It's great for available light indoor portraits - works well outdoors, too.

BTW, there is another thread devoted to lenses:
https://acurazine.com/forums/cameras-photography-44/official-lens-discussion-thread-353360/

 

Phew, I am making the plunge after work but $729 for the xti + the 2gig card is a big investment. Especially since my internship pays about $2.50/hr.

 

I guess it's better than an unpaid internship, but that is pretty damn low. Hopefully the exerience pays off.

And congrats on the upcoming purchase.

 

It was originally unpaid but last month they gave me $500 to cover transportation and lunch and another $500 as a bonus for working my ass off.

 

But a more reasonable question, I am hoping to snap some initial photos on my walk back to Grand Central. Does the battery come with charge?

 

There might be a slight charge in it, but it is recommend to fully charge the battery before using it.

 

Let it charge overnight before using it. Also, you might want to check online for extra batteries. You should be able to get 2 for ~$40.

Edit: Those will be non-EOM, but should still work fine.

 

I can't afford a battery now, $815 lighter hehe. this is so cool, i had to snap a few pics before i left work (without charging the battery) but I am going to go home, charge it and start using my parents lenses!! this is sooo sweet.

 

Congrats on the cam!

 

I don't really feel like making a thread to ask my question so I figured this is a good post to ask.

What's a good lens to use with the Canon Rebel XT without spending a bunch of money? The kit lens that comes with the XT is very limited IMO.

 

Limited in what way? What are you looking to do?

Also, define "a bunch of money..."

Oh, and there is a lens discussion thread running around here somewhere that would probably be helpful to you.

 

You cannot zoom in on targets from far away, unless im an idiot and doing it wrong. Not looking to spend over $150-200?

I looked for threads discussing lens' but didn't have too much luck

 

Just bumped it for you....

 

I knew I was getting into more control when I bought this thing, but leaving in full manual mode and controling ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, white balance and using the light meter along with manual focus is an experience of control I can only equate to a manual transmission. I still have a ways to go. I was extremely pleased to find that my parents had an f1.8 50mm that I was looking for, but after using it I would love something extremely similar but with a wider lens. I think it's such a great indoor/low light lens but I feel constrained by the 50mm, I ALWAYS have to back up for my shot.

How do the macro lenses differ in normal shooting? I saw a 60mm macro lens, would that be unusable for any longer shots?

 

It's tough to find wide angle primes for cropped bodies. Canon's 35mm f/2 is a very nice lens but the field of view on a 1.6x body makes it more of a normal lens than a wide angle. It's still quite a bit wider than a 50mm though. They also have a 24mm f/2.8 but I don't have any experience with that lens.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 I picked up a couple weeks ago has been amazing for indoor photos. The image stabilizer makes you feel like you've entered "bullet time" from The Matrix. I've been able to handhold down to 1/4 second and get sharp shots.


The 60mm macro is a great lens and is probably one of the sharpest in Canon's lineup. Macro lenses let you focus very close to the subject so you can fill the frame with very tiny details. It will still let you focus at infinity, so it can be used as a regular lens too. It makes for a very nice outdoor portrait lens. The only drawback to macro lenses is they tend to be on the slow side for autofocusing when used as a regular lens. Some lenses have a focus range limiter switch that helps autofocus speed greatly when you're trying to use them as a regular lens.

 

Thanks, I am trying to decide what my next lens should be. I am trying to look for something this side of $500. I was looking at this wide, wide lense:
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-...3999064&sr=8-2

and a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. In regards to the Tamron, If you are able to pull off that 1/4 sec and clear images I am probably better off waiting a few years to pick up the better IS canon lens.

 

I have shot all of the ultrawides on the market and although the Canon 10-22 is the best of the bunch, the Tokina 12-24 is a close second and much cheaper. I wouldn't recommend the Sigma 10-22 however.

You don't need to drop $900 on a 17-55 to get good images in low light. If the subjects aren't moving, a good tripod will beat an image stabilizer anyday. Get what you can afford and just sell the lens when you're ready to move up. I've had 4 lenses in the 17-55 range up to this point. The good thing is lenses tend to hold their value quite well, especially if you buy used. My 17-40 f/4L cost me next to nothing over the 18 months I owned it.

 

Thanks for the advice. I have noticed that used lenses are almost what their retail value is so that kind of sucks for me but it means good news in the future/

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-Digita...QQcmdZViewItem

How's the link for an entry-level purchase?

(Canon Rebel XTi, 18-55mm lens, 2GB card, tripod, cleaner, and few extras for $700)

 

If you can deal w/o the tripod and spend another $20, I'd go with bhphoto, it's just safer. Plus the ebayer wants $40 to ship, bh maybe $10.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Rebel_XTi.html

 

^
BH doesn't provide batteries in their kit, right?

 

A battery comes with the camera, that's the way Canon sells them. click the "items included" on the bh page for camera.

 

I see it. Thanks for the link.

 

Just throwing in my 2 cents here, but earlier on in the thread I saw a lot of people crapping on the d40. I was deciding between a canon and the d40 when I found a d40 kit for $395 shipped and I jumped on that. I haven't regretted it since I'm a beginner and if the d40 can't take a shot properly, there's a button you can push that explains what's going on and what needs to be fixed. Pretty useful for a beginner. In retrospect I prob shoulda gone with the d50 due to lens compatibility, but at under $400 for the kit I couldn't pass it up. All in all a great little camera.

 

In bold is the knock on the 40d.

 

I just received by xti and i'm liking it so far. i got the body only since i am able to use my EF lenses from 1989!!! however, i think i need a wider angle lens because my 28-70 (or so)mm one doesn't go as wide as I would like. I'm a real estate agent and I want to use my camera to take photos of the exterior and interior of homes and having a wide angle helps me a lot. Anyone have a suggestion?

 

The 17-55IS about $950, the 10-22mm about $700 and 18-55 at the low end.

 

^^^^ cool, thanks

time to start savin the pennies!!

 

The 10-22 sounds like just what you need. It's perfect for tight quarters wide angle shooting.

 

I might be looking to sell my Canon 20D with 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. Great camera only a year old, and it would be in the under $1000 price range. All you'd have to buy is a memory card and a spare battery if you want one... they last pretty long though.

PM me if you are interested.

 

still pretty new at this so I'm wondering if there will be any distortion or fishbowl effect with really wide angle lenses. or do this big $$ lenses have something in them to compensate for it?

 

no they still distort... thats why they call a 10-22 a wide angle or fisheye lense

 

^ Wide angle doesn't have heavy distortion like fish eye. 10-22 isn't a fisheye lens.
Wide angle (Canon 10-22) :

Fish eye (Nikkor 10.5) :

 

yeah... i kinda forgot to mention that although it distorts its not as heavy in a wide angle or super wide than in a fisheye- which is designed to intentionally distort

 

I still can't decide if I should go with the XTi for my first DSLR or just jump right into the 40D.

Sigh...

 

some guy is selling his Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for $375. B&H has it at $499...should I jump on it??

 

If you have large hands get the 40D. The XTi is small.

If you can wait a week, I might be selling mine. It's three weeks old, I've taken maybe 200 pictures with it.

 

^ I agree ... I was probably fine with a XTi but my 'man hands' couldn't stand such a small camera so I ended up with a 30D (back in March 2007) ... go to BestBuy or another shop that lets you hold the camera. Feel it in your hands so decide if you can live with bulkiness but feels better in your hand.

 

I purchased the D40 knowing the autofocus lens issue, and bought my kit before the prices dropped. even at that, I got the box, base lens, additional lens, flashgun, two batteries, two chips, and a tote bag for about $1,000. I had, as a carryover, a cheap monopod, but have since purchased a Fiesol tripod that works well. Fast dismount attachment, 2.5 pounds. Legs are four segments, which incites some wobble in unstable soils, but the positive side is that it collapses into a unit that can fit into carryon luggage.

It may be little more than a point and shoot for starters, but there are enough ways to go manual to allow one to "train up' with this camera. At some point, down the road, I'll bite the bullet and get a more extensive kit. Until then, I have a very light box, Nikon optics and an easy to use tool that allows me to advance my skills at my own pace. And yep, the Canon gets lost in my hands, the D40 nests cleanly and has a good handfeel for me......

 

Reviving a zombie thread for a relevant post.

Read the FAQ and saw this thread linked.

So I'm buying my lady a beginner DSLR as she has been wanting one to take some nice photos.

I've looked at Canon T6/T6i, T7i, Rebel SL2. Also a friend suggested refurb store on canon.com as well. Will be going with the standard starter kit lens which should be good enough for her.

Amazon had some nice bundle/kit deals for the SL2 but the package I want doesn't ship to Hawaii....grr..... she's got small hands and we do lot of hiking so the small size/lighter weight of the SL2 is appealing

Suggestions?