Would you spend $50 extra??

[DISNEYmooner2008]

Adorama has a Canon Rebel XSi with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens for $699. They also have the Canon Rebel SXi with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens and the 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 III lens for $749. I've gotten various opinions on these lenses. I know they are just basic lenses and many of you do not like them and feel they are cheap. I have gotten some positive reviews both here and other places online. What I am wondering is even those of you who do not like these lenses, would you say the 75-300mm lens is worth the extra $50?? It sells alone for $150.

 

[DesertBell]

That lens sells for more than $50 on ebay, (As far as I could tell from my ten second search, you might want to research it more closely ) so I would get it. If you don't like it, you can always sell it to get more lens money.

 

[Wingman]

If the $50 is not a big deal why not get the tele? I don't own that lens and have not read great reviews about it, but I would buy it unless you plan to buy a different one. You can use it for a while, then sell it for at least the $50 it is going to cost you. It may meet your needs and you would be happy you have it.

As for the 18-55is, I do own that lens and it is great and a big value for the cost. I bought it separate from a kit as I own the XTI and that did not come with this lens.

 

[pjacobi]

The 75-300 EF III is probably going on close-out because it is effectively being replaced with 55-200 IS.

Have you ever owned a SLR/dSLR camera? If not, I suggest buying only the kits lens. After six months, review your results. You might discover that you could make better use of a macro or wide angle lens.

If you still need a telephoto lens, I would suggest investing in one with IS option, which is particularly useful on telephoto lenses. One you use IS, you will regret buying any non-IS lenses.


-Paul

 

[Code]

I would suggest investing in one with IS option, which is particularly useful on telephoto lenses. One you use IS, you will regret buying any non-IS lenses.

I agree with this, I would pass on the non-IS telephoto lens, especially when talking 300mm on the long end.

I suggest buying only the kits lens. After six months, review your results. You might discover that you could make better use of a macro or wide angle lens.

But I disagree with this. Just because you're new to DSLRs doesn't mean you don't want telephoto reach, you very well may. My first DSLR kit included a standard zoom and a telephoto, and I used the telephoto quite often right away. You just have to think about the kinds of things you want to shoot and the reach you will need for them. Consider that an 18-55mm is just about equivalent to what you'd get from a "3x optical zoom" point&shoot camera.

 

[Zoesmama03]

I somewhat disagree with Paul. The thing I always heard was research lenses and buy the one that will fit you. Buy the body only and skip on the kit lens which everyone I know has not really used.

I ended up getting a kit with my Nikon but I never use it. I should have listened to the tip. I got a 50mm f/1.8 but now I wish I had skipped the kit and went with the 50mm f/1.4 it would have come out the same cost.

This is my first SLR digital or not and I have found the lens that works best for what I want is really helpful in learning.

 

[DueyDooDah]

Although these lens are not L series glass, you can get good quality photos in any case. If you click on this link, all the photos in this album are from an 18-55 kit lens. They are also hand-held, without the IS. Adding IS would only help. Note that the WWI and WWI display in the album were in dim lighting, yet still produced good quality photos (IMHO).

 

[Wingman]

I somewhat disagree with Paul. The thing I always heard was research lenses and buy the one that will fit you. Buy the body only and skip on the kit lens which everyone I know has not really used.

The 18-55is that comes with the kit is an excellent lens for the money. The original poster would get a lot of use out of that lens and can sell it later if they don't like it for more than the cost difference of the body alone.