one walk-around lens

[mapgirl]

I've FINALLY decided on a Canon Rebel XTi. Thank you to all who helped with advice. Big Mike and others are absolutely right, that, after research, economics, and soul-searching, you've got to get the darned thing in your hands and see how it feels.

HOWEVER, now I'm driving myself nuts with lenses. If at all possible, I'd like to stick to one, basic walk-around lens for financial reasons and "L" lenses are out of the question right now. I mostly shoot nature and travel (people as well as plants). I've been considering Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4 II usm and the 28-135 or maybe 24-80? Or even the kit 18-55?
HELP! There IS such a thing as too much information, and I'm at that point. Advice?

 

[keith204]

I REALLY liked the 28-105 and 28-135.

I'd stay away from the 18-55 unless you just need a cheapo to get a wide angle for now.

Look at the Sigma 18-200. A lot of people really like it; I've used it, but not enough to give you a personal opinion.

 

[Big Mike]

How about the 17-85 IS? It's nice and wide, which I think is important with these cameras and it's got a nice focal range. Plus, it has IS, which is nice.

 

[Sideburns]

you will not be happy with the kit lens. Not really sharp at any focal length...

 

[mapgirl]

How about the 17-85 IS? It's nice and wide, which I think is important with these cameras and it's got a nice focal range. Plus, it has IS, which is nice.

I don't know how I skipped over that one. Thank you! But I have (yet another ) question:
I just Googled more info about the lens and found this: " Equivalent to a 28-135mm lens" huh? Could you or someone explain?

 

[Big Mike]

Oh no...the dreaded 'Crop Factor' :twisted:

OK, here's the deal. 35mm SLR film cameras have been the standard for many years. The Digital SLR cameras are based on the format of the film cameras and they basically use the same size of lenses. The main difference between the film & *most* of the digital models (besides the obvious film vs digital) is the size of the medium. 35mm film is 24mmx36mm...the sensor in your DSLR is somewhat smaller.

Because the sensor is smaller, the image coming into the camera is 'cropped'. When looking into the viewfinder, you only see the middle portion of the image.

Now, because 35mm film is the standard, the camera companies (and everyone on the internet) use that as a comparison.

So if you were used to using a 35mm film camera and having a 50mm lens....that same lens would be 'cropped' when used on your digital camera...and would compare to an 80mm lens on a film camera. The factor for your camera is 1.6 times.

So when you see that the 17-85mm is 'equivalent' to a 28-135mm lens...that is just a comparison to the old standard that was 35mm film. Don't worry about it at all.

 

[mapgirl]

Oh no...the dreaded 'Crop Factor' :twisted:

OK, here's the deal. 35mm SLR film cameras have been the standard for many years. The Digital SLR cameras are based on the format of the film cameras and they basically use the same size of lenses. The main difference between the film & *most* of the digital models (besides the obvious film vs digital) is the size of the medium. 35mm film is 24mmx36mm...the sensor in your DSLR is somewhat smaller.

Because the sensor is smaller, the image coming into the camera is 'cropped'. When looking into the viewfinder, you only see the middle portion of the image.

Now, because 35mm film is the standard, the camera companies (and everyone on the internet) use that as a comparison.

So if you were used to using a 35mm film camera and having a 50mm lens....that same lens would be 'cropped' when used on your digital camera...and would compare to an 80mm lens on a film camera. The factor for your camera is 1.6 times.

So when you see that the 17-85mm is 'equivalent' to a 28-135mm lens...that is just a comparison to the old standard that was 35mm film. Don't worry about it at all.

:hail:
Ooooh. Now I get it. I used to shoot film with an slr, so this does make sense to me, but I had no idea about the cropping. So THAT's why 50mm didn't seem like the 50 view I was used to.
Thank you again! You are indeed a patient man :mrgreen:

 

[Don Simon]

Mike's last post is probably the best and clearest explanation of "crop factor" I've seen.

Sticky it I say, sticky!

 

[strick]

I am really diggin the Tamron 28-75 I got. That is going to become a great all around lens for me

 

[keith204]

I am really diggin the Tamron 28-75 I got. That is going to become a great all around lens for me

That just doesn't seem like much of an "all-around" lens. Glad you like it, probably a sharp lens. I used a 24-70 for awhile, and it didn't seem wide enough, or far enough...seemed like a short range.

Mapgirl, listen to Big Mike's advice on that 17-85. It's super! I bought mine (US version) for like $469.ish at www.sigma4less.com. I've purchased several lenses there, and they've treated me right.

 

[strick]

I guess "all around lens" may not be the best dscription, but "walk around" would fit (I am not sure why I chose the former ).

 

[daybreak]

does anyone have any experience with the Tamron 18-250mm (for digital SLRs) ? it has a 4.5 star review rating over 15 reviews. I imagine it would be a good walk-around lens if it's as good as the reviewers are saying it is.

Link:
Tamron 18-250mm (for digital SLRs) Canon Mount

 

[usayit]

One of the best bang for the buck non-L lenses in the canon line (IMO) is the 28-135mm IS. My cousin loves that lens and his prints are pretty darn good. The only thing lacking would be on the wider focal ranges on a cropped body.

 

[Don Simon]

does anyone have any experience with the Tamron 18-250mm (for digital SLRs) ? it has a 4.5 star review rating over 15 reviews. I imagine it would be a good walk-around lens if it's as good as the reviewers are saying it is.

Link:
Tamron 18-250mm (for digital SLRs) Canon Mount

If you want a more in-depth review, Photozone have one. It looks pretty good for what it is. I haven't used this one but have used Tamron super-zooms before and they have always been good for what they are, which is a relatively inexpensive lens for covering a vast range of focal length. The main problems you encounter will be when using either extremes of the focal length, as 18mm will suffer from very significant distortion, and resolution and general image quality will be pretty low by 250mm. Sticking with the more moderate lengths in between, it should perform ok.

Personally I wouldn't buy it, as I am willing to carry two or more lenses in exchange for better quality, but if you really have to have a single lens covering a 13x range then the Tamron is probably as good as you'll get.

 

[keith204]

Mapgirl, what's your budget?