Canon Help Needed

herheart · Apr 30, 2007

Hello. If anyone can help me with this I will be extremely grateful!

I'm planning to buy the Canon XTi and am not sure if I'm making the right decision on my lens choices. Because of my love for macro, I want to get the Canon 100mm Macro. For everything else, (landscapes, beach, trees) I was thinking of getting the 28-135 IS. Already thats about $1600 which is high considering what I wanted to spend, which was $1000. (Using Bhphoto.com) Are there better buys for my money? After countless hours of reading, I am still lost, any suggestions?

TheOtherBob · Apr 30, 2007

If you wanted to cut the price down, you could consider getting the XTi (or XT) as a kit with the 18-55 lens, and then a macro lens (the 100mm Macro seems nice, but I've never used it).

It sounds like you want some more wide-open shots (landscapes and such) as well as the macro. The kit lens setup would give you the 100mm to do macro and some longer shots - but would also give you a wider zoom for landscapes than you would get from the 28-135 (the 28-135 on an XTi means that you get a 28mm times a 1.6 crop = effectively 45mm. That can be a bit tight for wide shots). Opinions differ, but I really like my kit lens. (Though, as a total and utter newbie I may just not know enough to be able to tell the difference.)

As for what may be an off-the-wall suggestion (from a complete noob), I have a 50mm 1.8 prime lens - and I take all kinds of macro shots with it. You have to get fairly close - and the minimum focusing distance means you can't get too too close - so it's a little limiting. But it's also, like, $80 - and I've liked the results so far.

Iron Flatline · Apr 30, 2007

The 100mm macro is a real joy. You will be very happy with it.

Aquarium Dreams · Apr 30, 2007

The 50mm 1.8 lens is a very good, versatile lens. On the Xti it makes a good portrait lens as well. I have that and I use extension tubes (about 200 USD) for macro photography. The kit lens is alright. I hated it at first, but if you set it between f8 and f11 it's sharp enough. With xti, plus kit lens, 50 1.8, and macro tubes, you'd be within your price range, and that's a pretty good kit to start with. Another lens I like to pimp is the Sigma 70-200mm, with its macro switch. You get half as much magnification with that as with the macro lens you're looking at, but extension rings will improve that. Canon's 100mm macro lens looks dreamy, but I wouldn't recommend the 28-135 with the xti, for the reason theotherbob mentions.

EOS_JD · Apr 30, 2007

Why not look at the 17-50 f2.8 Tamron lens. Fast enough for use almost anywhere.

DSLR noob · Apr 30, 2007

If you want a REAL cheap way to do macro, you can affix a lens to your camera backwards with rubber bands like I did.

This is the ribbed edge of a quarter with the kit lens.

CBRfanatic · Apr 30, 2007

yea, ive been doing the reverse lens shots for a little while now too. I just dont do enough macro shots yet to warrant the price of some macro lenses. So i opted out and bought a reversing ring. Allows me to mount my lens backwards without rubber bands :wink:

some rings even allow control of aperture, but they cost as much as extension tubes.

herheart · May 1, 2007

Thank you everyone for your input. I think I will go with first getting the 100mm macro and after learning more what I want, decide between the 28-125 and Tamron 17-50.

250Gimp · May 1, 2007

Just to put in my two cents here, I have an Xt with kit lense and the 28-135 IS, as well as some other lenses. If you like landscapes at all, or even group shots without much room you will find that 28mm is not wide enough. In those cases I use the kit lense stopped down a bit and it works well.

As for macro, I use the 50mm f1.8 with extension tubes and it does a fine job, but you will have to be closer than with the 100mm macro (I lust after that one). Here is a link to a pic taken with the 50mm and extension tubes.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78617&highlight=macro

Cheers

herheart · May 1, 2007

Thank you for sharing! That actually does a nice job. I wonder how much of a difference there is from your equip and using the actual 100mm macro lens?

250Gimp · May 1, 2007

I think one difference is that you can be further away from the subject with the 100mm macro. Since I don't own one I am taking a bit of a guess, but maybe someone else can chime in.

The reason I use my set up is purely for money reasons right now. Eventually I hope to get the 100mm macro, which is also supposed to be a great portrait lense as well, just with slower focussing.

Cheers

herheart · May 2, 2007

Ok I'm DEFINITELY getting the macro 100mm but I think I'm going to go with the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]. I've decided to go with that because I want wide angle. Is this a good choice? Everything together with the camera will cost $1583.

250Gimp · May 2, 2007

Sounds like you will have a nice kit. I have heard the Tamron is a good lense. BigMike got one earlier this year and he really likes it. Here is the link to his original thread.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72007&highlight=tamron