telephoto lens for Canon rebel

Hi - I'm trying to decide what lens to add to my Canon Rebel XT. I have the

kit lense and a prime lense (50mm f/1.8 II). I also have a cheap telephoto

lense which I'm not happy with.

 

I've been asked to shoot 2 weddings for friends. They were happy, but I was

not. I want something better to shoot friends' weddings, plus an all around

lense for running around shooting stuff at a moment's notice. I have

grandchildren, I travel and do things like 4 wheelin' and hiking and want to

do landscapes and nature photography and I want something that is versatile in

that way. What is a good, all around lense for the Rebel XT. I'm willing to

save up for about $1,200, but I can't go more than that. Help?

The <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">EF 70-200 f2.8 USM</a> falls nicely into this category, and it fits your budget. Just be warned, its not exactly a lightweight, so for hiking, something lighter may be better. Also,it is a little long for general use, you may have to fill that void with another lens.

First, you need to decide if you want a zoom or prime. <p>I suggest a 70-200 L (either the f/4 IS or f/2.8 non-IS) or if you like primes, the 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2L. All of these are beautiful for portraits (the 70-200 f/4L being least) and very fast focusing. Ideally, save up a little bit more for the 70-200 f/2.8IS and cover all of your bases.

Cool - OK - I think the last suggestion sounds good. I definitely like having a telephoto so I suppose the bit more pricey suggestion would be best. I always go for the ideal :)))

 

THANKS!

Oh, ouch - that is pricey. Dang, this is frustrating. So, for hiking and general all around (perhaps the 70-200 could wait) - what would be good? Definitely telephoto but something better than the kit lens.

I am in a similar situation. I had a Canon EF 75-300 USM f4-f5.6. I have shot a wedding and I rented a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L for this purpose. Very nice lens, but too pricey as I don't shoot enough weddings to pay for it ;)

 

I thought about what I am shooting more of, and would like to shoot more of - portraits. I decided to buy a Canon EF 85mm f1.8 and also a Tamron 1.4x televconverter. On film this gives me a nice short portrait lens, and with the TC, a longer portrait lens - approx. 120mm f2.5. On my Canon 20D I get a field of view of a long portrait lens - 135mm f1.8, and with the TC I get the field of view of a 190mm f2.5 lens.

 

I figured this could get me through the long lens requirements if I shot another wedding or similar event. It cost me about $630 Canadian or about $550 USD.

 

I think the Canon 70-200 lineup is also good if you can afford it. The 2.8 lenses are heavier but give you more than the f4 lenses - which are lighter. Either way, if you go this route, I suggest getting the IS models. I have heard that the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM is also worth considering, although I know nothing of this lens.

A telephoto won't be a good all-around lens. For that, you'll need a wide-medium telephoto zoom. Given your budget, i suggest either a 24-70 f2.8L, or a 24-105 f4L IS. Neither are telephoto, but you'll have to make a compromise somewhere, since no one lens can cover every situation.

Get the 70-300/4-5.6IS. It's small, light and not too expensive.

Rebel XT, kit lens, 50/1.8II, cheap telephoto ... a 70~200/2.8 (IS or not) will weigh more than this lot put together, and then some - and on a 1.6-factor body it's quite a long lens, probably not what you want for weddings. Hire one and see how you feel about how it handles on the very small and light XT body, and how readily you're prepared to carry it round all day on a hike, before thinking about spending even the money that the non-IS version costs, let alone the IS version - and incidentally, whatever you get, IS is seriously useful - even the magnificent 135/2 is a bit of a handful on a 1.6-factor body.

 

You're obviously not a professional wedding photographer, so you probably should not let your needs be skewed too much by wanting to do the occasional wedding - that said, if you replaced your kit lens with the 17~55/2.8IS, you'd be in pretty good shape for a lot of wedding shots as well as having a first-rate walk-around lens. But that's not going to leave you enough headroom in your budget to do a decent job of replacing the telephoto as well for the time being. Choices, choices ...!

I would suggest two lenses. Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the canon 70-200 f/4. They are both excellent, versatile lenses and under $1000 for the two.

Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.... oh dear. Actually, I think I didn't mean telephoto but zoom - there is a difference, no? What I mean is, I really don't like the prime so much because I am so used to zoom in rather than running around trying to get the right distance. Plus, I ran into problems with the prime in a room trying to take pictures of people and I was running into tables, etc. It was annoying. So, is the 17-55/2.8IS a zoom?

 

You're right, I'm no professional - although I was thinking it would be nice to make money at weddings. You know, start off cheap for people on a small budget and work up from there. I can learn, I think. But right now, I just want something that is more versatile and better picture quality than the kit lens and I don't have to change lenses so much.

"Telephoto zoom" was the term you were looking for, and yes, the 17-55 is a zoom (Any lens with more than one focal length...save for a few leicas).

In a review, there were comments about vignetting problems with the 17-55 - do you have that problem too?

Are you considering the 17-55? I don't think there's much point in that one, since you have those focal lengths covered by 2 lenses already. You'll probably also want something with more reach than 55mm, since you originally asking for a telephoto. Have you looked into the 24-105 f4 IS? It sounds like that could be your best option.

I agree with Leopold. I just got back from the UK, from a hiking trip combined with a family visit. I took my Rebel XT since it's so light, a 17-40 f4 for landscapes and a 28mm prime for indoors but I ended up with the 24-105 f4 on my camera pretty much all the time. I don't pretend to be a great photographer but you can at least see the range of photos taken with this lens, from landscapes to portraits, indoors and out, on my Flickr page:

 

Thank you so much, Leopold and Tony. I was looking at the 24-105F4 also and just wasn't sure. There are so many opinions and so many choices. I appreciate hearing people's experiences because that makes it easier to chose. Tony, what you are saying sounds like what I want. What about Don's suggestion of the 70-200 f4?

Shirley, you sounded as if you were not satisfied with the quality of your present kit (nothing wrong with the optical quality of the 50/1.8, by the way - just that it's too long for some of the things you want to do) and that's why I suggested you should look at the 17~55/2.8IS, as a single-lens solution for a lot of purposes. Unless you want the added DoF control of the 50/1.8, you wouldn't need to carry that. And wedding photographers (I'm not one) make great play of the need for an f/2.8 lens.

 

I use the 24~105 myself on a 20D, and it's a great lens on a 1.6-factor body - the vignetting at the 24mm end apparent on FF is absent on 1.6-factor. It's not perfect - there's a bit of chromatic aberration and distortion at the wide end, easily improved with PTLens if they are a concern, and slightly lower performance beyond about 85mm, but we're talking very high standards of comparison here. If you get it, buy the EW-83J hood - much better for 1.6-factor.

 

The limitation of the 24~105 (apart from being f/4 rather than f/2.8) is that on 1.6-factor it doesn't go very wide - although it does give good coverage at the long end, as long as you would need for portraits. So you could keep your kit lens for the time being to cover the range from 17mm to 24mm, and save up for a 10~22, which is an outstanding lens despite not being an L-series lens. That is my current walk-around combination, and it covers a 10:1 zoom range with a negligible gap at a very high standard throughout. The only problem is that the changeover point is not ideal. Doesn't matter for general use but could slow you down for wedding work.

Shirley,

 

I have the 70-200 f4, it's a very nice lens. I think of it as my summer lens, it's great, for example, for taking pictures of kids splashing in the ocean. You can get some candid people pictures at outdoor parties and such without getting in their face. But 70mm on a Rebel is an equivalent focal length of 105mm on a full 35mm frame. That's too long for landscapes etc, it's not so good indoors (no IS) and it's a bit big to lug aound on a hiking trip. You'd need something shorter (such as a 17-40) for the full range of photography you describe and you'd probably find yourself switching lenses a lot.

Oh boy. OK, yes, Tony, I don't want something too long. I don't have big hands and I'm kind of short (5'1"), so big and heavy are not good. We went to Yosemite and I was able to carry my kit lens and the telephoto I have on our walks. But the telephoto didn't get any really good pictures.

 

I looked at Bob Atkins suggestion - 70-300/4-5.6IS and I like the idea that it also has macro capabilities. I like nature shots too. Maybe that's a good all around lens for a starter like me? But then there's the problem of weddings - so Robin's suggestion of the 17-55/2.8IS might be better? Oh, sigh, what to do, what to do.

 

Another thing - does it matter if it's Canon or Tamron brand? Do you buy online or at the camera shop?

I've never used the 70-300 but you still have the problem of the bottom end, 70mm, being a bit too long for your needs. Before I had the 24-105mm I used a Tamron 28-75 f2.8.It was a very nice lens, as good as my non-L Canons. I sold it to a friend and he loves it. I think it was less than $400 new. I've also used the Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS. It's a great lens for a third of the price of the 24-105mm but at telephoto lengths the aperture is a bit small for indoors or action (f5.6) even with IS. You could try renting some lenses and see what works best for you.

 

The advantage if a camera shop is you can take your camera and try different lenses. The advantage of a good online place, like B&H, is price and selection.

Thank you all for your help. I'm going to take my time to think about all these suggestions (I have to save money anyway!) and do more research. I never realized all the many choices and combinations there were and how complicated it is. Whew. Well, I've learned a lot, and I'm still looking up words I never heard before! I'm so green to digital. Thanks so much for your time and patience.

For quite some time my walk around lens was the Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 USM IS lens. With this lens and your 1.6 sensor you will be getting approximately a 45-216 mm FOV. I have since purchased the Canon 70-300 and a 1.5 telextender for more animal/nature photography. I also have just purchased the Canon 17-55 lens, but I think you have that covered as another poster has indicated. I think all of the suggestions have merit, but you need to ask yourself, what am I really going to shoot with this new lens. Your kit lens should cover most wedding pictures and the quality is not that bad either. Good Luck.

I have the Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 and love it. I bought it used at a photography conference vendor booth. I am learning so I am not ready to drop a grand on a lens yet! Happy Shooting!

Now the camera guy is telling me to get a 17-85 and it's only $600 at his shop. Any one ever use that before?