Best lens for Digital Rebel XT - is the kit lens worth $70?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by sam, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. sam

    sam Guest

    With the $100 rebate, now may be a good time to buy a digital Rebel XT. I
    see you can buy it without a lens or for $85 more the 18-55 mm kit lens. Is
    the kit lens worth it (dpreview says it is not too good) and if not what
    lens would you put the $85 savings towards?
     
    sam, Jun 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. sam

    sam Guest

    sorry - should be $85 difference to get kit lens and not $70
     
    sam, Jun 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. sam

    Jeff Rife Guest

    sam () wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:
    Well, that lens sells for $140 by itself, so $85 isn't a bad deal. And,
    you're not likely to find a better unused zoom lens for $85.
     
    Jeff Rife, Jun 13, 2006
    #3
  4. sam

    C J Southern Guest

    I got my Rebel XT with one - and then when I traded up to my 20D I got
    another. I've been VERY disappointed with both examples - sharpness is poor,
    contrast is poor - it is possible to get a good shot with it, but it comes
    with a long list of shortcomings & compromises.

    The best you can buy in that range is what I went for: a 24-70 F2.8L USM.
    It's expensive, but (for me anyway) the difference was "night and day". And
    if you do buy one then you're sure to have it for many more years than the
    camera - it's fully compatible with others (and probably future) Canon DSLR
    models (unlike the kit lens).
     
    C J Southern, Jun 13, 2006
    #4
  5. sam

    King Sardon Guest

    But you are cropping the central part of the image of that lens, which
    magnifies the imperfections. It's a bit like using it with a 1.5 x
    tele-extender.

    Consider the new Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens, made for the XT
    and 20D cameras. The reviews sound great... I don't have one yet but
    stand by...

    KS
     
    King Sardon, Jun 13, 2006
    #5
  6. sam

    Bill Guest

    While the 18-55 kit lense is not a great model, it takes fairly decent
    shots for 4x6 snaps. There are several other choices you can consider,
    but it depends on your needs.

    Do you want the best optics? Resolution, colour, contrast are nicer with
    the better lenses. In this case, look at the 17-40 f/4 L and 16-35 f/2.8
    L lenses. They're not cheap, but they are definitely high quality.

    Do you want a longer zoom range but less demand on the optics? If so,
    the 17-85 IS lense is handy with image stabilization and a wide zoom
    range, but optically isn't much better than the 18-55. I don't recommend
    this one to people unless they want a single lense to cover such a wide
    zoom range and need IS for their intended shots - it's pricey for what
    you get.

    The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lense has good zoom coverage with decent optics, but
    it's not up to the 17-40 or 16-35 quality. It has IS and a fast 2.8
    aperture though, and again is pricey.

    If you don't need the wide angle, you can also consider the 24-70 f/2.8
    which is a fantastic lense, and expensive. But it's the best of the lot.

    There's not much else in the zoom range that really stands out.

    Just so you know, I use the Canon Rebel XT with the 17-40 f/4 L and
    70-200 f/4 L lenses. These two cover 90% of what I need to shoot, have
    great optics, and are reasonably priced. They're two of the best
    price/performance gems from Canon.

    Having said that, if you have no specific need to buy Canon, have you
    considered the excellent Nikon D50 or D70s cameras? Either one with the
    Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lense would be a better choice and cost less.
    The 18-70 lense is a very good performer and is one of Nikon's gems
    (I've used my friend's D70s extensively lately so I know how well it
    performs).

    I personally think the Nikon D50 with the 18-70 is the best DSLR choice
    available right now. You get a decent body with plenty of features,
    great high ISO performance, and a really good lense that covers a wide
    range and has good optical qualities.

    In this price range, it's definitely one of the best deals.
     
    Bill, Jun 13, 2006
    #6
  7. sam

    Fred Guest

    Hope I didn't miss one.

    Fred
     
    Fred, Jun 13, 2006
    #7
  8. << Snipped bits out >>

    and a really good lense that covers a wide
    You did, but then the whole response was enervating.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Cropping out the edges and corners makes a lens seem *better*, not worse. It
    retains the center of the image, which is always (at least in my experience and
    reading) the best part. This is shown at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/ in the
    review of the 24-70 lens mentioned above. Both cropped and full-frame test
    results are available, and side by side comparisons are easy to do. Keep in mind
    that this lens is exceptionally good - the difference between the center and
    corners of the produced image is usually more extreme, as shown in the review of
    the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF.
     
    maxsilverstar, Jun 14, 2006
    #9
  10. sam

    Jeff Rife Guest

    Jeff Rife, Jun 14, 2006
    #10
  11. sam

    C J Southern Guest

    Um, no.
    Only problem with an EF-S lens is that you're stuck with a very expensive
    paperweight if you ever move up to a full frame sensored camera.
     
    C J Southern, Jun 14, 2006
    #11
  12. sam

    King Sardon Guest

    If only it had IS.

    KS
     
    King Sardon, Jun 14, 2006
    #12
  13. sam

    Stacey Guest

    Someone takes the time to post some valuable info and you waste time with
    this silly crap? What a loser!
     
    Stacey, Jun 14, 2006
    #13
  14. sam

    Paul J Gans Guest

    You did not mention the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS. It isn't L
    glass but I've read that a number of folks use it as a walking
    around lens. Any opinions?

    --- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jun 14, 2006
    #14
  15. sam

    Bill Guest

    Sorry...I completely forgot to mention it.

    I have very little personal experience with that lense (only tried it
    out for about an hour), but from what I've heard and read it's a very
    good performer aside from the flare issue (and it is infact "L" glass,
    red stripe and all).

    The only issue I have with it is cost due to the IS feature pushing the
    price into the 24-70 f/2.8 range which I consider a better performer.
    The weight and size of the smaller 24-105 could be a benefit though and
    make it worthwhile.
     
    Bill, Jun 14, 2006
    #15
  16. sam

    C J Southern Guest

    I'm a big IS fan - and I certainly enjoy it on my 70-200 F2.8L, but I have
    to say that to date - touch wood - it hasn't been an issue with the 24-70.
     
    C J Southern, Jun 15, 2006
    #16
  17. sam

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I thought that the flare issue had been resolved?

    I agree about the 24-70 f/2.8, but if you have to walk around
    with the thing all day...

    For me there are two types of "expeditions". One where I
    take three or four lenses in a phtobackpack and do serious
    stuff.

    The other is where I have my "walking around lens" and do
    just that. I'm in NYC and the number of "grab shots" one
    can find is amazing. Except that there is no time to
    change lenses (if I had any others along). For that
    I think the 24-105 might be ideal -- even though I'm
    using a 1.6x crop camera.

    Maybe next year. I blew this year's budget already. ;-(

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jun 15, 2006
    #17
  18. sam

    Bella Jones Guest

    Just to add that I use the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 with the XT and have had
    great results with it. Cost about UKP350. A little bit heavy for an
    ideal walkaround, but currently no budget for more lenses!
     
    Bella Jones, Jun 15, 2006
    #18
  19. sam

    Bill Guest

    Yes, but it's still something to look out for if buying used or off
    ebay. Buying new today shouldn't be a problem.
    It is heavy, but you have to consider image quality. If you want the
    best, you have to be willing to carry it.

    That's why I have the smaller and lighter 17-40 on my camera.

    :)
     
    Bill, Jun 16, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.