need to add a wide (& all purpose) lens for canon rebel xt

[cathydev]

FACTS: I have the canon digital rebel xt. The lens I currently use is Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I have the kit lens also, but I do not use it.

 

QUESTIONS:

I would like to get a wider lens and with some all purpose functionality as well. I am considering the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens ($999) or the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens ($515). Given that I like image stabilizing, is the extra cost worth it to get a 2.8?

 

The reason I would like another lens is that when I'm out taking scenic photographs, landscapes, etc I feel the 28-135 isn't wide enough. I would like some versatility in the lens so after a lot of research at http://the-digital-picture.com this is what I've narrowed it down to.

 

Obviously drawbacks are the EF-S lenses limit my ability to upgrade to a higher end canon camera. But I like the rebel series and if I upgrade will most likely just go with the new Rebel XSi. But I have no immediate plans to do so.

 

On a side note: I do take indoor swimming pictures of my daughter (no flash, high ISO) and I think the 2.8 would allow for some very nice pictures. But since it may not be that useful since I can't zoom more than 55mm.

 

Since we are going on our European cruise in June I would like to have a good lens that will be wide enough for all the photographic opportunities that present themselves. I personally like IS. I also often use a polarizing filter. I am just a hobbyist and take pictures for my own enjoyment.

 

So I need some advice on which camera lens you would suggest that would satisfy my needs. I am also open to new or other suggestions for lens. This is just a major trip for our family and I want to take some really nice pictures!!!!

[pierces]

The extra bit of zoom is nice, but the extra speed is a blessing indoors. The advent of stabilization and quality high ISO performance has made the need for fast lenses a little less.

 

Another possibility to consider is Sigma's excellent new 18mm - 200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS. Is has image stabilization and remarkable quality for a zoom with that range.

 

http://www.adorama.com/SG18200SEOS.html?searchinfo=18-200mm%20%20DC%20OS%20&item_no=1

 

Happy shooting, whatever you choose!

 

Dave

[cathydev]

I looked at the sigma lens (online) and i'm not exactly sure it's what I need. I will bring my 25-135 lens on our trip. I just want another good wider angle lens for travel photography.

 

I guess I'm just trying to justify spending $999 on a lens for my rebel xt...maybe that's a really dumb idea regardless of how good the lens is because it's just a rebel.

 

I know most scenic pictures will be outside and I don't necessarily need a super fast lens, however, taking pictures at night: fountains in Rome, etc, may benefit from a 2.8.

 

I don't want a lens to replace my 25-135 lens but to compliment it. I did look into renting one, but i can't seem to find a reputable lens company that will allow me to reserve it for the time I need. So there is a good chance one won't be available for our cruise.

[cathydev]

I do like the IS feature. I seem to take better pictures using it. But maybe I don't really need it? Hmmm

[cathydev]

This is another lens I was considering if I don't opt for IS. A friend has it and really likes it. Reviews are good also.

 

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens

 

Comments, thoughts? I certainly wish money were no object then I'd just buy one of each!!!

[chipmaster]

FACTS: I have the canon digital rebel xt. The lens I currently use is Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I have the kit lens also, but I do not use it.

 

QUESTIONS:

I would like to get a wider lens and with some all purpose functionality as well. I am considering the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens ($999) or the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens ($515). Given that I like image stabilizing, is the extra cost worth it to get a 2.8?

 

The reason I would like another lens is that when I'm out taking scenic photographs, landscapes, etc I feel the 28-135 isn't wide enough. I would like some versatility in the lens so after a lot of research at http://the-digital-picture.com this is what I've narrowed it down to.

 

Obviously drawbacks are the EF-S lenses limit my ability to upgrade to a higher end canon camera. But I like the rebel series and if I upgrade will most likely just go with the new Rebel XSi. But I have no immediate plans to do so.

 

On a side note: I do take indoor swimming pictures of my daughter (no flash, high ISO) and I think the 2.8 would allow for some very nice pictures. But since it may not be that useful since I can't zoom more than 55mm.

 

Since we are going on our European cruise in June I would like to have a good lens that will be wide enough for all the photographic opportunities that present themselves. I personally like IS. I also often use a polarizing filter. I am just a hobbyist and take pictures for my own enjoyment.

 

So I need some advice on which camera lens you would suggest that would satisfy my needs. I am also open to new or other suggestions for lens. This is just a major trip for our family and I want to take some really nice pictures!!!!

 

I would say go with the longer range zoom and worry less about the speed. I have been playing with my recent 16-85 VR and find it very good indoors even with its slow speed. Pushing my camera to 1600 ISO the VR/IS was measurable even at 55mm, or perhaps I'm a shaker :eek:

 

I figure you'll for sure want that reasonable range, super wide to moderate zoom. Sure you'll want that speed indoors in a church, but are you willing to lug that heavy glass and a 2nd lense and be swapping it?

 

Personally I'm taking a single solution 16-85 ( and my pocket P&S) and will leave my 70-300mm VR on the boat.

[pierces]

I suggested the Sigma because it seemed to eliminate a few compromises you were making in one package. Lenses are the strongest or weakest link in image quality and are your real investment. Camera bodies, like computer hardware, are now obsoleted every 18 months or so. I would buy the best glass I could afford and don't sweat it if you might have to step up later.

 

My own experience with mid-range zooms went from a cheap 35-105 for my film Maxxum to a nice 24-50 for the wide angle. When I went to a 7D digital, it out-resolved the 24-50 so I went to a much improved 28-75 f/2.8. Now I'm looking at the new Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 for my A700 (and beyond). It costs more than the camera, but it is currently best in class and will probably be the last lens in that range I will buy for 10 years or more. I am not a gear collector and am very aware that new stuff won't make me a better photographer. I usually only buy an accessory if it will allow me to do something that I couldn't do before or a better quality lens to remove another excuse for a bad shot ;).

 

All of the lenses you mentioned are good. IS is great! It's a "virtual tripod" that will reduce the #1 cause of soft images, camera shake! (I love that my cameras have it built in and I don't need to worry about it in the lenses!) Maybe go with the 17-85 IS since wide shots are more forgiving of a slower lens and get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for the other end later. I think you'll find that the 17-85 will cover about 90% of your shots outside of sports and wildlife.

 

Good luck choosing. At least most of your options are good ones!

 

Dave

[allen.crawford]

I know the frustrations of using an digital camera with a smaller sensor when trying to shoot wide angle landscapes. Certainly go for the shortest focal distance you can afford. If you are shooting at higher shutter speeds, you won't need IS. So, with a faster lense, you will be using IS far less often.

 

I have to add, even though it isn't the subject of this thread, if you can save your dollars, buy yourself a full frame sensor camera. Once Canon releases the much rumoured 5D MkII, you should be able to pick up a used 5D for a reasonable price.

 

I use my 5D almost exclusively. The only time I use my 20D is for shooting wildlife where field of view isn't as critical.

[Drifting Away]

I recently took a Tamron class - their new lens is 28 - 300 and has IS. Great all around lens. I was able to try it on a Canon and a Nikon. Great all around lens!

Good luck and happy picture taking!

[cathydev]

Great information everyone. Thanks. What I really need to keep in mind is a better lens won't make me a better photographer. Although I really wish it would!

 

I am now just frustrated with my ability. It just seems like I set in on the Av setting and take pictures, then worry that it won't turn out right, so I take some on manual, then the total auto setting, then the Adep setting.... so I end up taking 200 pictures in an afternoon just hoping for half a dozen good shots...it irritates my family and takes up a lot of time.

 

I am reading a great book called Understanding Exposure by Brian Peterson and it explains things quite well. My only problem is the more I read about exposure and photography the worse my pictures get. I'm not trying to do anything fancy, I just want to take good landscape pictures, scenic pictures, family pictures on vacation, all for personal use. I've looked into a photography class but we live in small rural area and there is nothing within a 75 mile radius.

 

I guess I'm frustrated and am wondering if I should just buy a nice point and shoot. I think my daughter takes consistently better pictures in few shots with her canon sd1000 than i do...

[pierces]

Great information everyone. Thanks. What I really need to keep in mind is a better lens won't make me a better photographer. Although I really wish it would!

 

I am now just frustrated with my ability. It just seems like I set in on the Av setting and take pictures, then worry that it won't turn out right, so I take some on manual, then the total auto setting, then the Adep setting.... so I end up taking 200 pictures in an afternoon just hoping for half a dozen good shots...it irritates my family and takes up a lot of time.

 

I am reading a great book called Understanding Exposure by Brian Peterson and it explains things quite well. My only problem is the more I read about exposure and photography the worse my pictures get. I'm not trying to do anything fancy, I just want to take good landscape pictures, scenic pictures, family pictures on vacation, all for personal use. I've looked into a photography class but we live in small rural area and there is nothing within a 75 mile radius.

 

I guess I'm frustrated and am wondering if I should just buy a nice point and shoot. I think my daughter takes consistently better pictures in few shots with her canon sd1000 than i do...

 

Don't be afraid of "P" mode! The people that designed the evaluative metering system on your camera took 100 years of photographic smarts and put it in there for you to use. The only advantage to full manual is if you are using an incident light meter or another means that tells you the exact exposure you need or if you are bracketing a wide range of exposure. Av mode gives you control over depth of field but still calculates exposure for you, which is why I use it about 98% of the time. Another super tool is exposure compensation (+/-). it allows you to adjust for things like back-light and scenes with excessive contrast between light and dark areas. you may also want to crack open the manual and try out the sharpening and contrast settings. Your sister's SD1000 comes from the factory with much more sharpening and contrast than your DSLR. DSLRs are factory set to retain as much detail as possible so you can perk them up as much or as little as you want. If you don't like to fiddle with the pictures afterwards on the computer, the sharpness, color and contrast settings can make a world of difference in what comes straight out of the camera.

 

The book you mentioned is one of my favorites. It's a good read and he doesn't digress or over-tech too much. You may also want to read an article I wrote about adding lenses to your system as it goes into exposure and depth of field in an understandable way (so I've been told...:p ). Look here: http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/AddingLenses.htmhttp://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/AddingLenses.htm

 

DSLRs are terriffic tools, but they take some patience and practice.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[FinelyCruising]

Cathy - I too struggled with the cost of the 17-55 but took the plunge and have absolutely no regret at all. It is sharp. Really sharp. Might not make you a better photographer, but it will make your pictures a whole lot better to look at.

[bob16946]

Cathy - If you would like a true "wide angle" lens for your camera, consider the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for about $690. I have this lens for my Canon 40D as well as the 17-55mm. Both lenses provide wonderful pictures but I sometimes find that the 17-55mm on our 1.6x crop-sensor cameras isn't wide enough. Also, don't get discouraged about the pictures that aren't "perfect". I find I can learn from my mistakes as well as my successes. You have a great camera and with the proper lenses, the great pictures will come.

[FinelyCruising]

I was looking at the 10-22 and due to the overlap with the 17-55 was not quite sure how I would land on the extra 7mm. I could not get an idea of the difference if you might be able to help.

 

On the other hand, it might be an easier lens for walking around sometimes due to the weight of the 17-55.

 

Also, I have read many reviews on this lens and am pretty spoiled with the 17-55, so if you can advise if the 10-22 is just as sharp that just might be what pushes me toward another puchase!

 

Thanks!

[bob16946]

I was looking at the 10-22 and due to the overlap with the 17-55 was not quite sure how I would land on the extra 7mm. I could not get an idea of the difference if you might be able to help.

 

On the other hand, it might be an easier lens for walking around sometimes due to the weight of the 17-55.

 

Also, I have read many reviews on this lens and am pretty spoiled with the 17-55, so if you can advise if the 10-22 is just as sharp that just might be what pushes me toward another puchase!

 

Thanks!

 

Cathy - I would consider the 10-22mm more of a special purpose lens, particularly for scenary and landscapes. Portrait shots with this lens tends to distort the people on the ends. My 17-55mm is my "walk-around" lens and I am happy with the landscape pictures I have taken with it. With that said, I plan on relying on my 10-22mm for landscape shots when we cruise to Alaska next year. If you are looking for one lens for general purpose and landscape photography, the 17-55mm is a great lens and can certainly do both. However, I don't consider this lens to be "wide angle" with the 1.6x crop factor.

 

The attached picture was taken with the 10-22mm. I could not have taken this with the 17-55mm since I couldn't move back any further do to a fence.

[bob16946]

Sorry about the picture size. It's my first attachment on this site and for some reason the Manage Attachments keeps shrinking the size

[pierces]

Sorry about the picture size. It's my first attachment on this site and for some reason the Manage Attachments keeps shrinking the size

 

Attachments are severely limited.

 

It's best to put them on a hosted website like PBase or Photobucket and link to them.

 

Here's a shot with my Sony 11-18. Similar effect to the Canon ultra-wide:

 

I was iffy on an ulrea-wide, but I'm sold now!

 

 

Love the perspective

 

Dave

[bob16946]

Great pictures, Dave. I can't wait to try my wide angle in Alaska. Thanks for the posting tip.

[FinelyCruising]

So Dave were both of these at about 11mm or was the 2nd one with even less....I think you have an 8mm?

[pierces]

So Dave were both of these at about 11mm or was the 2nd one with even less....I think you have an 8mm?

 

Both were at 11mm.

 

Dave

[pierces]

Great pictures, Dave. I can't wait to try my wide angle in Alaska. Thanks for the posting tip.

 

Alaska is a good place for wide. Not much falls into the "small" classification!

 

 

Dave

[cathydev]

bob16946...the picture is super! Wow, I wish I had your skills.

 

I rented the 17-55 EF-S IS lens for one week. I got it yesterday and so far it's very nice. I really like the 2.8 when taking people pictures. Beautiful blur in the background. I did take some nice landscape pictures, but not much don't see much difference in pictures than my 28-135 IS EF lens aside from the obvious of 17 vs 25 mm. I will definitely add this lens to my wish (because the 2.8 is fast) list but I'm wondering if another lens would be better or I should just stick with my 28-135.

 

I want a good walk around lens that's wide enough to take pictures of cool places in Rome. We are there for one week prior to our cruise. I think the thing I struggle with is the depth of field and to focus and take a picture getting as much in focus as possible. When I put the camera on the A-dep setting not all the focus lights 'light' up (especially those that may be on the sky or clouds). And the result is a photo that doesn't seem as sharp front to back as it could be. And when I use the A-dep setting with the 17-55 lens it automatically sets it at f/2.8. Surely that can't make things as sharp as possible...don't I need f/11 or f/22????

 

Maybe I'm making this all too complicated. In the book Understand Exposure, Bryan Peterson talks about presetting the focus via the distance settings to get everything in focus... How the heck do you do this?

 

Say I see a pretty landscape, where do I focus? What if there isn't anything in particular to focus on?

 

I have uploaded 13 pictures to http://picasaweb.google.com/smiemszoo/Random. If you click on the pictures and then on the right side of each photo there is an option for 'more data'. You can see specific camera info. I have added comments to each picture.. I would appreciate feedback. Like I said above, my biggest concern is I want to take some nice scenic pictures on our cruise and also nice family shots at the various places we go and not spend the whole time worrying about whether my pictures will turn out or not....

 

Oh...one more important thing. None of the pictures I have posted have been edited in any way and if a filter was used I indicated it in the caption. Typically I don't edit except for removing red-eye in my picasa software. I know editing can be very helpful but I haven't made the time to learn a good program. Sad, but true.

 

Feedback would be appreciated.

[cathydev]

maybe this link will actually work???

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/smiemszoo/Random

[bob16946]

Cathy - Most of these pictures are awesome, especially the last two. The fact that they look so good without any editing is also a credit to you. Good idea to rent the 17-55 - its a great lens. If you find yourself shooting in some low light situations, this lens is a winner.

 

I don't have much experience shooting in A-Dep to be much help to you. When I shoot landscapes with my 17-55, I use Av mode as close to f/8 as I can (seems to be the "sweet spot" for this lens). If I need a faster shutter speed than my metering allows, I increase my ISO setting.

 

Your comments didn't mention shutter speed. I'm wondering if what you call "out of focus" is attributed to camera shake and/or slow shutter speed. Also, shooting a landscape at f/2.8 or f/3.5 results in a narrow DOF that will prevent everything from being tack sharp. You also want to be careful about aperture settings as small as f/22 since you may lose some sharpness due to light diffraction issues. Both lenses have IS and I assume you had this turned on with your handheld shots and turned off with your tripod shots.

 

If and when time allows, I would recommend learning a program like Photoshop Elements for editing you images. I find almost all of my photos require some degree of adjustment and sharpening.

[cathydev]

I do use IS when not on a tripod. I think my focus problem could because the aperture is too open and I need to make it smaller (i think the correct term is 'stop it down'?). I am possibly wrong on this...and if so...please enlighten me!

 

Thanks for the nice feedback. I appreciate it. I just want to get better. I am not looking to be the next famous national geographic photographer, I just want to take decent shots of the family while on vacation!

 

As for shutter speed...I have now put that info on all the pictures. But if you look at each picture you can click on the over on the right of the picture lick on the small box "more info" to get shutter speed and other pertinent data.

 

Photography is turning into a very time consuming hobby :)