What should be my next lense for the rebel XT - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 64

This is a discussion on What should be my next lense for the rebel XT within the Member Show-Off & Photography forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by chanwahyaoh This isn't entirely accurate. Fisheye lenses tend to be at 15mm focal length and wider. There ...

  1. #16
    Registered User blarg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calmer than you are
    Posts
    10,366
    Quote Originally Posted by chanwahyaoh
    This isn't entirely accurate. Fisheye lenses tend to be at 15mm focal length and wider.

    There is SOME level of distortion in all Ultra-wide angle lenses. Not all wide angle lenses are categorized as fisheye. Only the lenses that have not had any distortion correction applied are "fisheye". The lenses that have had that correction are called rectilinear.
    on digital cameras, yes, because the "film" area is smaller.
    ScoobyDMC #009 - making dirty jokes since before you were making dirty diapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blarg
    go f*** yourself

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    "sitting in the corner in Rick Roll timeout" chanwahyaoh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    4,125
    Quote Originally Posted by blarg
    on digital cameras, yes, because the "film" area is smaller.
    sensor size has nothing to do with the distortion correction in the lens' optics.
    Turtles are nature's suction cups.
    .____
    ||J || R.I.P.
    ||__||
    |/__\|

  4. #18
    Moderator beastcivic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC (USA)
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by chanwahyaoh
    for under 600 dollars, I would consider a used Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L.
    Those you can find for sale quite often in the potn forums as well as the fredmiranda forums.

    Granted, it's not the fastest lens, but for outdoor sports, it's more than suitable. You can't beat this lens for the price.
    You can sometimes pick it up new for under $600 too. Just gotta look around. I recommend this lens also, however if you're wanting to shoot portrait shots, this won't help at all. But it is an awesome lens (unless you can afford the 70-200L 2.8...then get that).

    I'd get something wide. I picked up the 50mm 1.8 just because I could get it so cheaply. It's a nice lens, but a bit wide for portrait stuff. I'd look into a nice 24mm or maybe a 28mm for that.

    I'm trying to find a nice wide zoom lens, ideally something that'll go as wide, if not wider than the kit lens, but zoom enough to match up to my 70-200mm. So far I haven't seen anything that I really like that isn't super expensive.
    -Jim

    '02 Platinum Silver WRX sedan w/roof rack...bone stock. Ok, now that's a lie.

    GO HOKIES!!!!!!!!!

  5. #19
    GraysonSubaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    4,686
    ok, so what is a good lense for the action stuff?

    what is a good lense for the portraits?

    what is a good lense for great wide angle stuff?

    all need to be under $600 each.
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    Hey, being the forum car ADD guy is better than being the forum OG.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikie13 View Post
    Well nobody cares what you think, Seth

  6. #20
    Registered User dsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by GraysonSubaru
    ok, so what is a good lense for the action stuff?

    what is a good lense for the portraits?

    what is a good lense for great wide angle stuff?

    all need to be under $600 each.
    My opinion - and granted, it will make your camera bag look like mine -

    Action - canon EF70-200mm F4 L
    Wide angle - I would try the one I recommended. EDIT--That would be this one...Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di - It's got a decent opening at F2.8 and 17mm for the wide angle stuff. And well within your range.
    Portraits - See above. You might want to have one lens with macro. I know I need such a thing.
    Dead is Hard. Life is Much Easier. Be Adequite.
    -Lindsay Lohan

  7. #21
    Registered User Wrx BriT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    on t3h computer.
    Posts
    2,337
    70-200 f/4 L is a great bang for the buck lense. You get 'L' build and image quality at a great price.

    Instead of getting several <$600 I would go with 2 really good lenses that would cover all your focal lengths.

    Sn
    ale Power: -BriTon
    06 STi=dead

    RSTi Swap FTW
    Hawk-Eye Allience #013

  8. #22
    GraysonSubaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    4,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrx BriT
    70-200 f/4 L is a great bang for the buck lense. You get 'L' build and image quality at a great price.

    Instead of getting several <$600 I would go with 2 really good lenses that would cover all your focal lengths.

    which two lenses should i consider if i go with two really good ones instead of a few others
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    Hey, being the forum car ADD guy is better than being the forum OG.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikie13 View Post
    Well nobody cares what you think, Seth

  9. #23
    Registered User Wrx BriT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    on t3h computer.
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by GraysonSubaru
    which two lenses should i consider if i go with two really good ones instead of a few others
    I would still stick with the 70-200f/4 L unless you want to use this type of lense in-doors because you will need to use a flash indoors. Because it is f/4 rather than f/2.8 it is better for outdoor shots. It an L so you get expert build quality not to mension how uber l33t you will look with a big white lense. There is also a f/2.8 version of this lense but you more than double the price. Do you even want/need 200mm of zoom?

    The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM would be a good all purpose lense because it covers a good focal length and it is f2.8 so it will give you good low light shooting and ultra sharp pictures. It also has IS.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...141409?ie=UTF8

    I would get this lense if I could justify the price. Good luck.

    Also check out this post. It should help. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=86975
    Last edited by Wrx BriT; 07-11-2006 at 12:43 PM.

    Sn
    ale Power: -BriTon
    06 STi=dead

    RSTi Swap FTW
    Hawk-Eye Allience #013

  10. #24
    Registered User 02WrXsTi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Miami, Fl, U.S.
    Posts
    1,110
    im not a canon buy but i read a great review on the canon 17-40 f/4L. also the 16-35 f/2.8L

  11. #25
    Registered User dsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chocolate City
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by 02WrXsTi
    im not a canon buy but i read a great review on the canon 17-40 f/4L. also the 16-35 f/2.8L
    The 17-40 2.8L is about 3x as much as the Tamron 17-35 2.8 Di. Read the reviews on that lens, unless the "L" on the lens matters a lot, and unless you switch from digital to film cause the Di is digital only. I think the difference isn't $800.
    The Tamron is a sweet lens for advanced amateur, and probably good enough for pro stuff.
    Dead is Hard. Life is Much Easier. Be Adequite.
    -Lindsay Lohan

  12. #26
    Registered User Wrx BriT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    on t3h computer.
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by dsel
    The 17-40 2.8L is about 3x as much as the Tamron 17-35 2.8 Di. Read the reviews on that lens, unless the "L" on the lens matters a lot, and unless you switch from digital to film cause the Di is digital only. I think the difference isn't $800.
    The Tamron is a sweet lens for advanced amateur, and probably good enough for pro stuff.
    I'd rather have f/2.8 than the L f/4.

    Sn
    ale Power: -BriTon
    06 STi=dead

    RSTi Swap FTW
    Hawk-Eye Allience #013

  13. #27
    Registered User 02WrXsTi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Miami, Fl, U.S.
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by dsel
    The 17-40 2.8L is about 3x as much as the Tamron 17-35 2.8 Di. Read the reviews on that lens, unless the "L" on the lens matters a lot, and unless you switch from digital to film cause the Di is digital only. I think the difference isn't $800.
    The Tamron is a sweet lens for advanced amateur, and probably good enough for pro stuff.

    beats me. lol. i wouldnt know about canon lenses all that much. im a nikon guy.

  14. #28
    Registered User c00lbeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by blarg
    22mm fisheye.

    I'm not a big fan of zoom lenses. I prefer to have a set of fixed focus. I know they're getting better, but you still can't beat them for clarity and no color distortion.

    I have a 50mm, 100mm, and a 28mm...I'd love to get a good 400 or 800, but the bank account says "don't hold your breath"

    a 22mm fisheye wont do **** on a rebel. it has a small sensor. Plus canon dosnt make a 22mmfish eye they only make 15mm and the fish eye effect is only slight compared to a full frame DSLR. Wide angle lenses are not fish eyes. a fish eye lens is exactly that, a lense shaped like a fish eye that bends and gets light from the sides. Wide angles just tend to have more distortion, then longer lenses

    if you shoot action and portirats you want the 70-200 IS. PERIOD

    with the rebel the only 2 lenses you will EVER need is the 17-55is and 70-200IS. That will cover almost everything with great sharpness. Also a 50mm1.8f is nice to have for low light and the fish eyes is fun to play with.
    Last edited by c00lbeans; 07-12-2006 at 01:56 AM.

  15. #29
    Registered User TurbeauxREX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Des Allemands, La.
    Posts
    1,097

    1.6 x whatever your focal length is

    Seth:

    While some respondents have broached the topic, none have explained it, Maybe it's not necessary, but just in case.....

    Canon uses a sensor sized such that in relation to 35mm (standard for SLR cameras) a conversion factor of 1.6 is applied to any lens you stick on your digi-rebel. Hence, regardless of the focal length of lens you ultimately buy you should be aware that it is not what it thinks it is when placed on your, or other, digital SLR cameras.

    The referenced 17 - 35mm becomes ~27 - 56mm. A 15mm fisheye = 24mm. You get the idea.

    This is good news if your goal is longer reach; but a burden when shooting short. With this in mind manufacturers are designing digi-specific ranges; 10, 10.5, etc, which will net you a true fisheye and/or wide angle view, relative to 35mm. It's either buy the digi-specific lenses (if the shorter end is where you wnat to be) or buy the professional canon cameras which employ a full-frame sensor, such as the new 5D or 1DS-series bodies, all of which are in the $3k+ range, new. A good 1DS can now bw had with low clicks for as low as $2500, if that interests you, but, you should know that Canon didn't design its full-frame cameras for your intended use - sports. These are primarily high-res cameras designed for in-studio use to replace medium format cameras.

    Just wanted to throw a little light on what some folks over look when buying lenses and then don't get the results they hoped to.

    A few other notes I'd like to add:

    I disagree that the 70 - 200 is not good for portraits. This Canon lens; whether f4 or 2.8 has a wonderful boquet (background blur) and can be adjusted to an appropriate portrait length - 100 - 135mm.

    And, BLARG, please refrain from posting information that is not researched, incorrect and/or totally unfounded. It is a distraction and only takes up reader's time wading through the muck, not to mention wasting bandwidth on the site. Please check your facts before posting. And, no, I am not going to go back and compile all of your erroneous replies. Others have already corrected your posts throughout this thread.

    Peace,

    Curtis

  16. #30
    Registered User TurbeauxREX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Des Allemands, La.
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by GraysonSubaru
    which two lenses should i consider if i go with two really good ones instead of a few others
    Seth:

    As several have mentioned, the Canon 70 - 200 f4L is a great lens and meets your budget. I sold one to a few clubwrx member for $500 and this is a typical used price. For your shorter choice, again, as other's have stated, Tamron makes lenses that rival Canon in sharpness and build quality at a fraction of the price, and come with a 6 or 7 year warranty, to boot. My son shoots the 28 - 75 Di XR Tamron and I shoot a Canon 28 - 135 IS for walking around lenses and you really can't see the difference in the images. If anything, the Tamron may be a tad sharper.

    Go to www.pbase.com and search by camera and lens for galleries of photos. This can give you a good idea of what kind of "look" you may get with a certain combo, editing not withstanding. Be sure to check the FULL EXIF data under the image to esnure that you are seeing what you think you're seeing.

    Peace,

    Curtis

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •