Rebel XTi Must have lenses?

Rick Meyer

Rick Meyer

Veteran
Hey all-

Lets talk gear...

I am pretty sure I am about to get a Rebel Xti. Can any one out there with this camera or one of its predecessors suggest a few MUST have lenses. I borrow my girlfriends Rebel XT all the time and she has one zoom lens (which is okay) and the stock lens. Neither option blows me away. Though the image quality of this camera does....

Any suggestions? Whats in your must-have kit? or wish list even?

Thanks!
Rick
 
I have a 30D, nevertheless this camera uses the same lens as the Rebel. I bought my camera about 6 months ago. I chose the 17-85 IS lens for my 30D. I highly recommend this lens for a basic lens. It has the commonly used focal range. plus the big bonus I mean big ...is the image stabilization function. I have shot night shots at very slow shutter speeds hand held and the IS system is fantastic. Also the image quality you get from the glass is very good. Eventually I will pick up some of the other great glass but for the time being I am finding the versatility of this lens adequate.
 
For starters, a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 are really great lenses. You get very sharp images, amazing bokeh and they are well suited for low-light photograpy.
 
Nice. Thanks guys. Yesterday, I did in fact get the XTi. Good times. Good times. I will definitely check those lenses out!
 
rlm7189 said:
Nice. Thanks guys. Yesterday, I did in fact get the XTi. Good times. Good times. I will definitely check those lenses out!
Click to expand...

Anyone have any luck with the 60mm? I've been looking hard at that one for a macro...

Rick
 
I'm looking for a slightly longer lens. The stock lens is great for closer shots, and I have a WD from my ex-GL1 that works for wide shots, but... I often find myself wanting to shoot something that is a ways off, and don't get the shot I want. I picked up a fairly cheap 85~125 or so, and it was great- when it worked. Closer shots had a beautiful dof, long shots were nice and close. But, it had some issues, sometimes working, sometimes not. Needless to say, it went back, and I've been looking for another ever since.
 
Remember the 1.6 "mag factor" when considering any lens for the XTi, 30 D etc.......

I'm a big fan of Sigma Lenses.... and I have a 28-70 2.8.... Sigma didn't have a
24-70 2.8 when I bought my 1st DSLR and would love to have it instead of mine.
I also have a 70-200 2.8 which I LOVE. and it's my main lens... I will not buy any lenses slower than a 2.8 because of the commercial work that I do as the smaller DOF is what I and my clients are looking for. The only prime lenses I have is a Canon 20mm 2.8 and I only use it with my full frame 5D (no mag factor) ....Now if I get another lens it would be the Canon 85 1.8
 
Hey thanks for the info guys. This is very useful for me and whomever else stumbles along this thread.

I searched for a comprehensive LENS thread but I couldn't find one. It seems all the good LENS advice is buried deep inside other threads.
 
I agree with the 50mm 1.8. I think I picked mine up for around 79 bucks from the local store, so cheap there's really no reasoon not to have one. They are pretty sharp, but I find the 1.8 starts to get good stopped down to 2.8 or more, full open it's a bit soft. I also have the 20mm 2.8, great lens as well. My next purchase will probably be a 70-200 2.8L lens, they're pretty spendy though, but EXTREMELY nice. Buying good glass in my opinion is better than worrying about your camera body- so spend the dough now, because these lenses will be with you for a long time, they never get out dated, so buy good glass the first time around. The good news is that the Canon glass holds its value really well, so if you decide to sell, you'll get a pretty good price. Here's my dream list of useful canon lenses:

16-35mm 2.8L
50mm 1.8 (or 1.4, OR the super nice 1.2L)
85mm 1.2
70-200mm 2.8L (there's also a 4.0L which is about 1000 dollars cheaper, but you're sacrificing the speed of the lens. The glass is still good, it just depends on if you could live with a 4.0, which is usually fine for daytime shooting)

Also, sometimes you can find the older 80-200mm 2.8L lens, they are tack sharp, but they lack the ultrasonic auto focus of the newer lenses....
 
PDX_DVX said:
I agree with the 50mm 1.8. I think I picked mine up for around 79 bucks from the local store, so cheap there's really no reasoon not to have one. They are pretty sharp, but I find the 1.8 starts to get good stopped down to 2.8 or more, full open it's a bit soft. I also have the 20mm 2.8, great lens as well. My next purchase will probably be a 70-200 2.8L lens, they're pretty spendy though, but EXTREMELY nice. Buying good glass in my opinion is better than worrying about your camera body- so spend the dough now, because these lenses will be with you for a long time, they never get out dated, so buy good glass the first time around. The good news is that the Canon glass holds its value really well, so if you decide to sell, you'll get a pretty good price. Here's my dream list of useful canon lenses:

16-35mm 2.8L
50mm 1.8 (or 1.4, OR the super nice 1.2L)
85mm 1.2
70-200mm 2.8L (there's also a 4.0L which is about 1000 dollars cheaper, but you're sacrificing the speed of the lens. The glass is still good, it just depends on if you could live with a 4.0, which is usually fine for daytime shooting)

Also, sometimes you can find the older 80-200mm 2.8L lens, they are tack sharp, but they lack the ultrasonic auto focus of the newer lenses....
Click to expand...
I was just checking the 70-200mm lens out and finding photo examples of it. They have it at B&H. They have BILL ME LATER. Very tempting but a little too much investment at this time. But, you are right, simply a gorgeous piece of glass.

EDIT: Hey, how does that 70-200mm compare to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html
 
Last edited:
Okay...I am SERIOUSLY looking at the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L USM....Here is my question....

Is the Image Stabilization worth the extra $600 dollars or so? $1700 dollars is too steep for my blood...but I am seriously considering getting the non-IS model for $1100 dollars so I can just start shooting.

Anyone?
Rick
 
Okay, okay...thanks for the input Capt and the rest.

My head is officially swimming. I'm sure each and everyone of you have been in the throes of gear lust. Well, I am officially in it now...

Canon's 70-200 2.8L IS is outta my budget.

So, I am considering 3 options...I'd like to keep it at a grand or less even...

Canon's 70-200 2.8L (non IS model)
Canon's 70-200 4.0L IS model
or
Canon's 70-200 4.0L (non IS model) with the Canon EF 2x II extender. I know extreme reach isn't paramount but the 200mm reach is a bit limited. I'd really like to get out there and get some close up nature shots.

But, not sure about the quality of the 2X extender....

So, input on these 3 options? Have at it! Thanks!

Rick
 
Call the bank and get the extra $600. When you are shooting long unless it is a tripod shot that IS is going to make the difference between more useable shots. Long focus is where the IS really makes a difference!
 
And keep in mind, with the image stabilization, that you will be using up a lot more battery life. It works really well, but just keep that in mind.
 
well, i do NOT have a steady hand. I try to take crisp hand held shots...i find it to be very difficult. so, id like to get the reach and id like the crisp shot but i am leaning towards accepting the fact that i will need a tripod anyway.

but again, this is gear lust. once i want what i want, im pulling the trigger. and that 2.8L IS looks VERY sexy. And the reviews on that lens are tough to dispute. The world seems to love that lens.

So, GuyS....If given the choice between the two...2.8L (no IS) or 4.0L (with IS)...which would you choose? Which seems to be the most important feature...Image Stabilization or Speed?
 
Last edited:
To me, I would get the 2.8 w/o the image stabilization, and save up for a tripod. If you're outdoors, use the highest shutter speed possible, and you will be surprised at how crisp your images will come out. Having a brighter lens will allow you to use those higher shutter speeds when there is less light, if you can use a 1/1000 shutter, you'll get really good results I think. Now, if you're doing any kind of flash photography at night, such as shooting snow or skate, you may want to consider getting the 4.0 with IS, and getting brighter flashes to compensate for your slower lens, but it's really up to you. I would get the 2.8.
 
I would go go with a SIGMA 70-200mm 2.8 over the Canon lens any day because of the price and I highy doubt if you can visually tell the difference with the XTi. I'd go with the speed as I did. I am a freelance photographer and sell photos everyday shot with the Sigma and my clients have never complained about the end results. I'm an old guy (55) and I have to use a monopod with the larger lenses a lot since I'm not as strong & steady as I used to be.
Don't be a "Brand Bigot", explore the other options..... Tamron makes clean lenses also, never owned one but shot with a few over my time (shot some calender shots with a Tamron just last year)
 
"Brand Bigot"....ha. ha. Thats great.

I'm actually not. I have just tapped into how good that canon lens is (70-200mm) and have kinda lost sight of my other options.

So, I will definitely look at the SIGMA 70-200mm.

Do either of you use an extender (either 1.4 or 2x)? Any advice there? 200mm is great but limited.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top