Replacing "Kit Lens" on Canon Rebel XT

k2butter

I want to replace the lens that came with the camera, I would like to get something that had the same range,or close to it, since I love the wide angle on the lens.... I have a 75-300 and a 50.... what should I add next for this camera? Any suggestions in the say $200+/- range would be helpful...

Thanks!
Karen

Chrissiebeez_NL

I'm limited in my budget as well and i like the 28-105 F3.5-4.5 pretty well. it has USM, Full time Manual focussing, seperate focussing ring, 58mm thread (so you can keep your filters), fairly good aperature, has fine image quality and responds well. it isnt very wide though. its not heavy but certainly build better the the kit lens. most importantly its within budget (about).

i shot this series

and this one with the 28-105 and, for the money, it's a fine lens.

you can look in this galery for the original files and do some pixelpeeping.

hope this helps!

k2butter

Chrissiebeez_NL wrote:

I'm limited in my budget as well and i like the 28-105 F3.5-4.5 pretty well. it has USM, Full time Manual focussing, seperate focussing ring, 58mm thread (so you can keep your filters), fairly good aperature, has fine image quality and responds well. it isnt very wide though. its not heavy but certainly build better the the kit lens. most importantly its within budget (about).

i shot this series

and this one with the 28-105 and, for the money, it's a fine lens.

you can look in this galery for the original files and do some pixelpeeping.

hope this helps!

Oh, WOW! Those are really nice shots, I especially like what you got with the 28-105 very nice... thank you for the suggestions, I will look into them... I am a hobbyist, so I don't really want to spend a ton of money on equipment....

sirsloop

Keep in mind, if you are looking for a kit lens replacement you may not be happy with a lens that starts out at 28mm. That 10mm difference at the short end compared to the kit lens is pretty significant! Maybe read into this lens a little: Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC

k2butter

sirsloop wrote:

Keep in mind, if you are looking for a kit lens replacement you may not be happy with a lens that starts out at 28mm. That 10mm difference at the short end compared to the kit lens is pretty significant! Maybe read into this lens a little: Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC

THank you, that is kind of the range I am looking for, I have a lot of fun with the super wide angle on the kit lens, it is about the only thing I like about it...

boulderNardo

I would tell you to look into the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS as I just bought it myself and LOVE it, but seems to be out of your price range.

So what I suggest next is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC (Macro). Good quality, constant 2.8 aperture, and if you get the newer model it even has a Macro option.

ziggy53

boulderNardo wrote:

I would tell you to look into the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS as I just bought it myself and LOVE it, but seems to be out of your price range.

So what I suggest next is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC (Macro). Good quality, constant 2.8 aperture, and if you get the newer model it even has a Macro option.

It's more like $350 or so, but I have the non-macro version and it is a wonderful lens.

DavidTO

Keep your $200 and save up until you can afford a more expensive lens, IMO.

sirsloop

IDK if the problem is affording a more expensive lens... I think she simply doesn't want to spend a lot on a lens. Ya know I could buy a 1d mark III right now but I'm happy with what I have and have other stuff I can spend money on (like a house)

DavidTO

sirsloop wrote:

IDK if the problem is affording a more expensive lens... I think she simply doesn't want to spend a lot on a lens. Ya know I could buy a 1d mark III right now but I'm happy with what I have and have other stuff I can spend money on (like a house)

All I'm saying is that for $200 you're better off sticking with the kit lens, IMO. You're not going to gain much for the expense.

sirsloop

idk... 200 bucks could get you a couple nice lenses. The 35/2 is a winner at $225 and the one I mentioned above is pretty damn good for ~$230. Granted its no 24-70L, but they are bang for the buck.

boulderNardo

You can find the SIgma 18-55 non-macro for ~250-300 used, there's actually one here in the Flea Market for 250 still on sale. Ebay has plenty, saw a Macro version go for 330, and I'm use FM is full of them.

The other option is, like a few others have posted, go with a 35/2, to which I would suggest adding the 50/1.8 mkII - won't cover the entire zoom-range you're looking for, but they're great lenses and they will make you work for your shots.

DavidTO

sirsloop wrote:

idk... 200 bucks could get you a couple nice lenses. The 35/2 is a winner at $225 and the one I mentioned above is pretty damn good for ~$230. Granted its no 24-70L, but they are bang for the buck.

Yabbut if you're replacing the kit lens with one fixed focal length lens....

BigAl

sirsloop wrote:

Keep in mind, if you are looking for a kit lens replacement you may not be happy with a lens that starts out at 28mm. That 10mm difference at the short end compared to the kit lens is pretty significant! Maybe read into this lens a little: Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC

This lens is no longer in Sigma's product range. It is also not an easy lens to use (I know I have one). I would rather suggest the Sigma 17-70 (although this also falls into the $300+ range).

sirsloop

I sold my kit lens and bought the 35/2... best damn thing I ever did with that kit lens! Well.. I won't make it sound like ever really shot with the thing. I have access to quite a few lenses... and the 35/2 never got used when I was in Peru or the Galapagos but I still love the lens. I shot with the 10-22 or the 24-70L, both not relevant to this price point or zoom range. http://jdhaesloop.com/problem.jpg

Chrissiebeez_NL

i agree that 28mm isnt very wide on a crop body but its a personal choice if you mind it that much (has been discussed before ) but if you really like the wide end, the 28-105 isnt your first choice i presume. I do have to say that it still beats the living cr*p out of the kitlens so not every upgrade other than a expensive lens like a 24-70L or something 500+ is throwing away money.

k2butter

Yes, a lot of it has to do with the fact that I just don't want to pay a lot for lenses... I am basically taking snapshots of my family... I rarely print anything larger than 5x7 but mostly only print my favorite 4x6... I don't think I really NEED something that is that expensive for my family picture albums... I like to play around with stuff, but I don't take it seriously and don't want to invest thousands and thousands of dollars on my hobby, especially when I have a 16 year old and a 4 year old!!! They suck most of our money up!!!!

Thank you all for the suggestions!!!

claudermilk

FOr looking at zooms, I agree with David. I don't see a point in changing zoom lenses from the kit lens at that price point--it's just a directly comparable lens, so why even spend the money there? The reason most of us ditch the kit lens is to replace it with a better lens--which means more expensive along with it. I've looked at the other zooms options in that price range & just don't see the point. Looking at the Sigma equivalents I have a hard time recommending the swap there--from photozone's tests it does outresolve the Canon a bit, but has worse CA (Klaus has some really graphic examples in the f2.8 lenses test--bleh); in the end I see no point in switching from Canon's kit to Sigma's kit.

Now, primes is a different story. You get a whole lot of performance for the money within the stated budget. I think one of the normal/wide primes will be the best bang for the buck. So, the standard 50/1.8 recommendation ($70 or $150 for a used Mk I); then the 50/2.5 as another option which also allows experimenting with macros ($230). For wide, the 35/2 ($230).

Back when I was first building my kit, I actually went the prime route & got myself a 50/1.8 Mk II for $140. I used that for a year before splashing for the 24-70. It was a very interesting challenge adjusting to a single focal length, but very rewarding. IMHO considering the budget the prime route is probably best. The kit lens is always there to fall back on when needed. Oh, and of course the side benefits are faster lenses than a budget zoom can come even close to, and the same with resolution.

I have to sayit sure gets hard to fight the L-snobbery once you get spoiled.

Oh, BTW, photography is an expensive hobby.

k2butter

claudermilk wrote:

FOr looking at zooms, I agree with David. I don't see a point in changing zoom lenses from the kit lens at that price point--it's just a directly comparable lens, so why even spend the money there? The reason most of us ditch the kit lens is to replace it with a better lens--which means more expensive along with it. I've looked at the other zooms options in that price range & just don't see the point. Looking at the Sigma equivalents I have a hard time recommending the swap there--from photozone's tests it does outresolve the Canon a bit, but has worse CA (Klaus has some really graphic examples in the f2.8 lenses test--bleh); in the end I see no point in switching from Canon's kit to Sigma's kit.

Now, primes is a different story. You get a whole lot of performance for the money within the stated budget. I think one of the normal/wide primes will be the best bang for the buck. So, the standard 50/1.8 recommendation ($70 or $150 for a used Mk I); then the 50/2.5 as another option which also allows experimenting with macros ($230). For wide, the 35/2 ($230).

Back when I was first building my kit, I actually went the prime route & got myself a 50/1.8 Mk II for $140. I used that for a year before splashing for the 24-70. It was a very interesting challenge adjusting to a single focal length, but very rewarding. IMHO considering the budget the prime route is probably best. The kit lens is always there to fall back on when needed. Oh, and of course the side benefits are faster lenses than a budget zoom can come even close to, and the same with resolution.

I have to sayit sure gets hard to fight the L-snobbery once you get spoiled.

Oh, BTW, photography is an expensive hobby.

YES! An expensive hobby... I have done photography for quite some time, did film for years, before family... I enjoyed it, but stopped for a long time because of the cost.... picked it all up again when I got my first digital point and shoot a few years back.... just recently I purchased this camera.... and am trying to relearn all the tech side of things... I am pretty good in photoshop e. and lightroom, but don't enjoy the PP that much... so I wanted something that would take a bit sharper picture... but I am also well aware you get what ya pay for!!!!

I have a 50/1.8which I probably should play around with a bit more... I also have a 75-300 so I feel pretty set with the zoom side.... I just really love the super wide of the kit... maybe I will just keep my kit for now, learn to use my 50 a bit better.... save for something in the 300-400 range, I wouldn't spend more than that on a lens... not for what I do anyway!!!!

Thanks for your thoughts!

ziggy53

claudermilk wrote:

... in the end I see no point in switching from Canon's kit to Sigma's kit.

...

While Sigma does have a direct equivalent to the Canon "kit" lens, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC is no kit lens.

Here are my first tests of the lens:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=14651

These were shot with that lens (details of the shoot http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=29694):



100% crop from above image:


From this last weekend (just messing around):








This lens, at f4, compares nicely with the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L on a crop body (which I also have). This lens is an extremely good value and much superior to any kit lens I have tried. (I have two of the Canon "kit" lenses BTW.)

claudermilk

Those are certainly some nice shots & show the potential of the lens.

I was not looking at that lens as a direct competitor to Canon's kit. For one thing, it's $420, well beyond the stated budget. For another, some of photozone's test results are bothersome, specifically the horrible CA they encountered. Both Sigma's own cheaper 3.5-5.6 version, and Canon's kit outperform the f2.8 lens here. While Sigma's lense both outresolve the Canon on average, the budget one isn't enough to spend extra money to swap out for the Canon IMHO.

arroyoshark

I think there is a sad reality here. If you want better glass than the 18-55mm 'kit' lens, for the same general zoom range, it will cost you more than $200. I have an XT and used the 18-55mm kit lens for a bit. For most images it produced visibly sharp images. Likely most of its flaws will go un-noticed in smaller prints. I wanted a better lens in similar zoom range, myself. I like the wide angle choice for landscape. I did spend the $380 for the Sigma 17-70 lens and I really like it. It stays on the camera. It is a substantially sharper resolving lens, but you pay for that.

I think that if you want a better quality lens to replace the kit lens, then you'll need to overcome your frugality and save the $$ for better lens, or just enjoy the 'kit' lens. A $200 budget will not net you $200 more image quality.

urbanaries

arroyoshark wrote:

I think there is a sad reality here. If you want better glass than the 18-55mm 'kit' lens, for the same general zoom range, it will cost you more than $200.

I agree with David TO....considering the kit lens is $125 new, are we expecting a bit much that ~$75 will improve the optical quality by a measurable margin? The curve of zoom prices is not exactly linear...they seem to start around $~200 then jump to $4-500 then to >$1000 for an L.

In my own history of trying to spend the least amount of money, I have bought and sold just about every non-L wide angle zoom on the market. I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50 2.8 over the Sigma model...or for outdoor use the Canon 17-85 IS. Both are pretty sharp and cost around $450...if I remember correctly.

arroyoshark

When discussing which lens or brand might be better, wouldn't hurt to have a window open on this website, which performs pretty detailed lens tests:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html


I actually based my purchase of the Sigma 17-70mm off of these tests and have not been disappointed in results. The tamron 17-50mm was not available when I purchased the Sigma, but was on market within weeks afterword. The Tamron is not a bad lens either, just a bit shorter in reach.

BBiggs

arroyoshark wrote:

When discussing which lens or brand might be better, wouldn't hurt to have a window open on this website, which performs pretty detailed lens tests:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html


I actually based my purchase of the Sigma 17-70mm off of these tests and have not been disappointed in results. The tamron 17-50mm was not available when I purchased the Sigma, but was on market within weeks afterword. The Tamron is not a bad lens either, just a bit shorter in reach.

I love my sigma 17-70mm!

claudermilk

I use photozone's tests heavily when researching or commenting on lenses. Great resource.

I agree with the last few posts & that's basically where I have been going with my comments: a $200 budget simply does not allow for high quality zoom lenses. Now, if you start talking prime lenses, it's a different ballgame. There's a few good ones there, the best budget one being the famed nifty fifty.

If you want a good zoom, saving up for what one costs is going to be better than looking for the cheapest one available, at least IMHO. I've spent a few years building my lens kit one at a time, but they are all excellent lenses that I have no regrets about buying; they will also outlast several digital bodies now.

Little T

Gonna kinda *steal* this thread a sec, im lookin at lenses and between the kit or the sigma 18-50 f2.8. in your opinions do you think the price diff from the kit to sigma is worth it?


I do outdoor and indoor shooting, work with a friend on weddings and such as well.

ziggy53

Little T wrote:

Gonna kinda *steal* this thread a sec, im lookin at lenses and between the kit or the sigma 18-50 f2.8. in your opinions do you think the price diff from the kit to sigma is worth it?


I do outdoor and indoor shooting, work with a friend on weddings and such as well.

In my opinion, "absolutely" the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro, and the Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) are all considerable upgrades from the "kit" lens in many ways.

Of course the best choice, and the only one that I consider a major upgrade to the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC that I have, is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

k2butter

I decided to save for a better lens.... but I used the 200 for a new pair of boots!!! Even more important!

Little T

ziggy53 wrote:

In my opinion, "absolutely" the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro, and the Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) are all considerable upgrades from the "kit" lens in many ways.

Of course the best choice, and the only one that I consider a major upgrade to the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC that I have, is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

Whats the big difference between the sigma macro vs non macro ?? lol


nm... non macro is 3.5-5.6 the macro is 2.8.... great when i can answer my own questions

ziggy53

Little T wrote:

Whats the big difference between the sigma macro vs non macro ?? lol


nm... non macro is 3.5-5.6 the macro is 2.8.... great when i can answer my own questions

The "non-Macro" I have is also f2.8. The "macro" version is supposed to be a little better quality, a little shorter minimum focus distance, and a little more costly. I recommend the "macro" version.

There is also the "consumer" lens: Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC that is very inexpensive and not an "EX" lens and no better than the Canon consumer "kit" lens.