RebelXT seeks lens.

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Chuck Dietz, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. Chuck Dietz

    Chuck Dietz Guest

    Hey guys and gals,

    It's been nearly two weeks with the RebelXT. Because of it I've lost my
    job, my wife Faith is leaving me for a woman named Chastity, I've had
    three car accidents and one barroom brawl. And a dog bit me.

    But the RebelXT remains my faithful new friend!

    I want to get a new lens for it. I'm not sure whether a wide angle is
    best (and I have a summer holiday road trip out west with the family
    coming so that would be a plus) or a long lens is my better choice.
    I'd love to get the Canon 100-400 that I've heard so much about and I
    think the chairman of the finance committee just might let me go for it
    (since I craftily approved her new Mac G5 and 20" cinema flatscreen!
    (hee-hee)). The opposite choice would be something like the 17-40 f4. My
    old 28-80 is okay for snaps and pretty good long but at the 28 end I
    wish for more coverage widewise. I decided I'd rather have a new lens
    than a new flash. The built-in one will have to do for snapshots for
    now. So what's the verdict? Wide 17-40 f4 or long 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS?
    Something else entirely? I'm leaning to the wide one and salivating for
    the long one, but no way to get both!

    Chuck Dietz, Apr 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chuck Dietz

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Take it from someone who thrives on road trips out west. Go wide, my friend.
    Jeremy Nixon, Apr 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. You have described a mixed bag and it makes any reasonable response
    difficult. You have mentioned both wide angle and telephoto interests. The
    thing about SLR cameras is that mounting a different lens makes it a
    different camera. Many SLR types own a stable of lenses. You might want to
    share your priorities with us. What's most important, what your budget is,
    how many lenses will you eventually buy, and so on.
    Charles Schuler, Apr 12, 2005
  4. Wide -- absolutely. I just visitted Red Rock Canyon outside of Vegas
    and the West Rim of the Grand Canyon (Go South!) and it is impossible to
    take in without a wide lens. My 18-70mm (Nikon) did a pretty good job
    pulling it all in. There were several cases where I wish I had a long
    lens (like when I saw a indian in head dress appear ready to take a dive
    into the canyon. Sadly, my 70mm wasn't enough. However, wide was used
    a LOT more than long!
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Apr 12, 2005
  5. I'd go wide, unless you have a specific need for long.
    Albert Nurick, Apr 12, 2005
  6. Chuck Dietz

    Dirty Harry Guest

  7. Chuck Dietz

    Alan Browne Guest

    Did you test +ve for rabbies?
    Sheesh. Get your wife back. Let her bring Chastity. (Wasn't that a
    line from "Mission to Mars?")
    Go wide, esp. for your travel plans. (Whether 'west' means the plains
    or the mountains, north or south, I'd want as wide as possible).

    I believe the 100-400 is less than the wide lens you want, so it will
    make future negotiations with the finance board easier ;-).

    If you're going to do some family snaps as well, then I'd still suggest
    you try to get a flash head as well as a lens... makes those fill-flash
    shots easier and less prone to red eye.


    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems:
    -- slr-systems FAQ project:
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz:
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Apr 12, 2005
  8. Chuck Dietz

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    The 100-400mm is an advanced amateur lens, not quite in the same league as
    the rest of the L glass. It's also a nasty push-pull zoom action. You
    would be better off with a 70-200mm f/2.8L (with or without IS) and a 2x

    Haven't used the 17-40mm or know anyone who has, unfortunately.
    Roxy d'Urban, Apr 12, 2005
  9. Chuck Dietz

    Dirty Harry Guest

    Dirty Harry, Apr 12, 2005
  10. Chuck Dietz

    birch999 Guest

    That has to be one of the most inept web designs I've ever witnessed.
    Couldn't get it to display anything but thumbnails.
    birch999, Apr 13, 2005
  11. Perhaps you are the inept one. Worked fine for me.
    Toomanyputters, Apr 13, 2005
  12. Chuck Dietz

    Frank ess Guest

    Worked OK except the "Click for details" thumbs may be available as
    glossy prints, but I won't be ordering any since the details fail to
    emerge when clickage is applied. Among other reasons.

    It's not usually a Good Thing to announce "Coming Soon", with or without
    correct spellage.

    It took a while to ignore the Flash or whatever fireworks. For me, that
    kind of stuff detracts from a viewing-of-photography experience and
    makes me wonder if the artist is not confident of his works' ability to
    stand on their own, or if his brother-in-law does (passé) Web designage
    and talked him into the full load. Or both.

    Otherwise I enjoyed looking at the pictures. Pretty straightforward
    observations for the most part well-executed. I could see a lot of time
    and effort went into the constructed images. Not to my taste.
    Frank ess, Apr 13, 2005
  13. Chuck Dietz

    Dirty Harry Guest

    Lol, yea a new website it currently in the works ;-) Stay tuned, I'll post
    it in a few days...
    Dirty Harry, Apr 13, 2005
  14. Chuck Dietz

    Dirty Harry Guest

    And you didn't like the green apples one? That was the only one that was
    Dirty Harry, Apr 13, 2005
  15. Chuck Dietz

    Frank ess Guest

    You can borrow the superfluous "s" from my "images", convert it to an
    "r" for your "constucted" and you got it.
    Frank ess, Apr 13, 2005
    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.