replacement for XT's kit lens

cactus waltz · Aug 27, 2005

I was looking into getting one of those sexy XT cameras, but after getting discouraged by all the negative reviews on the kit lens, I'm looking for something to replace it with to go with the camera house. What would be your suggestions?

For the matter, I mainly shoot outside photos and portraits, some indoors.

darin3200 · Aug 27, 2005

I would recommend the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Its really cheap and works well.

Meysha · Aug 28, 2005

You know, I don't think the XT's lens is as bad as everyone's making it sound. I find that it's a ***** to focus in low light, and in lots of light as well - just from the way the focusing ring is. But I reckon it works a treat in full sunlight when you can see really well through the viewfinder to check it's right. In low light, I use my USM 35-135 lens that is just a treat to autofocus. I love it.

If you are going to replace it though, can I suggest you look at something on the 'wide' side, because it's a pain in the ass I find to get a wide enough lens for my DSLR.

fadingaway1986 · Aug 28, 2005

I don't think the kit lens is that bad either. I assume the XT is the same as the 300D.

Meysha · Aug 28, 2005

300D = Rebel
350D = Rebel XT

But they both came with the same kit lens didn't they? the 18-55mm?

fadingaway1986 · Aug 28, 2005

Oh. sorry - I meant I assume they came with the same kit lense. I'm not THAT dumb! (okay. i could be...)

Yup. mine is the 18-55 too (300D)

tempra · Aug 28, 2005

The 17-40 L is nice, but a bit pricey - depends on what you want to spend really

John E. · Aug 28, 2005

I tried the kit lense on a borrowed Rebel and I found the vignetting horrific. I found myself taking larger views knowing I would have to crop a large portion out of the picture. The 50mm lense is a must have. Currently I using the sigma 18-125mm zoom lense and it works well for most pictures and not very expensive. One day I hope to purchase a prime wide angle and 200mm lense, but they are rather pricey and beyond my current budget.

thebeginning · Aug 28, 2005

^ditto with the primes.

the 50mm 1.8 is a good idea, but might not offer the flexibility you are looking for. If you want a lens that primarily shoots at the wide end of things, i suggest the tokina 12-24mm f4. If you want an all-around lens, that sigma 18-125 is a good choice. For overall, I suggest the sigma 18-50 2.8 or the tamron 17-35 2.8-4 Di. Both are very nice lenses, and give good results, sometimes even better than canon's 17-40L (minus weather casing, USM, etc.).

amoki · Aug 28, 2005

Keep the 18-55mm lense, IMO. That lense is not too bad at all - I own a D-rebel and the lense is essentially a life-saver. I own the 50mm f/1.8 too, but because it's a prime lense (fixed focal length?) you wouldn't be using it too often unless for night photography (applies to a wedding?), low light condition (large maximum f/) or unless you are those who are keen on shooting with perspective

. Seriously, at 70mm on the XT there's not much you can do with it, because it's no longer a "normal" lense...

Until you can afford yourself something better, you might as well stay put with the lense. . In fact, because 18mm is a wide-angle f.l ... on your D-rebel XT its about 29mm on your camera, minimum. With the magnification factor on the XT, that's probably the best focal length for a budget price (since you're buying the body with the lense). If you opt otherwise, you'll be looking at the 10-22mm USM... which is really pricey. Use the bhphotovideo.com link below to check it out.

Of course, if you can afford an "L" lense, forget everything I've just said about the lense.

Also, if you're doing photography for a living you better not comprimise by using the lense

EDIT - just checked out the Sigma 18-125mm lense. Great lense if you can afford it.I'm only posting on the assumption that you're only shooting for casual.

cactus waltz · Aug 28, 2005

amoki said:
EDIT - just checked out the Sigma 18-125mm lense. Great lense if you can afford it.I'm only posting on the assumption that you're only shooting for casual.

Well, I am shooting for casual - and on a budget. It's mostly a budget question and getting the most out of the money.

Big Mike · Aug 29, 2005

I have that lens, and I don't find it all that bad. I would say that you do get your money's worth with that lens. It's only $100. Sure there are better lenses out there...some are much, much better...but most are much more expensive as well.