 said:
With that lens I was still keeping the 18-55 for gp use.

Why do the experts say I need a 2.8 lens for action, when I will most likely be zooming out and the longest zoom max aperture seems to be the more important number?

You want the biggest aperture you can get (small Number) to let in as much light as possible to keep the shutter speed high and to blur and rubbish in the background

ANDS! · Jan 5, 2009

Why do the experts say I need a 2.8 lens for action

The larger the aperture, the slower the shutter speed you will need, which will make handholding shots difficult. Plus, we're talking about sports, so you want to be able to freeze the action. At F/2.8 youre not dealing with a very shallow depth of field, while also being able to let in quite a bit of light to be able to use faster shutter speeds. Of course you do have the option of increasing your ISO speed (which a lot of indoor sport shooters do anyway) which also goes to helping you in those situations. However you wont ALWAYS be in a gym, and for general purpose shooting, sometimes you might want the ARTISTIC benefits of a shallow depth of field that a small aperture affords.

Mgw189 · Jan 5, 2009

Just the clarify for you Aperture is like wire. The lower the number the bigger it is. So when you see a low F stop number f 1.4, 2.8 the blades are wide open. As the the f stop number gets bigger f 4, f 5.6 the opening gets smaller allowing less light in. The more light you have when shooting sports the better.

samal · Jan 5, 2009

I had Sigma 18-200 and it is a very versatile lens and it surpassed kit lens by far! it was my carry around lens and I never used kit lens. It does have limitations in low light action photos as it was stated above - I went to circus ones and worked very hard to get 4 usable pictures from 300 shot - event at ISO1600 I had to shoot 1/20 handheld so not much option were given at freezing action or preventing hand shake. after that I upgraded to what you see in my signature: 18-50 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8

both lenses ran 850 combined, used - though I was lucky to find outstanding deals on them.