Home Forums Gear Photography I Need Help

I am about to buy a Canon Rebel XTi, but I am not sure what lenses I want to purchase for it. I want something that will take nice crisp pictures and be able to zoom in on wildlife etc... from a ways away. I dont want to spend a rediculous amount of money on one, but I don't want to be cheap either. I was thinking a 70-300mm between 200-600 dollars. Anybody have any suggestions?

the cannon is fine as long as it fits your hands (too small for me). in terms of lenses: faster is better (but more pricey)

most cameras "come" with a 20-70 mm or there abouts lens. add to that a wide angle (10-20mm) and a tele (100-300mm) and you've got a nice setup.

don't buy cannon if you can help it -- I think they're way overpriced. Look to Tamron or Sigma. They make VERY good lenses.

For serious wildlife pics nothing beats a 300mm f/2.8 lens but these start about $2500. a good 100-300 f4-5.6 will go about $500 (I'll show some pics in a minute).

If you're going to get just one lens, I would highly recommend getting a 70-200m f/2.8 . A fast, mid range that will do alot for <$1000.

FWIW, I have the following (#s are approximate):

Tamron 19-35
Sigma 10-20
Minolta 20-70
Minolta 18-70
Cannon 30-150
Minolta 100-300
Minox 62ED scope with adapter (1400mm f18 equivalent)
and am shopping for a Sigma 300 f/2.8

these are recent pics with a Sony DSLR and the 100-300 f4-5.6 lens at 300mm

Not to be unpleasant but every single one of those photos except #4 is a shining example of exactly why you SHOULD spend more on Canon glass. Features like IS and USM are extremely usefull and even more so IMO on BIF photos.
Back to the OP's question. I use a 70-200L F4 IS which you can pick up used around $800-850. (watch FredMiranda.com) I often use it on my XTi with the 1.4X TC and get 280mm not considering the 1.6 crop factor.
In the price/focal range you are looking at;
The 70-300 Canon consumer lens falls nicely in your budget. $550.
The 70-200L F4 non-IS is $580 new and that would be my suggestion as you will get the sharpness and quality of L glass as well as USM with out the expense of IS. You can easily find a 1.4x TC later.
Here are some samples of the 70-200L F4IS with the 1.4x. The first is a 100% crop to show the sharpness. The second is with the 1.4x, no crop, no PP. The last is the 70-200 without the 1.4x TC. Expect the non IS varient to be perform nearly as well.

I have a Canon Rebel XT (would like to upgrade, but cannot justify it because my Rebel works so well) and my "default" lens is the 28-135 IS. I've been quite happy with it. (I have to steal Sitka's 300 every once in awhile, however)

Stetson,
Very nice pictures!
M

Thank you. I always enjoy yours as well!

don't sweat it -- I get shot down all the time

and I do see the limitations of my lenses (and my skills) -- hence the desire to buy better as I get more serious about learning to take good pics.

UL I have no interest in shooting any one down. Just trying to help. If you want to shoot BIF then you need a lens with a blistering fast AF like the cannon 400L 5.6. I think you just picked the wrong photos to make your point. Tokina, Tamron and Sigma all make nice glass. In the Focal range/price point the OP is asking about though I think he's better off with Canon.
You might want to clean your sensor if you haven't since you took theese images. There are a lot of dust spots. Especially #2 and 3.

Thanks to all for the feed back. Stetson what is a 1.4x TC? And about what price range could I get one for?

he only checks in a couple times a day -- I'll attempt an explanation:

A TC is a teleconverter.
It's basically a secondary lens that fits between the camera and the primary lens in use.
They come in two sizes: 1.4x and 2x.
The 1.4x extends the focal length by that much (a 300mm lens becomes a 420mm) and "slows" the lens by one f-stop (2.8 to 4).
A 2x teleconverter extends the focal length by 2x (300mm to 600mm) and "slows" the lens by 2 f-stops (2.8 to 5.6).
They work best with fixed focal length lenses but some work well with zooms too. Most good ones are a few hundred bucks (however you really get two lenses (a 300 & a 600, say) for much less than the cost of two primary lenses).

make sense ??

It does. Thank you very much for the explenation.

Matt pretty much nailed it. The only thing I would add is that when you are starting out as a general rule IMO you should steer clear of all 2x telextenders as they tend to degrade image quality noticeably more than 1.4X TC's. Common brands for teleconverters; Kenko, the least expensive and they make a few different models. Be sure to get the best one they make if you use this brand ($200 ish). Sigma $200, Canon $280. The Canon has lens coatings the others do not have so the IQ is better but how much better is subject to the users experience and the other equipment in use. The Kenko is very popular. You want to choose a TC after you get your lenses or at the same time as some brands have compatability issues with select lenses of different manufacturers. In terms of pure IQ your wish list (not considering cost, lenses listed are to illistrate my point only not reccomendations) in very general terms would run like this;
1) Prime lens. IE 400mm f5.6
2) Zoom Lens IE 100-400 f5.6
3) Zoom lens with 1.4 TC (+1 f stop)
4) Zoom lens with 2x TC
5 Lens with stacked TC's (subject to compatability of both camera and lens)

Most wind up using a zoom plus a 1.4 TC due to cost and flexability. A zoom lens will see more use for most. In the future you can then expand your lens collection if you want/need to based on what you like to shoot.

What you didn't tell us is what is going to be your primary walk around lens. I suggest getting the XTi kit with the 18-55. This lens gets a bad rap on the internet but I really like it. It only adds $70 or so to the body. No IS, NO USM but it takes great pictures and has a very close focus. I use a Canon EFS 17-55 IS f2.8 which is around 1k and I still use this little kit lens from time to time. Here are a few samples from the XTi and the kit lens. All hand held. Minimal PP, No sharpening or madd photoshop skills applied.
















BTW, It was the people on this forum that really started me on this photo venture. A few years ago I had no idea how to even post a photo. The XTi is a fantastic camera for the $$$.

I will add that having both the XT and the 20D here in the house and being able to use them both, had I to do it over, I would spend the extra $$ and get the 20D. It seems more solid, and in my mind it is more user friendly. I chose the XT because it fit my small hands much better, it is lighter, and came with about the same bells and whistles. As I stated before, with what I have, I can't justify an upgrade. The XT is still a great camera.

Having had a chance to use the 30D, 40D and XTi I personally would not choose either the 20D (obsolete) or 30D (still available-$980 with the 18-55 kit lens) over the XTi. I'll soon have a 40D but I won't be letting the XTi go. The XTi with kit lens at B&H is $589 while the 40D body alone is $1299. That's a major price jump even for the 30D. If you did opt for a 30D over the XTi there are a ton of used 30D's available at the moment. It's always a good idea to go to a local shop or Best Buy and play with each before buying.

Please understand my XT and A's 20D were bought a few years ago. (hardly obsolete) I was trying to make a comparison, that would still be valid between the XTI and the 40D. The technology is moving way too fast for my poor little brain!

The 20D is obsolete only in the fact that you can no longer buy one NIB. Canon is basicly on a 18 month cycle for new modles and they are bit a bit of a technological odd duck in the sense that they frequently introduce the newest technology on their lower end products. If it flies then they use it on the better cameras after it's proven. This is one of the reasons that I would stick with the XTi even over the 30D but that is subject solely to personal preference and price point. For some one starting out I'd still suggest the XTi over the 40D as the price difference buys a nice piece of glass.

Yes, it would!!!

Stetson
One major difference between the Rebel and the xxD series is the buffers. The speed with which you can take multiple pictures with the 20D is mindboggling. The Rebel, fairly slow.

Where we will set up a floating fish carcass in a quiet lagoon to take eagle pictures as they swoop in is one of many examples where it makes a difference. BW's sheep last fall was another.
art

I my self like the Canon lens here is a photo with my 5D & 70-200 2.8f..