New Glass

[Chad Murphy]

I was looking into getting a new lens. I like to do some action shots but also like landscape. I was thinking of a telephoto lens. I have a Canon Rebel Xt with a polarizer and a nd filter. Which lens do you think is right for me? I was also thinking about selling the kit lens which is a 18-55mm. How much do you think I could get for this? I really like the fisheye effect but I'm not sure its appropriate for all my photos and may be nice as second glass.

 

[MikeR]

I replaced my kit lens with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (awesome lens and reasonable at less than $450)and also have a Tamron 70-300. The 70-300mm is a low cost lens but performs better than the Canon equivalent in the same price range (slightly more expensive). I had shot Superbike races with the 70-300 and it did a fine job.
However the Kit lens is a decent lens to start with (its value is about $100) Check out my website,all images on it were shot with either the kit lens or the 70-300

 

[montresor]

I'd hang on to the kit lens as a backup. You never know when the big zoom will decide to slip out of your fingers and hit the pavement.

 

[sublimelbc]

sigma 18-50 2.8 is great.

 

[Big Mike]

I replaced my kit lens with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (awesome lens and reasonable at less than $450)

I did the same, I'm glad I did. Great lens.

I still haven't sold my kit lens yet...it's not really worth it. It would be hard to get more than $50 for it...and for $50...it's a pretty good little lens.

As mentioned, there are plenty of 75-300 lenses avaliable. They are pretty good when there is enough light. A better telephoto is going to cost three to twenty times more...so it depends on your budget.

You might want to consider a fast prime lens. The Canon 50mm F1.8 is as cheap as they get...and is a pretty good lens. The Sigma 30mm F1.4 to top quality for a decent price. The Canon 85mm F1.8 is a great lens for a decent price as well.

 

[cjm]

This is a question that all depends on how much you are looking to spend.

If you can afford thousands, then of course the answer is probably a 24-105 f4 IS L and a 70-200 f2.8 IS L. Or my personal favorite a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS L. All three of those Canon lenses are simply wonderful.

But if you are on a budget, then the best budget lenses are the 17-40 f4 L and 70-200 f4 L that are around $600 US used.

If that is still too much, the Canon 70-300 IS and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG are very good choices. The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG and Tokina 12-24 f4 lenses are also very good choices.

The EFs 18-55 has a resale value of around $70 US.

 

[bakuretsu]

One of the less frequently mentioned benefits to saving up for L lenses is that they all (with very few exceptions) have the same bayonet diameters, meaning you can buy ONE ND filter, ONE circular polarizer, and be set. That's important if you want to buy top-of-the-line B&W filters that can cost hundreds on their own.

I have had nice luck with Sigma lenses, but I would encourage new buyers to physically try the lenses in a store to get a feeling for them and to read reviews pitting them against comparable Canon lenses. My only Sigma lens now is the 105mm macro, which is extremely slow and noisy to focus, but I use it in manual mode 99% of the time and its optics are nearly L quality (it's the previous revision of the lens, which received very nice optics reviews).

I haven't been impressed by the build quality and focusing speed/noise of Tamron lenses, though, so it's a matter of what sacrifices you're willing to withstand for the price break you undoubtedly receive.

The Canon 70-200 f/4L that Chris mentions is a fantastic lens, and now you can also get it with IS. I do own the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and can vouch for its superb build quality and performance.

Be careful getting into EF-S lenses that will be completely worthless if you upgrade your camera body later to a pro-am model such as the 5D or one of the pro models. There are few demonstrable benefits to EF-S lenses beyond price and I would personally avoid them.