Consider Rebel XT, need lens

[jen_s__dallas_]

Hello all, I'm about to make the jump from a little zoom camera to a "real"

camera. I just can't do what I want to do with the little guy.

 

Thing is, I love that it's small. I kind of wish that they made an SLR with a

zoom lens attached so that you don't have to haul a bunch of lenses around and

worry about getting dust in them or on the camera, but it looks like only

Olympus made one awhile back and it seems to have flopped. So, I'm going to

have to get a regular body. I think I will get the Rebel XT, it seems to do

everything I want (and a lot more I'll have to learn about), but I don't want to

buy a caseload of lenses. Really, I want ONE for simplicity while I get used to

this.

 

I mostly take pictures while traveling to foreign cities or while hiking -- so,

buildings, streets, people not close to me, or my husband as a "we were here",

and then big mountains, lakes, mountains, rivers, and mountains. But, sometimew

I want to take a picture of a perfect flower in a meadow, too.

 

Is there any such thing as a lens that can do this decently for me? The cheap

ones, even in the store, aren't fast enough. I don't have an incredibly steady

hand or patience for a tripod -- I'm a hiker/traveller first, take pictures

second. I want to be able to pull this camera out of a bag, lens already

attached, take my pictures, and then put it quickly back in a bag and get out of

the way. I want some zoom -- I'm told 50mm is what "your eye sees", and that's

not close enough. I played with a cheapie 24-200 and it was nice and light but

waaaaay to slow and the pictures in the store are all too blurry.

 

So, I'm looking for a balance of convenience, lightweight, compact, and easy to

use. And I'm totally clueless with all the jargon. I tried reading other posts

and I don't know the implications of 'losing a full stop' or anything like that.

I just need to know about what I'm looking for, if it even exists, so I can go

to the store and see how they feel before buying one. Appreciate any advice for

getting started on this! Thanks!

[sattler123]

there are a number of camera manufacturers who make cameras like you want - incl. Canon and Nikon - look for "Sureshot". It sounds like you might be better off with a totally integrated package like the Sureshot than a DSLR - for the price of the body of the XT you get a camera plus zoom lens - and they have the same 8MPs - just do your homework.

[sattler123]

Sorry, it's not Surshot it is Powershot. here is a webpage from B&H that lists other advanced digital cameras - I think this is what you've been looking for in the first place. Good Luck:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=8613

[jen_s__dallas_]

Wow, Juergen, that is very close to what I am looking for. The problem I have run into though is the viewfinder. I can't use the little EVFs -- they drive me nuts. And I really don't like the LCD screens for framing and focusing, either. I want to look into a viewfinder and see there exactly what is in focus and exactly what will be in the picture. If I could compromise on that I'd get a camera like the one you mention! But it too has the EVF. I tried them out, and it's not for me at all. The motion on the EVF that close to my face actually made me feel nauseous!

 

I appreciate the link, though. And if there's nothing out there that does what I want, maybe I'll go back to a "prosumer" style P&S. I'm just hoping that there is something out there that does it all. Thanks!

[geoffm]

Jen,

if you do decide to go for the XT, then you would do well to consider the EF-S 17-85 IS . While it's a biggish lens compared to, say, the 18-55 kit lens, it will certainly do all that you are asking ("buildings, streets, people not close to me, or my husband as a "we were here", and then big mountains, lakes, mountains, rivers, and mountains. But, sometimew I want to take a picture of a perfect flower in a meadow"). As well, it has image stabilisation which to some extent makes up for its somewhat slow speed, and helps avoid the need for a tripod. Optically it's pretty good.

 

However, the XT with one of these attached is no small thing - you couldn't compare its size or weight to even the biggest EVF P&S.

 

One final thing: I've no personal experience of the superzooms, but the conventional wisdom is that even the best of the 20-something to 200/300 lenses are relatively poor optically, and the chance of a cheapie superzoom being any good would be pretty well non-existent!

[jbq]

Consider getting two lenses, e.g. a 17-70 and a 70-300. Don't expect a single lens to cover all your needs.

[henrik.ploug]

Hello Jen

 

I have to agree with Juergen. An advanced SLR-like camera may be the best way to cover your needs. It is smaller than a regular SLR and therefore better for travels. It can do macro-shots. And if you are not planning to spend some time with Photoshop, the image-quality will be almost as good as a real SLR.

 

Personally I would go with the new Canon PowerShot S3 IS. It has image stabilization which will help you take pictures in low light. Take a look:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s3is.asp

 

If you want to get a real SLR with just one lens, I think you should consider two cameras. One of them is the 350D. The other one is the Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D. This camera has image stabilization built into the camera, so it will also help you take pictures in low light.

 

If you do decide for the 350D, there are three zoom lenses with image stabilization, that you could use as a one-lens-solution. One has been mentioned already, the Canon 17-85mm IS. This is the cheapest of the three. The other two are the Canon 24-105 IS f4 and the Canon 17-55mm IS f2,8. These two lenses are better optically, but also more expensive and bigger.

 

The main difference between the 24-105mm and the 17-55mm is the maximum aperture. The 24-105mm has a max aperture of f4, while the 17-55mm has a max aperture of f2,8. This means that the 17-55mm will take in twice as much light as the 24-105mm. This will give you shutter speeds twice as fast and help avoid blurred pictures. You can read more about aperture here:

 

http://www.stsite.com/camera/cam04.php

 

Another difference between the two lenses is that the 24-105mm will also fit on a full frame camera, while the 17-55mm will only be usable on a 1,6x cropped camera like the 350D, 20D and 30D. I have just bought the 17-55mm, because I don't see myself buying a full frame camera like the Canon 5D in the near future. And reading about your camera-needs I don't think you will either.

[yakim_peled1]

What is your budget? Any weight restrictions?

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ken munn]

Jen,

 

Way back when, I (like many others at that time) lived very happily with three lenses on a

totally non-auto everything SLR (Pentax SP 500 for the nostalgia freaks). The lens were

28mm, 50mm and 135mm. I never felt I missed shot because I didn't have the right focal

length lens available.

 

That range of focal lengths equates to approximately 17 - 85mm on a camera like the

Rebel XT. Bizarrely, that's exactly what Canon offers as the EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM,

with the added advantage over days of yore of autofocus and image stabilization. Buy it,

and I don't think you'll disappointed.

[jim_larson1]

"fast". You want a "fast" lens.

 

Why? Do you want low light capability, or are you looking for super shallow depth of field.

 

This is important because "fast" translates very quickly into "hyper-expensive" (as in, 150% the cost of the camera body)

 

For low light work. . image stabilization often works well, especially for travel photography. The 17-85/IS is a very good option. You can tour Europe with that one lens.

 

I would avoid the 24-200 ish lenses. Optical quality DOES suffer. And on the rebel XT, you do want something in the 17ish range. If you need longer than 85mm, then I would suggest the 70-300/IS. But don't buy it off the bat: Wait a bit, and see if you really need it.

I don't carry a lens longer than 85 in my day bag -> most situations simply don't need it.

 

Note: 50mm is a "normal" view on a "full frame" ($3000 5D) camera. With a 1.6 field of view crop (rebel XT and 30D), "normal" = 50/1.6 = 35mm.

 

Also, because the XT has a larger sensor than any P&S camera, 5.6 and F8 will yield a substantially shallower DOF than even a F2.8 on a P&S.

[tian_fancyt]

Tamron 28-75f2.8

 

Fine sharpness, fast, accurate focusing, good color and contrast, constant f/2.8, exceptional price/quality ratio, good size, excellent range for walking around on a cropped camera

[mark u]

The one lens solution that comes to mind for you is the Sigma 17-70, which covers a nice range of focal lengths, and has excellent close focus capability across the range. Look at this review:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm

 

BTW, I think I'd go nuts having to cope with the extreme barrel distortion on the wide end of the Canon 17-85 - which doesn't offer anywhere near the same close focus capability either.

[sidaths]

Another vote for the 17-85 IS here. I have one and it is definitely good as a one lens solution. I do have a 70-200 and a 10-22 amongst others though, for more flexibility. Just make sure you get a hood.

[sidaths]

In response to Mark U, while there is distortion at the wide end of the 17-85, it is only truly noticeable when the shot has lots of straight lines. For most landscape work it's just fine.

 

If the distortion does bother you though, you can sort it out just fine with PTLens ($5 & free trial) or DxO. Photoshop also has a lens correction module that can do the same thing, but is a tad more fiddly.

 

And don't forget the IS and the extra 15mm on the long end...

[lovcom_photo]

Jim wrote "The 17-85/IS is a very good option. You can tour Europe with that one lens. "

 

I disagree with this statement. I've toured Europe many times and that lens's aperture speed is too slow.

 

What about the many museums? Flash there and other indoor venues is not allowed. Even F2.8 is too slow.

 

For me, I could not take that lens to Europe as it would not be flexible enough to take the indoor/light challanging shots at all the monuments, etc.

 

Fast apertures does not necessarily mean big $. Canon and others make relatively cheap wide, standard, and tele primes that would give you the ability to take indoor flashless shots.

[ken munn]

Read the question, Dan. Jen does not want a caseload of lenses.

 

The 17-85 has IS which helps compensate for smaller apertures, and the XT can be racked up

to 1600 ASA. That'll do for most interiors, unless you're trying for candlelight portraiture, or

similar. The only thing it doesn't do is tip the scales as a featherweight.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I can't use the little EVFs -- they drive me nuts.</i></p>Well, then I suggest you try the Rebel XT in person, before buying it. You might not like the size of it's viewfinder, either. The 5D has a much larger one, but it's more expensive (for a number of reasons that may not be relevant to this discussion).

[jen_s__dallas_]

Thanks for the replies all! I am busy reading reviews and making a list of things to check. I appreciate the consideration you guys are giving to my pickiness. :-)

 

I have 'played' with the Rebel XT in stores quite a bit and I have used a 10D in the past (not mine), so I'm familiar with the body. I like the lighter weight of the Rebel and at this point won't miss the extra features in the 10D. And the viewfinder is exactly what I want.

 

As far as price... I don't want to spend an absolute fortune, but if I can get exactly what I want, I'll pay for it. I know it could wind up around $1500 (or more?!), but I'm picky and I've been so frustrated for so long. Weight I'd prefer to keep to a minimum, but I'm told I'm running into physics ;-)

 

I have done some playing in Photoshop. Part of why I know I can't keep the little camera is the limitation in shooting directly to jpeg, need to go to raw. (I know some of the 'prosumer' P&S cameras do that too). I don't like looking at distorted lines, but I don't take a lot of pictures that have many parallel lines in them. If PS can get rid of that, then I'll live with it.

 

One thing I wonder about the 17-85 IS is that it says F4-5.6. In the store they told me that the reason my test-pictures on the cheap lens are blurry is because the lens is "slow" and I need a "faster" one, and that that meant lower F-numbers. (They weren't trying to sell me -- it's a little store and they really didn't have anything else!) That's the only reason I said "fast". I guess the image stabilization helps there, will it do enough?

 

What is the difference between the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 17-85IS?

 

Thanks again for the help all. I appreciate it.

Jen

[jim_larson1]

Dan;

 

When last in Europe, I had 4L lenses and a bunch of primes. Yeah, the primes work. I would have prefered, however, a good IS lens for this work.

 

Where the primes really shine is for portraits, in my mind.

[henrik.ploug]

"What is the difference between the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 17-85IS?"

 

The Sigma has better optical quality, but the Canon has IS. See these reviews:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm