Help me get into DSLR...

noced

I'm (finally) getting my first DSLR...

I know the following:
1.) For a body, I'm going with the Canon Rebel XTi.
2.) Spending more on a lens will yield better results then spending more on a body upgrade (40D, etc).

I want the following:
1.) One good lens to start with and will still be able to use for a long time to come.
2.) That lens to work in a lot of scenarios (portraits, landscapes, etc). Indoors/portraits is important to me (think kids first steps kind of pictures).

So, I've been thinking about the 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L. My thoughts are:
1.) L series will give me the quality/durability I'm looking for.
2.) f/4 will do well indoors, but f/2.8 even better.
3.) Is 24 wide enough on a 1.6x body? I could supplement this later on with a wider prime lens, but for now if I have only one lens I want it to be enough in most of the scenarios I'll find myself.
4.) Is 2.8 fast enough for indoors/low-light? I've been told to grab a 50 f/1.8 (or f/1.4) in addition for these scenarios. But, is 50 to narrow on a 1.6x crop?
5.) Should I ditch the "buy an L" theory and spend about the same money on multiple lenses?

What else should I be investing in? I know I already want a 4GB memory card and remote control release. Do I really need these right away: flash, vertical grip, extra battery?

Thanks so much.
Ed

bobw

I'm pretty new to the dgrin group but.....You might go to a good camera store and try an XTi with different lens so you can judge for yourself. I don't have the 24-70 but do have the 24-105 and i don't like it for most indoor shots. I have a 10-22 that is really good, not an L but still a very good lens and cost is less. You can get some good landscapes with it too.

But, as I said, you need to try different lenses at a store. You will be able to tell real quick which one would work for your style.

Foochar

noced wrote:

I'm (finally) getting my first DSLR...

I know the following:
1.) For a body, I'm going with the Canon Rebel XTi.
2.) Spending more on a lens will yield better results then spending more on a body upgrade (40D, etc).

I want the following:
1.) One good lens to start with and will still be able to use for a long time to come.
2.) That lens to work in a lot of scenarios (portraits, landscapes, etc). Indoors/portraits is important to me (think kids first steps kind of pictures).

So, I've been thinking about the 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L. My thoughts are:
1.) L series will give me the quality/durability I'm looking for.
2.) f/4 will do well indoors, but f/2.8 even better.
3.) Is 24 wide enough on a 1.6x body? I could supplement this later on with a wider prime lens, but for now if I have only one lens I want it to be enough in most of the scenarios I'll find myself.
4.) Is 2.8 fast enough for indoors/low-light? I've been told to grab a 50 f/1.8 (or f/1.4) in addition for these scenarios. But, is 50 to narrow on a 1.6x crop?
5.) Should I ditch the "buy an L" theory and spend about the same money on multiple lenses?

What else should I be investing in? I know I already want a 4GB memory card and remote control release. Do I really need these right away: flash, vertical grip, extra battery?

Thanks so much.
Ed

Another lens to add to your list for consideration is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Although this lens is not an L lens many people feel that the image quality rivals that of an L. It is in the same price range as the other lenses you are considering and in many ways is the answer to the points above. It gives you the wider aperture of the 24-70 f/2.8, along with stabalization of the 24-105 IS, and is wider than either of those lenses.

aktse

In general, you have done a very good job with your research. And you nailed it... buy good glass. When I first got into the dSLR world, people were trying to sell me thier mediocre glass so that they could upgrade.

I heard mostly good things about the 24-105L f/4 and it's currently at a great price at BH. You will f/2.8 or better indoors without flash in low light situations.

Have you consider the following options:
1)Tamron SP AF 28-75 f/2.8
2)Canon 10-22 EFS -- LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE
3)And the fantastic plastic (you can't go wrong).

The build of the Tammy isn’t that of the Canon glass, but the reviews are fabulous for the price. The AF is a bit slow and it doesn't have IS, but you can't have it all. And it's pretty awesome for the price. Between that and the 50mm f/1.8, you do well in door and you’ll love the 10-22 for landscapes.

But if you're set on Canon glass, the 24-70mm f/2.8L is a better choice than the 24-105mm. The other one that you might look at is the 17-55 EF-S f/2.8 IS. It's not a L, but the quality is great and it's has all the yummy goodness of IS. Personally, I would either go with the 17-55 f/2.8 or the tammy one.

After shooting for less than two years, I don’t have a flash even though I mainly shoot indoor sports under very poor lighting conditions. I don't have vertical grip since I have small hands. However, I do recommend an extra battery. It really depends on what you're gong to shoot.

And don't forget to check the forums for used gear.

Cuong

Foochar wrote:

Another lens to add to your list for consideration is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS...

I agree with Travis on this one. I don't have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but it has many favorable reviews. It should make a great walk-around lens since it's light and sharp, and has IS (I love my lenses with IS) and the range and speed to cover landscape to portrait subjects. I do have the 24-70mm f/2.8, and it's definitely not a walk-around lens for a 1.6 crop factor body even with its wonderful performance. It's hefty and doesn't have the coverage you need for the subjects you cited.
Another consideration is the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.7 IS. It's a decent lens, and you can use the money saved for a flash and another lens.

Cuong

noced

Thanks for responding, guys...

I hadn't considered the 17-55 f/2.8 yet. I read a few reviews and that looks like quite a nice lens. What I like about the 17-55 is that it is effectively 28-88, a zoom I'm very familiar with on my film 35mm. But, the 17-55 is essentially the same price as the 24-70 once you factor in a lens hood. So, what's a guy to do?

I'm going to try to get to a camera shop this weekend. Would a Ritz have this kind of gear? I haven't been to a 'real' camera shop in a few years...I'll have to see what's in the area. (Hartford, CT for this weekend, or Attleboro, MA for next week)

Edit: The 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have IS. Might that be the deciding factor on these two lenses?

TylerW

noced wrote:

I'm going to try to get to a camera shop this weekend. Would a Ritz have this kind of gear? I haven't been to a 'real' camera shop in a few years...I'll have to see what's in the area. (Hartford, CT for this weekend, or Attleboro, MA for next week)

A ritz will have the body, but not much selection in lenses. Probably just kit lenses and whetevr their woeful house brand is.

Lovesong

noced wrote:

Thanks for responding, guys...

I hadn't considered the 17-55 f/2.8 yet. I read a few reviews and that looks like quite a nice lens. What I like about the 17-55 is that it is effectively 28-88, a zoom I'm very familiar with on my film 35mm. But, the 17-55 is essentially the same price as the 24-70 once you factor in a lens hood. So, what's a guy to do?

I'm going to try to get to a camera shop this weekend. Would a Ritz have this kind of gear? I haven't been to a 'real' camera shop in a few years...I'll have to see what's in the area. (Hartford, CT for this weekend, or Attleboro, MA for next week)

Edit: The 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have IS. Might that be the deciding factor on these two lenses?

The problem with the 24's is that on an APS sensor they will have an equivalent wide of ~38. That's a bit long for a general walk around lens. That being said, I have the 24-70 on my 5D, and it is one of the best zoom lenses I've ever owned (short only to that 70-200 f/2.8 I own and love). Don't worry about the IS too much- fast glass will almost always trump IS.

noced

I haven't been able to get to a camera store yet to compare the two hands on...

I'd like to make a purchase this week. I can't get past my "L" hangup on the 24-70. Any other opinions?

OsirisPhoto

All I can add.. not being an 'L' aficionado yet.. is that your 1st lens purchase should be the 50mm f/1.8 ... the 'No brainer.' Oh, wait, it's been said already

My next purchase might be the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but I really want the 100mm+ range.

claudermilk

A little late to the discussion (sorry, out using the heck out of my gear again... ).

You're on the right track. Glass is more important than the body. Bodies will come & go, glass will last through several bodies.

The 24-70 and 24-105 are both excellent lenses, but are two different tools for two different jobs. The 24-70 is an excellet low-light midrange zoom; that is why I chose it (ok, the 24-105 wasn't available or announced yet, but I'd still have the 24-70 in my bag anyway). Lack of IS is not a factor IMHO, the focal length is still fairly short so the 1/FL rule of thumb--even including crop factor adjustment--keeps you at about 1/100 or so. Not terribly hard to achieve. The 24-105 is more of a general walkaround with some lower-light use with the IS. One thing to remember, IS does not stop subject motion, it only accounts for camera motion. So it's of somewhat of limited use for low-light action (such as night/indoor sports or theater). The 17-55/2.8IS gets good reviews as does the Tamron 17-50. I am not familiar with them myself. As for the "24 is too long," well that's a personal thing. I feel 24 is just fine as a walkaround; even on a 1.6 crop it's still moderately wide & I can usually take the couple of steps back needed if I'm cropping too much zoomed out.

For the ultra-wides, I'd first suggest waiting on those. The mid-range zooms will be of more use at first. Once you've determined you need the ultra-wide, I would suggest taking a look at both the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24. Both are very good lenses with about equivalent optics. Run a search here to review the lengthy debates on the virtues of each. There's definitely two camps here & some get a bit defensive when they perceive their choice is "questioned."

The 50/1.8 (plastic fantastic) is a very good lens for the price. The build quality is super cheap, but the optics are good enough to transcend that. On a 1.6 crop body it comes out to about a 82mm FOV, which is a favored portrait length. It ends up being a bit long for general use--a 28mm to 35mm prime would be more suited; I'm looking at adding the 35/2 to my bag for that purpose as I have found my 50 is indeed too long for street photography.

Hyperbaric, for 100mm+, the best place to start is the famed 70-200 lineup. The basic f4 is about $500--a screaming deal for an L zoom. I have the 70-200/2.8 and have used all varieties save the f4IS--every one of those lenses is a winner.

noced

Where can I get a 70-200 f/4L for $500?

Does anyone have some shots they can post comparing different focal lenghts for these lenses? Such as similar shots from 17mm and 24mm. I know, that's a lot to ask.

ziggy53

noced wrote:

Where can I get a 70-200 f/4L for $500?

B&H has them for $540 after rebate:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html

Cuong

noced wrote:

Where can I get a 70-200 f/4L for $500? ...

You can get a brand new one from Amazon.com for $539 (free shipping).

Cuong

claudermilk

I said "about"

Buydig/Beach Camera, 17th St. Photo, Adorama, Samy's and KEH all have the same price after rebate as B&H. Canoga Camera beats them by a hair at $528. KEH also shows an EX used one for $465--I'd jump on that as KEH's EX is about the same as your typical eBay "like new."

So, you can get this lens all day at reputable dealers for about $540 right now.

noced

Thanks for the links. I had searched for the IS versions. Hard to believe adding IS ups the price by $500. Either way, I'm just looking for one lens right now, a walkabout. The 70-200 is on my radar once I convince my wife that I need it to take pictures of her triathlons.

claudermilk

For a walkaround lens, you're looking for a midrange zoom. I would start with these options to look at: 24-70/2.8L, 24-105/4L IS, 17-55/2.8 IS, Tamron 17-50/2.8 SP XR Di II, Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG. Those seem to be the most popular lenses put to this use. Check the photozone.de reviews.

For the triathlons, well of course you need the 70-200! Heck, for hte swimming part something even longer would be nice, too.

noced

I made it into my local camera shop this afternoon (Hunt Photo in Providence, RI)...

I was able to try out a 17-55 2.8, 24-105 4L, and 70-200 4L. They didn't have the 24-70 2.8L in stock. I think I've decided on the 24-70 2.8L as my primary lens. The difference between 17 and 24 wasn't significant, though of course this was just in the store, not in actual use. I like the build of the "L" series, as well as the nice touches like not having to buy a hood separately.

This was also my first chance to hold the Rebel XTi. Coming from a 10 year old Rebel film SLR, I can't believe the speed and quietness of the focus. The rear LCD acting as the primary status window is as nice as I've read. The body felt small, though. I'm wondering if I'll eventually want the vertical grip.

claudermilk

noced wrote:

The body felt small, though. I'm wondering if I'll eventually want the vertical grip.

Yup. It took me about a quarter of an evening to determine my 20D needed a grip. I cannot imagine how uncomfortable a smaller Rebel would be.

noced

I made my purchase this morning from B&H...


- Canon Rebel XTi body only
- Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L
- Sandisk 4GB Extreme III
- B&W 77mm UV filter
- Canon wireless remote


I held off on the vertical grip for now. Now, who works at B&H that can rush my order through?

ziggy53

noced wrote:

... Now, who works at B&H that can rush my order through?

That would be "everyone" at B&H. They have exemplary order handling and customer service, including after the sale service.

noced

Got my gear this afternoon....

Everything came in one day. Not bad for two day shipping. I can't wait to get home and try it all out.

noced

I love this camera, and especially this lens. I'm still learning all the ins and outs, but I'm already thirsty for about 3 more lenses, a 2-strobe lighting setup, and a trip to Shay's boot camp.

So far I've been learning how to shoot in P, Av, Tv, and M mode. I'm really comfortable in balancing aperture, shutter, and ISO now. I haven't touched the auto modes or the popup flash much.

I've been inside for the most part annoying my wife and animals. I look forward to next week seeing all of the family for Thanksgiving. I've already been assigned portrait duties.

Moogle Pepper

Oh congratulations on the purchase and super fast shipping!