what would the best lens for a rebel xt

[jann1033]

all around general purpose for $500 or less?

not sure if it is me or the lens i have but i keep seeing lots sharper pic than what i am gettting and am wondering if i should get a better lens rather than spending 200-300+ for a decent lens.....the most i could spend would be $500 so would there be that much of a choice..i'd like it to be as mutli purpose as possible since i probably would really not want to use the 28-80 sigma i have now if i had something good... and i probably will still get the 50mmf1.8 also.

as long as it works with the rebel i probably would rather not have the special small sensor ones since unless i am missing something i don't really see the benefit and then it's limiting for later use( correct me if i'm wrong)

 

[Anewman]

i probably would rather not have the special small sensor ones since unless i am missing something i don't really see the benefit

The main benefit of the DIGITAL only lenses is the PRICE compared to full frame compatible lenses with similar specs/features.

 

[jann1033]

i was reading somewhere( maybe another thread here, who knows )speculation that canon might come out with the next rebel that doesn't use the small sensor and that would kind of make the small sensor lens not really good to get in the long run...which made me wonder if i wouldn't be better not getting one that might be obsolete by the time i get my next camera( like in the next lifetime since i buy one when the other one dies)..but if i plunk down money on a nice lens i might like it to be transferable. the one i have now was like $80 so i figure i don't care if i can't use it forever but being frugal $500 might not be a lot for a lens (in the grand scheme of $$$$ lenses) but i would want to use it for a while

so $500 would not be enough for a better than crummy non small sensored lens?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro

Nothing current can beat that lens at that price range. Slower AF though dead accurate.

 

[Anewman]

i was reading somewhere( maybe another thread here, who knows )speculation that canon might come out with the next rebel that doesn't use the small sensor and that would kind of make the small sensor lens not really good to get in the long run...which made me wonder if i wouldn't be better not getting one that might be obsolete by the time i get my next camera( like in the next lifetime since i buy one when the other one dies)..but if i plunk down money on a nice lens i might like it to be transferable. the one i have now was like $80 so i figure i don't care if i can't use it forever but being frugal $500 might not be a lot for a lens (in the grand scheme of $$$$ lenses) but i would want to use it for a while

so $500 would not be enough for a better than crummy non small sensored lens?

Well IMO the speculation is just speculation and in this case just CRAZY, NO WAY that canon goes Full Frame in the Rebel line for a good while. It is easy to speculate and if wrong no one mentions it, if they get one detail correct they go around acting like Nostradomus(spell?).

But yes $500 would be enough for a "better than crummy" full frame compatible lens.

The 28-135mm IS lens is around $400, may not be very wide but it offers a great range if the speculation ever becomes reality.

 

[Anewman]

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro

Nothing current can beat that lens at that price range. Slower AF though dead accurate.

Not full frame compatible, correct?

 

[ndelaware]

As long as there are Rebel 300Ds, Rebel XT 350Ds, and 20Ds there will always be a market for the EF-S lenses. Why worry about such stuff? Unless you are ready to make the jump to full frame digital very soon, buy what works for you now.

 

[jann1033]

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro

Nothing current can beat that lens at that price range. Slower AF though dead accurate.

amazingly i had marked that one on next tag price watch thing but didn't know if it was good or not...it's really cheaper than the 18-200 and not a lot more than the 18- 125 although i'd lose some of the distance...so if i got the above what could i get for more distance? (when i find that treasure buried in my back yard)

ok so is it more likely my not so sharp carp... i mean pictures... are due to my shaking hands ( which would be is remedy or at least helped) or less than stellar lens? like for instance , i took a shot across a large arena type place that has the subject less sharp than the people behind, beside them..maybe i am using the camera wrong but i have it set for one shot af , i think i was using the p mode setting. when i see these super sharp pictures i am getting "kelly" green ( ) for some dumb reason i can't get things to re size or post right to photobucket or maybe I'll try posting it for general amusement / self humiliation
I was focused on the man and woman, the little kid was a few rows back but is clearer( and this is supposed to be resized what is up with this)

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Not full frame compatible, correct?

Oops, sorry. You are correct not for full-frame.

WRT full-frame capability: I wouldn't worry. It will take at least another 3 years if ever, for FF sensor will be available for the mass market (Rebel XT-level and the upcoming lower-than-Rebel level).

I personally think that the xxx and xxxx series will always be APS-C, xx series may or may not be FF, x series will always be FF

(each x denote a single digit, so xxx series will be 300D, 350D, xx series will be 10D, 20D, 30D, x series: 5D, 1Ds mkII... and the rumoured xxxx series: 3000D, to compete with Pentax ist*DL with target MSRP of US$499 incl kit lens)

 

[Anewman]

What focus method did you use?

What I would have done.
1. Set camera to center spot only.
2. Place center spot over subject(in veiwfinder) and half press the shutter button, this will lock focus on subject.
3. Reposition while keeping shutter button half pressed, to frame as you would like and then FULLY press the button.

 

[jann1033]

well, i thought that was what i did but when i just now tried it again as a practice thing i noticed the focus point was the top box soooooo....sometimes i really hate being dumb. only excuse was i was trying to take it before they noticed course that doesn't explain how i never noticed the 100 pictures i took a few days later at the zoo...so it isn't the lens, it isn't my hands, it's just my lack of brain

 

[RadioNate]

also how much zoom were you using and what were your lighting conditings? That happens to me when using my S2IS. I'd like to see your exif data. It looks to me that you were getting a lower shutter speed and things got fuzzy. I know at my DS's graduation I was using a full zoom and only getting 1/40 or so and nearly all my photos miss the focus mark like that.

ETA. I looked at the exif.
Focal legnth 80mm
exposure 1/30
f-stop 5.6

At 1/30 it is hard to hold the camera steady and if that is something you already have issues with I can see that being the problem rather than the lens or even where the focus box was set.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Shot info:
1/30
80mm
f5.6
ISO 400
exp comp 0

...looks to me like long shutter camera movement. It is hard to find a crisp section. lower the f stop or go to 800 iso.

Anytime you are indoors consider it a low light situation.

Mikeeee

 

[JR6ooo4]

also how much zoom were you using and what were your lighting conditings? That happens to me when using my S2IS. I'd like to see your exif data. It looks to me that you were getting a lower shutter speed and things got fuzzy. I know at my DS's graduation I was using a full zoom and only getting 1/40 or so and nearly all my photos miss the focus mark like that.

ETA. I looked at the exif.
Focal legnth 80mm
exposure 1/30
f-stop 5.6

At 1/30 it is hard to hold the camera steady and if that is something you already have issues with I can see that being the problem rather than the lens or even where the focus box was set.

exactly why my two carry lenses are the 28-135 IS and the 70-300 IS. You might have got that shot with good IS. But of course who does not have the 50mm 1.8 in a corner of their bag as well, (or right up front).
I do not mind the overlap. You don't always have to change the lens at one exact point.


Mikeeee

 

[ndelaware]

well, i thought that was what i did but when i just now tried it again as a practice thing i noticed the focus point was the top box soooooo....sometimes i really hate being dumb. only excuse was i was trying to take it before they noticed course that doesn't explain how i never noticed the 100 pictures i took a few days later at the zoo...so it isn't the lens, it isn't my hands, it's just my lack of brain

Jann, if you are in auto mode you can't change the focus spot. The camera decides. Not that you are shooting in auto, but I thought I would mention it just in case.

 

[ndelaware]

exactly why my two carry lenses are the 28-135 IS and the 70-300 IS. You might have got that shot with good IS. But of course who does not have the 50mm 1.8 in a corner of their bag as well, (or right up front).
I do not mind the overlap. You don't always have to change the lens at one exact point.


Mikeeee

That is exactly the same two that I carry. Sometimes though I trade the 70-300IS for the EF-S 10-22.

 

[jann1033]

exactly why my two carry lenses are the 28-135 IS and the 70-300 IS. You might have got that shot with good IS. But of course who does not have the 50mm 1.8 in a corner of their bag as well, (or right up front).
I do not mind the overlap. You don't always have to change the lens at one exact point.


Mikeeee

do you ever find yourself wanting something wider? with the 1.6 crop that would be like around 45 (?)

 

[Mellie0119]

I have the 28-135 IS and, yes, about once or twice a day when shooting I think to myself that it would be nice if it were a bit wider. After the first of the year (my DH will confiscate my Amex if I spend much more on my camera this year) I'm going to try out the highly touted Sigma- I've not (yet) had much cause to use the IS (more that I'm not sure when I'm supposed to use it) and I might Ebay that one if I like the Sigma.

But for now, when I need that extra width I just take a couple steps back and shoot.

 

[JR6ooo4]

do you ever find yourself wanting something wider? with the 1.6 crop that would be like around 45 (?)

Yes. But for everyday shooting (and with a still subject, like a landscape) you could shoot a pano set if you had to have it wider. The 28-135 is slightly faster, full frame but older version IS. As for kelly being the strongest proponent of wider, at that level there is no other option than having the right equipment. If you shoot wide you need wide. even if it is only one shot.
Mikeeee

 

[jann1033]

Yes. But for everyday shooting (and with a still subject, like a landscape) you could shoot a pano set if you had to have it wider. .
Mikeeee

good idea cause that would be when i'd use it. ( course my pano would probably resemble one during an earth quake...having not even attempted that as yet since i have enough problems getting one picture in focus... it's a learning experience right ?)