Canon Lens question/dilemna

[DisneyJayhawk]

So, this is my first post and question. I own a Canon Rebel XSi. It came with the 18-55mm lens and I have purchased a 50mm lens and a 55-250mm lens. Well through no fault of my own, the 18-55mm lens is broken. I am curious if anyone thinks it is possible to get through the parks with my two remaining lenses or should I just bite the bullet and purchase a new kit lens?

 

[SrisonS]

Personally, I don't think those lenses are wide enough for Disney. But if you can do it, how about looking into a nice walk-around lens that'll keep you from having to switch lenses??? (i love my Canon 18-135mm). But I'm assuming you could find a kit lens for pretty cheap, if money is an issue.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I agree with the above post. Unless money is seriously an issue, I would consider another lens to replace the kit lens. Granted, the kit lens can be bought for virtually nothing on places like eBay, but there are reasons for that. It's an OK lens and there are LOTS of them available. It really gets a bum rap because it's a kit lens and many people blame the lens for their lack of photography skills. Even having said that, the 18-135 EF-S is a GREAT affordable walk-around lens. Very versatile and affordable.

 

[photo_chick]

You could get through the parks with the 50mm on there, but it will take some maneuvering and you won't always have the room to back up.. Replacing the 18-55 (with either the same lens or giving yourself an upgrade) would make life a lot more pleasant when it comes to shooting the people you're with in the park.

And I totally agree that the 18-55 kit gets a bad rap.

 

[Frantasmic]

Fortune favors the brave!

Obviously the camera fairy wants you to have a new lens.

New lenses should be better than the one you lost/are replacing. I mean you don't downgrade your camera (Camera fairy bylaw SC 42 sub para D).

So, you should look at the Tamron 17-50 Non-VC lens. It is a really good lens and right (another camera fairy sign from above) you can get it for under $450 due to rebates.

 

[mom2rtk]

So, you should look at the Tamron 17-50 Non-VC lens. It is a really good lens and right (another camera fairy sign from above) you can get it for under $450 due to rebates.

First, I do think trying to do Disney with nothing wider than 50mm will prove to be an exercise in frustration. By the time you back up to get the shots you want, tons of people will get between you and your subject. And if you do character shots, it will be very hard to do anyhting but close-ups. If you do go with your current lenses, you will need to adjust your expectations for photography in the parks.

Second, I absolutely agree with the above recommendation. If money is really tight, then get another kit lens. Just be aware that there have been a number of kit lenses through the years on the Canon Rebel models. Some have gotten better reviews than others. Just be sure you're getting one of the more recent ones with better reveiws. I do know the ones with IS were more recent. I seem to recall the one that came with my XT or XTi (don't remember which) got lesser reviews.

If you want to move the ball forward a bit, then absolutely get the Tamron listed above. I did a lot of research on this class of lenses last year. The Tamron non IS is supposed to be a great lens and is very sharp. Many here on this board reported absolutely loving this lens. Do be aware Tamron came out with an version since then with Image Stabilization (I think they call it VC). But that version sacrificed some sharpness. And you'll pay more for it.

Good luck and let us know what you do!

 

[DDuck4Life]

So, you should look at the Tamron 17-50 Non-VC lens. It is a really good lens and right (another camera fairy sign from above) you can get it for under $450 due to rebates.

Second, I absolutely agree with the above recommendation. If money is really tight, then get another kit lens. Just be aware that there have been a number of kit lenses through the years on the Canon Rebel models. Some have gotten better reviews than others. Just be sure you're getting one of the more recent ones with better reveiws. I do know the ones with IS were more recent. I seem to recall the one that came with my XT or XTi (don't remember which) got lesser reviews.

I agree with the above posters if you have the funds by all means upgrade to the Tamron. This is the lens we are looking to get before our next trip. If you can't afford the upgrade go with the kit lens.

I walked around Disney for a little bit with the 50mm and kept getting frustrated by not being able to get wide enough on my shots and kept having to re-position. That's the last thing you want when trying to capture your memories is getting frustrated with the camera.

 

[princesszelda]

I have been lusting after the Tamron like the pp. If you can swing it I would go with that. If not get the kit lens

 

[bob100]

So, this is my first post and question. I own a Canon Rebel XSi. It came with the 18-55mm lens and I have purchased a 50mm lens and a 55-250mm lens. Well through no fault of my own, the 18-55mm lens is broken. I am curious if anyone thinks it is possible to get through the parks with my two remaining lenses or should I just bite the bullet and purchase a new kit lens?

you're going to need something wider than 50mm,
you can get a used 18-55IS pretty cheap - $75 or perhaps upgrade to an f2.8 zoom like the Tamron 17-50 2.8, Sigma 17-50 2.8 or a longer standard zoom like the Canon 15-85IS

used Canon gear buy/sell -
http://photography-on-the.net/forum

 

[kshark]

I have to agree with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC). I suggested it to a friend and he has been really happy with it. The images are sharp and colorful, and miles ahead of the kit lens. I should add that the kit lens does a great job for the money, but the Tamron is in a different league...

 

[crz4mm2]

First, I do think trying to do Disney with nothing wider than 50mm will prove to be an exercise in frustration. By the time you back up to get the shots you want, tons of people will get between you and your subject. And if you do character shots, it will be very hard to do anyhting but close-ups. If you do go with your current lenses, you will need to adjust your expectations for photography in the parks.

Second, I absolutely agree with the above recommendation. If money is really tight, then get another kit lens. Just be aware that there have been a number of kit lenses through the years on the Canon Rebel models. Some have gotten better reviews than others. Just be sure you're getting one of the more recent ones with better reveiws. I do know the ones with IS were more recent. I seem to recall the one that came with my XT or XTi (don't remember which) got lesser reviews.

If you want to move the ball forward a bit, then absolutely get the Tamron listed above. I did a lot of research on this class of lenses last year. The Tamron non IS is supposed to be a great lens and is very sharp. Many here on this board reported absolutely loving this lens. Do be aware Tamron came out with an version since then with Image Stabilization (I think they call it VC). But that version sacrificed some sharpness. And you'll pay more for it.

Good luck and let us know what you do!

AMEN. I totally agree. I used my 50 in MK on Not So Scary night... It was very difficult to get the shots I wanted....

 

[crz4mm2]

Personally, I don't think those lenses are wide enough for Disney. But if you can do it, how about looking into a nice walk-around lens that'll keep you from having to switch lenses??? (i love my Canon 18-135mm). But I'm assuming you could find a kit lens for pretty cheap, if money is an issue.

Would a 18-135 be much better than a 28-135?

 

[SrisonS]

***Retracted: I stand corrected.

 

[photo_chick]

Would a 18-135 be much better than a 28-135?

The Canon 28-135 is a slightly higher quality lens than the Canon 18-135, but you do give up that slightly wider focal length. I personally use a Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 on my crop cameras, which is an older lens that came before the 28-135. It runs around $200 used and is optically similar, though it has no IS.

Edited to add...on the crop vs. full frame focal lengths. Focal lengths have noting to do with crop when they're given. It's the distance from the point inside the lens where the image focuses to the sensor or film. That does not change from crop to full frame. (neither does the actual depth of field, but that's a whole other discussion) What does change between the two formats is the field of view and that's where the 35mm equivalent comes in and you'd apply that to the 18-135 just as you would the 28-135. 28mm on the 28-135 EF is going to be the same as 28mm on the 18-135 EF-S. Unless you have shot full frame or 35mm, or plan to sometime soon, there's really no need to even worry about what the crop factor does. The only reason EF-S lenses are designated that is because they're designed with rear elements that come farther back to get that wider focal length and they will not mount on a full frame camera because the mirror gets in the way on Canon cameras. (Nikon is a different story) Though you can lock up the mirror and remove part of the mount on the Canon EF-S lenses and use them with full frame Canon cameras if you really want to.

 

[seashoreCM]

Edited to add...on the crop vs. full frame focal lengths. Focal lengths have noting to do with crop ...

Don't forget that if you want a, say, 18 to 55 mm lens, you want a "lens designed for your camera (your camera's sensor size) and with a 35mm film camera equivalent focal length of 18 to 55 mm".

If you are looking at lenses not specifically designed for your camera then you have to get into the math of crop factors.

Given the lens' absolute (actual) focal length (in mm) multiply by 43-1/4 and divide by the diagonal of your camera sensor to obtain the 35mm equivalent focal length for your camera. Don't buy a lens designed for a smaller camera sensor than yours; the sweet spot will be smaller than your sensor likely giving blurred corners.

 

[crz4mm2]

Thanks. This is the kind of info I was looking for.

The Canon 28-135 is a slightly higher quality lens than the Canon 18-135, but you do give up that slightly wider focal length. I personally use a Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 on my crop cameras, which is an older lens that came before the 28-135. It runs around $200 used and is optically similar, though it has no IS.

Edited to add...on the crop vs. full frame focal lengths. Focal lengths have noting to do with crop when they're given. It's the distance from the point inside the lens where the image focuses to the sensor or film. That does not change from crop to full frame. (neither does the actual depth of field, but that's a whole other discussion) What does change between the two formats is the field of view and that's where the 35mm equivalent comes in and you'd apply that to the 18-135 just as you would the 28-135. 28mm on the 28-135 EF is going to be the same as 28mm on the 18-135 EF-S. Unless you have shot full frame or 35mm, or plan to sometime soon, there's really no need to even worry about what the crop factor does. The only reason EF-S lenses are designated that is because they're designed with rear elements that come farther back to get that wider focal length and they will not mount on a full frame camera because the mirror gets in the way on Canon cameras. (Nikon is a different story) Though you can lock up the mirror and remove part of the mount on the Canon EF-S lenses and use them with full frame Canon cameras if you really want to.

 

[photo_chick]

Don't forget that if you want a, say, 18 to 55 mm lens, you want a "lens designed for your camera (your camera's sensor size) and with a 35mm film camera equivalent focal length of 18 to 55 mm".

If you are looking at lenses not specifically designed for your camera then you have to get into the math of crop factors.

Given the lens' absolute (actual) focal length (in mm) multiply by 43-1/4 and divide by the diagonal of your camera sensor to obtain the 35mm equivalent focal length for your camera. Don't buy a lens designed for a smaller camera sensor than yours; the sweet spot will be smaller than your sensor likely giving blurred corners.

As far as DSLR's go, crop and full frame lens focal lengths are measured the same. They kept the system consistent so there really is no need to do any math. The crop factor is about field of view and not actual focal legnth. People wnt to make it harder than it is, when it's simply a matter of the lens capturing a smaller portion of the projected image with a crop camera. A "crop" lens on a full frame camera tends to have wicked vignetting because the projected image isn't as large.

The focal length has to stay the same for both formats, otherwise you would not be able to use EF lenses of a crop camera. They'd be out of focus.

 

[crz4mm2]

I took my DGD to the zoo today. I must admit that I have used the "kit" lens that came with my 7D VERY little. I really prefer the nifty 50....
I am taking a trip in Nov and am trying to decide what to take with me that will give me the most bang for the weight (Thailand and China). I thought I should maybe learn a little more about my 28-135.
It is ok in outside light. Inside, not so much. I realize it is slower than my 50... but still.
Sigh. Pretty disappointed in the pics I took today