Your opinions of this lens combo.

<p>I'm interested in your thoughts on this quartet of Canon lenses for use on an XS camera. I personally feel that it covers most bases; with the expenses being within the necessary boundaries--under $800(total) in a good used market. The 4 are: 18-55IS, 50 1.8, 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM, 70-300IS USM. My photo needs are pretty universal. But to put them in some sort of priority, here goes. Nature/wildlife, grandkids sports(in and out), travel, walkaround, landscape, etc. Goal is always 8X10 prints. <br>

So, staying within the total value of the this group of lenses, in other words $800 max, would you advise any rearranging or substituting anywhere? I guess I really want to know if I'm overlooking anything obvious here. And, I wouldn't need 4 lenses if 3 or even a mere 2 lenses would cover my needs(withing my dollar figure). O, I do have a very able S5IS, also. <br>

Thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>Looks good to me; not super high-quality, but very decent. I actually own a similar collection (substituting the 100-400mm IS for the 70-300mm because that's what I use most of the time). You might consider the 28-135mm IS instead of the 28-105mm, but they are very similar quality lenses.</p>

<p>Why buy a bunch of mediocre lenses, If your looking for just decent to good quality how about an 18-200 + 50 1.8? $650. I would think the quality would be close and you would have just 1 lens replacing the 3.<br>

<br /> If you want high quality Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Canon 85 1.8. - $750. ( you loose the long end but you get pro quality on the wide to short tele end.<br>

<br /> Either way I would not bother with the 28-105. 18-55 + 50 1.8 + 70-300 is ok too.</p>

<p>That appears to be very good coverage of your various subjects, especially if they're available at $800. </p>

<p>I'd narrow it down to two zooms and one prime for convenience. The Tamron already suggested is better than the 18-55. And a 55-250 IS will probably be a better choice than the 28-105 and 70-300 combo (unless you really need the extra reach). Just make sure you spend most of the money on the lens that you will use the most.</p>

<p>I second Tommy's idea about getting the 18-200 and the 50 f/1.8</p>

<p>But isn't the 18-200 a real "comprimise" lens? Just how good is it? I feel that these 4 lenses fall this way best to least-best, based on various reviews.<br>

1)50 1.8, 2)70-300IS, 3)18-55IS, 4)28-105. About right? Is the 18-200 better than all of these, IQ wise?</p>

<p>Maybe I should have asked, which 18-200mm lens are you referring to. If it's the Sigma OS version, it got lousy reviews in Photozone. Is it Tamron's?</p>

<p>Every possible selection is a compromise in one way or another. I was referring to the Canon 18-200 IS.</p>

<p>I would skip the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM. While its an ok lens and vg value (and one which I own) I think it would be totally superflous if you have the 18-55 IS and the 70-300 IS.<br>

The 55-250 IS is a cheaper option than the 70-300 IS, and is smaller and lighter, but has worse build (though on par with the 18-55 IS).</p>

 

<p>I don't see the point of the 28-105 and matching it with the other lenses you have listed. The 18-55IS has gotten decent reviews and has IS. Coupled with a 70-300IS and a fast 50mm, I think you have a good, light weight, reasonably priced system. You could consider using the saving from 28-105 an buy an XSI instead of the XS for the better viewfinder and other features.</p>

<p>You seem to place too much importance in obtaining a lens for every length and being forced into mediocre lenses that I think in time you will regret having. Get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 55-200 or 70-300 and a 50 1.8. That's all you need. The 50 1.8 is a bit superflous but it's cheap, it's good and it's very light and will make a nice combination on your XS. Good quality lenses will allow you to crop some of your photos a bit more agressively. In time, if you still want to blanket the range, you could add a 60 macro to fill the 50-70 gap if you get the 70-300.<br>

I speak from experience when I say it is better to have a few good quality lenses than a whole bunch of mediocre ones. A bit like having one top shot on the wall compared to 50 snaps buried in an album somewhere. Don't dismiss the 70-200 F4L, it's worth saving up for and you don't need to get everything at once. Neill</p>

<p>I would always have something wider than 18mm. The 10-22mm range is well catered for these days. Uf you buy good quality lenses you do not need to worry about gaps in the focal range as you can usually crop.</p>

<p>Take your time in buying lenses if you want to stay on budget. Buy one good lens a year and work with it. There will always be money in the budget that way. I'd start with the Canon 17-55 2.8. Then next year you will realize if were you lacking in the telephoto or wide end. Then go for either the Canon 10-20 of the Canon 70-200 (a few to choose from). Ultimately you will end up with 2 or 3 great lenses with no compromises (that you'd regret if you purchased poor quality lenses). </p>

<p>I've been researching entry level DSLRs and lens combos for several months. I'll buy one within the next two months or so.<br>

I'm leaning toward the XSI rather than the XS. I've been trying to decide if spot metering is worth the extra $200. That and better burst recording rate have pretty much convinced me to spend the extra. Thus the extra 2 months or so of waiting.<br>

I looked at numerous lenses. I considered the 28-105 that you mentioned, but it doesn't go quite as long as I want. So, the EF-S 55-250 is going to have to be my longer focal length lens. Build quality and IQ will have to do for now. I am weighing the EF-S18-55 against the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 24-60 f/2.8. I'm not accustomed to shooting wider than 24 on a crop body with my point and shoot, so I'm not certain I need the 17 or 18 on the wide end. Due to price, it will probably be the EF-S 18-55 kit lens, IS version or the Tamron 24-60 as that fits the range I shoot indoors and with my daughter in the yard or driveway. Also, the fixed f/2.8 appeals to me for lower light situations and beginner portraits. The appeal of the Sigma 17-70 is the maximum magnification, which comes in around 1:2.3, if memory serves. Still, I'm leaning toward the Tamron 24-60 f/2.8, if budget allows.<br>

I will then begin saving money for a EF 50 f/1.8 and a EF 100mm Macro. Those will hopefully come within two years. We'll see.<br>

Just my 2 cents. Hope it helps you work through your questions.<br>

Please let us know what you end up getting, and down the road a little let us know how you like it.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>Here what I came up with for a DSLR system on a low to medium budget. <br>

I have the XSI, the kit EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS, Tokina 11-16 f2.8, EF 50 f 1.4, EF 70-300 f4-5.6.<br>

I am now trying to find a normal zoom or prime. Trying to decided between an EF 28 f1.8, a Tamron 20-70 f 2.8 or the EF 28-70 f2.8 L. I feel no urgency to buy this next lens as my current set-up covers most of my needs.<br>

/bing</p>

 

<p>I am using the combination of 450D (Xsi) with Kit Lens (18 - 55 IS) + 55 - 250 IS and 50mm 1.8 and am happy with the results.</p>

<p>I really don't see a need for the 28-105 either. That isn't a common range to be using (55-70). That is the only reason yo would be getting it as you have the rest of the range covered with IS. I would rather think in ease of use and application in buying lenses. What do you need the lens to do? What lens would do this best? This is a better way of thinking in my opinion. I used to use a 17-40 or 18-55 and 70-200 combination and did not miss the range in between. Just walk a little. I can see how other people recommend buying one great lens instead of a whole bunch of good lenses, BUT, if you really want to take photos both close and far away you might be happy getting any photos rather than none by skipping a lens. Only you can make that decision. Some people enjoy using primes, so they deal with gaps all around. If you don't need the range of 300mm, the 70-200 is a very great lens and you can always get a tele converter later. Do you know what you want to use the 50mm for? While it is a great lens, you may want to wait and get a wider prime if using it indoors for kids as you will need some room stand back. You could check you exif data if you bought just the 18-55 first and then you would know what 50mm wiill feel like. :)</p>

<p>Hi Robert,<br>

My two cents: 50/1.8 lens is very sharp and lightweight but on the crop body it becomes the 80mm which is less useful, especially indoors where the distance to the subject might be limited. 28/2.8 or the 35/2.0 might be a better choice if you are interested in the "normal" lens.<br>

28-105 is a decent lens but it really overlaps the other two zooms you mentioned and the gap between them is not that huge.<br>

Best of Luck! </p>

<p>I use a tokina 12-24, a tamron 28-75 and a canon 70-300 IS. They are not expensive, still sharp and not heavy. But of course other combinations will do the job as well or you might replace some of the options I chose with other versions. For landscape I would certainly go for the wide end and the sharpest I could get. With your budget I would try to buy second hand lenses from a trusted reseller. The set I mentioned cost me only 750 second hand (mint condition, in euro's), but I guess I was lucky.</p>

Robert, I gather from one of your earlier threads that you already have an XT. Which lenses are you currently using on the XT?

<p>$800 and all that coverage... I'm with Steve, take your time buying lenses. Give yourself a chance learn what you and to understand what you want. Canons 17-55 f2.8 IS is already out of your budget but the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for aprox. $500 will make a great general purpose, walk around, event and even landscape lens. If you are in to portraits, the palstic fantasic 50 f1.8 is practically freea and with taxes your getting close to your budget. At least you will be off to a quality start. Enjoy shooting with what you have and save for a good tele to fulfill your wildlife and sports shots.<br>

I myself have bought a lens every 4 months this year... 1st the 50 f1.4 which was based on becoming a father and wanting a quality portrait lens, 2nd was a 10-20 because I love dramtic landscapes, lived in beautiful BC and was travelling across Canada to relocate (lot of different landscapes to shoot!) and last night the 17-55 f2.8 IS because I use that range most often bonuses being its the most hand holdable lens out there, fast, stable, and great IQ. *for all those curious, I hammered the sales to throw in a hood for free and a B&W filter 50% off, he wasnt to happy but I was!). If four months time I may add canon 28 f1.8 or a Sigma 30, if not I may wait 8 months and get the Canon 17-200 f2.8 IS.<br>

Shooting dslr's does get to be a bit much at times I must say, but its better then the alternatives!<br>

Good luck to you and your purchases. </p>

<p>Everyone buys the 50mm 1.8 however for indoor low light shooting its often too long, sure its great for formal portraits but I would say the 35mm f/2 is a better choice for low light versatility. I agree with everyone here who says you should NOT rush out and buy all these mediocre lenses. You are better of with one prime and one zoom e.g. 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 35mm f/2. </p>

<p>I have the 28-105 and love it. It was my very first lens on my very first camera, an EOS Rebel G (500N). After it sustained some damage, I upgraded to the 24-105L. However, neither sees action on my XTi. I use my 17-40L 90% of the time, 50 f/1.8 for low light/shallow DOF work and occasionally a borrowed 70-300. I reckon in your case the 18-55 IS, or Tamrom 17-50 f/2.8 and perhaps the Canon 55-250 IS would be a better combo.</p>

<p>I agree with Ben 110% as in regards to your first prime being a 30-35mm... Its just a great and flexible place to be and you as well be there with speed and IQ!</p>