Lens for Xti (Canon 400D)

tja · Jun 4, 2007

Hi all,
Hope everyone is having a wonderful time at TPF. I am new to this forum and what to be an active part of it.

I am planning to buy a Canon Rebel XTi (400D) and was wondering the lens I need to buy with that. I am used to clicking SLRs (my dad had one) and consider myself a serious amature.

I have kind of decided on the focal length I would require for my day to day shooting needs and I feel a range of 24 105/130 would be kind of ideal. I would at a later day buy a telescopic and a wide angle lens as I improve my skills and have the money. Now, this leaves me with 2 choice; the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM and the Canon 24 -135 f3.5 5.6IS USM.

I know the L series is in a different league than the other but as it costs almost $600, I was wondering if the investment would be worth it. Knowing that the XTi has a 1,6 crop does it make sense to invest in the L series. Is the difference in picture quality worth the $600? Is there any other lens which have similar spec and that I should consider.

Thanks guys ..I think I will be spending way too much time on this forum.

Take care
aditya

Big Mike · Jun 4, 2007

Welcome to the forum.

Firstly, do you fully understand the 'crop factor'? 24mm to 70, 105, 135mm etc. is the 'normal' range when using a 35mm SLR or 'full frame' digital. However, because of the crop factor, 24mm isn't nearly as wide on something like the XTi, as it is on film. If you understand this, and still want somthing in that range, that's OK...just be aware of what you are getting.

For lenses in that range, the two best are the 24-70 F2.8 L and the 24-105 F4 L IS. Being L lenses, they are top of the line and are optically superb...they are built very tough as well. The 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS, is a mid range lens. It is good but not fantastic.

Personally, for that camera, I would recommend a wider lens. Something that starts at 17 or 18mm. The usual kit lens is 18-55mm, the next step up (in the Canon line) is the EF-S 17-85 F4-5.6 IS (basically the 'digital' version of the 28-135 IS). The problem with these lenses, is that they are 'slow'...as in they don't have a large maximum aperture. For this reason, I went out and got myself the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (already having the kit lens and 17-85 IS). The large aperture of F2.8 is a big advantage...even though it doesn't have IS.

The best lens in this range is the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS...it's rather expensive but has a large aperture and IS...and it said to be practically as sharp as an L lens.

EOS_JD · Jun 4, 2007

Big Mike said:
Welcome to the forum.

Firstly, do you fully understand the 'crop factor'? 24mm to 70, 105, 135mm etc. is the 'normal range when using a 35mm SLR or 'full frame' digital. However, because of the crop factor, 24mm isn't nearly as wide on something like the XTi, as it is on film. If you understand this, and still want somthing in that range, that's OK...just be aware of what you are getting.

For lenses in that range, the two best are the 24-70 F2.8 L and the 24-105 F4 L IS. Being L lenses, they are top of the line and are optically superb...they are built very tough as well. The 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS, is a mid range lens. It is good but not fantastic.

Personally, for that camera, I would recommend a wider lens. Something that starts at 17 or 18mm. The usual kit lens is 18-55mm, the next step up (in the Canon line) is the EF-S 17-85 F4-5.6 IS (basically the 'digital' version of the 28-135 IS). The problem with these lenses, is that they are 'slow'...as in they don't have a large maximum aperture. For this reason, I went out and got myself the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (already having the kit lens and 17-85 IS). The large aperture of F2.8 is a big advantage...even though it doesn't have IS.

The best lens in this range is the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS...it's rather expensive but has a large aperture and IS...and it said to be practically as sharp as an L lens.

mike said it all really.

24-105 f4L IS has a 35mm equivalent range of 38.8mm-168mm. Great range although not particularly wide. One stop slower than the 17-55 (or 24-70) but a great lens nonetheless and well worth the increased price.

The 17-55 f2.8 IS has a 35mm equivalent range of 27.2-88 and that f2.8 aperture along with the IS makes this one hell of a lens.

tja · Jun 4, 2007

The point is well taken guys. Thanks for the advice; it has really helped me to rethink my choice.

The only problem is that I will not be investing in a lens for quite some time and I would really would want to have a little more zoom. What do you think about the EF-S 17 – 85 F4-5.6. I know it is a little slower but what do you’ll feel about the image quality and other aspects of the lens?

The second question is that I was looking out for the best price. Quest4Cameras and Regal Cameras seems to be giving the best deals. Has any one shopped from any of these places? Has anyone had bad experiences?

Let me know ..
Thanks once again
Aditya

Big Mike · Jun 4, 2007

The 17-85 IS, is a pretty good lens. It's built well, has USM focus, has IS, has a good range of zoom. It's major downfall, for me anyway, is that the maximum aperture isn't big enough for some situations. For general shooting, it's pretty good...the IS, really does help. IS won't help to freeze moving subjects in lower light (people in a church)...which is why I went with the Tamron.

If this lens fits your budget, then I would certainly recommend it.

Be very careful if you are just looking for the lowest price. Check www.resellerratings.com before placing any orders.
I would recommend B&H or Adorama, both of which can be found on links at the top of the page.

Garbz · Jun 4, 2007

tja said:
The only problem is that I will not be investing in a lens for quite some time and I would really would want to have a little more zoom.

That's a trade-off really. The fact is the best lenses are the fixed focal ones. The next best thing normally has a very short zoom range. If you look at all of Nikon's IF-EDs or Canon's L series lenses rarely do you find one with more than a 4x zoom, and those with the 4x zoom are usually the bottom of the top of the pack quality wise.

I know a few cases of Nikon users who have bought the 18-200mm only to find they weren't very happy with them.