Newbie needs a new lense for Canon Rebel xti

[isabellesmom]

I apologize if this has been asked before, but I looked over a few of the old

threads and a lot of the names, etc. are like reading Greek to me.

 

I just bought a Canon Rebel xti the other day. The lense that came with it

does not zoom in as far as I would like. My photography is recreational use,

and most of my pictures are of my 11 month old, so it's not like I need a lense

to pay the bills. I just want to be able to take a good closeup of my daughter

when she is not necessarily 5 feet in front of me.

 

Please tell me names or give me some links of a good lense that would suffice

for a beginner. I read about IS lenses to deter blurry images. Do those

really work?

 

Help please? Thanks so much in advance!

[zacker]

how much $ are you willing to spend? there are alot of great lenses and alot of really expensive ones too. i think canons 70-200 f4 L is outstanding and in the $500.00 range. Also, they have a 75-300MM IS i believe, then there are their flgship lenses, the 70-200 f2.8 L with IS but its about $1400.00 and the 24-70 f2.8 L non IS is great. Then there is the 28-105 f4 IS (i think its 28-105..lol) over $1000.00 but another awesome lens.. then there are a whole bunch of great 3rd party lenses by tamron and sigma and tokina.. IMHO sigma are best. Have a look at their 80-400 OS (optical stabelizer) lens and they have a new OS lens out but its a short zoom.. cant remember the size though. go to somewhere like the B&H page, find a lens in your price range that you might like, come back here and ask about it or look on some of the review sites.

[isabellesmom]

I think since this is all so new to me (and much more overwhelming than I thought it would be), I don't want to spend too incredibly much for a lense. Probably no more than $500 at this point.

 

Since I have been reading about photography, I now have a new-found respect for photographers. I never realized there were so many factors involved in GOOD photography...

[stillbound]

any day now canon will release the 18 55 IS and 55 250 IS which can both be bought for under 500 combined...

Another option would be the 17 85 IS which is roughly 500 by itself. Since most of your pics are of the family that is not a bad lens.

For you I would also have to think along the lines of the tamron 18 250 which is a relatively sharp "all in one" lens. No IS but lots of range...

[JDMvW]

I guess it might as well be my turn to answer this. It is a FAQ, but you are right, Rebecca, that the answers are sometimes 'Greek' to newbies. Thank you for trying to see what is there before posting!

 

First, some terminology. When you say the lens won't zoom in close up, you may be referring to the closeness of _focus_, not the zoom, which refers to the effective focal length of the lens (such as 18mm, or 55mm). Focus is the distance from the lens to the object being photographed, and the kit lenses may actually not have scales indicating what this is. On more expensive lenses, the distance scale will read something like 0.5 feet to a little sideways 8 (infinity).

 

Before you go out to buy a new lens, set your lens that came with the camera (probably an 18-55mm zoom lens) to its maximum zoom, 55mm on the kit lens. On your XTi, the smaller size of the sensor means that this setting is actually a portrait telephoto equivalent. At this setting, now try moving in closer, and see if the image isn't a more suitable size. It should focus closer than 5 feet at any rate, unless you got something weird as the lens that came with the camera.

 

If this doesn't get you close enough, you may want to look at several options. One option is what has come to be called the "plastic fantastic," the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark II lens. New from B&H Photo or other mail order houses, I think it sells for less than $80, and often sells for much less on eBay. This lens is also a portrait focal length lens, which simply is the fact that the slight compression effect of a short telephoto lens is a little more flattering to the subject than shorter lenses that might make the nose seem large and so on. The Canon cheap 50mm is a little sharp to be altogether flattering in getting rid of wrinkles, etc., but this is not a problem with your child. (you can buy 'diffusion' filters to screw onto any lens to make it a little 'softer.'). The 50mm will focus to less than a foot from the subject. To get closer than that will require a "macro" lens, and I don't think you need that unless you are planning to do one-to-one closeups of baby's first tooth. Another advantage of a non-zoom (="prime") lens like this is that by kicking the ISO up to 1600 on your XTi you can take indoors pictures without flash much of the time.

 

Other options would include buying a zoom lens with a so-called 'macro' focus option. Most of these are not real macro lenses for reasons of no interest to you, but the important thing is that they do allow close focus (as the attached picture shows for a 17-85mm Canon zoom. Yes, the IS (image stablization) lens do work. A particularly good one-lens solution giving you wide angle to telephoto (the equivalent of 28mm to 135mm on 35mm film cameras) is the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens. It costs about $500 new.<div></div>

[isabellesmom]

What do those numbers of the lense tell me? How do I know how many feet it will zoom into? If my daughter is in a school play, and I am 50 feet away, will these lenses give me a good enough picture of her to where I will be able to look at a picture and KNOW that it's her?

 

I really appreciate all of the advice so far, and I sincerely apologize to anyone that is at their computer saying, "What kind of idiot is this woman?" lol

[isabellesmom]

Thank you so much for your informative response, JDM von Weinberg. I am going to go back and reread what you said about ten times to let it all soak in. :)

 

Thanks also for the zoom explanation!

[JDMvW]

And kudos to you for actually monitoring the answers to your question! Sometimes, you post an answer and never know whether the questioner has ever come back to look at it. I can see you're going to be a valuable member of photo.net -- post a few pictures when you get this all sorted out.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Rebecca,

 

Depending where you're going to be taking these photos of your 11 month old daughter will determine what lens might be appropriate in your price range.

 

Here's a link of short reviews of lenses that are available for the Canon EOS system.

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_list.php

 

If you'd like to take photos of her indoors and outdoors to get portrait closeups, I'd recommend the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.

Here's a short review of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=19

 

If you're interested in a longer telephoto zoom for outdoor work that will provide you wonderful candid shots of her (since you can be farther away and she might not notice the camera) I'd recommend

the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=58

 

And, yes, the "IS" feature works great and is well worth the cost.

 

I own both of these lenses and use them a lot when taking photos of my grandchildren, especially at parks.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[gdanmitchell]

<p>For a beginner who needs a bit more reach, the EFS17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens could be just the ticket.

 

<p>This lens is more or less designed for users like you - you aren't trying to make professional level prints for sale in large sizes, you probably want want one quite decent

lens to cover most of your needs, you'd probably rather have a relatively small and light lens. I image stabilization (IS) feature can compensate for some camera motion at lower

shutter speeds and/or low light.

 

<p>"Serious" photographers will point out that this lens is not optically idea. It has a bit of pincushion/barrel distortion and so forth, but I suspect that you would be very happy

with this lens <i>for the purposes you describe</i>.

 

<p>A bit more about "image stabilized" (or "IS") lenses... These lenses can compensate to some extent for camera shake at low shutter speeds. This means that you can often

hand hold the camera in lower light and/or at lower shutter speeds. To engage IS you half-depress the shutter release button for a half second or so before pressing it all the

way to take the photo. During this interval, the IS mechanism engages and begins to compensate for camera motion/shake. It definitely helps in many situations in which your

shutter speed would otherwise be too slow to minimize camera motion, often allowing you to shoot in somewhat lower light. It isn't perfect though - you do need to remember

to do the shutter "half press" to give it time to engage, and it will not stop <i>subject motion</i>. (For example, if your 11-month-old is sitting relatively still in low light the

IS feature may help. If <i>she</i> is moving (and what 11-month-old isnt :-) you would still need a sufficiently fast shutter speed if you want to get a sharp photo.

 

<p>Although I use much more fancy and expensive equipment for my own photography these days, I used this very lens on a Digital Rebel XT for a year.

 

<p>Bottom line: this lens can be a good compromise of focal length, weight and size, cost, features (IS), and optical quality for many users.

 

<p>Dan

[timeless]

You can also go HERE:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27

 

or HERE:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

 

to see which lens is rated at what level from 100's of lens users. Often times you can even get sample images from that lens if the reviewer is nice enough to leave a link.

 

I think if you're look for the versatility to take inside and outside as well as low light and bright light, try to get a good range zoom with the lowest F/#. F is the amount of light that will be allowed through for low light/faster shutter speed (least "blurred") or get one with "IS" image stabilization as recommended by other posters. Hope this helps. Let us know what you come up with.

 

P.S. to learn more about F/stops and the effects it plays on photos go HERE:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

 

or HERE:

 

http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm

 

-Rob2

[frank kennedy]

I have the xti. I have the 60mm ef-s macro only. When I take a picture of my cat from 5 feet she fills the frame. At 2 feet her head fills the frame. The lens cost about $400. It is a highly rated lens. It can be used for ambiant light photography inside.

 

If you buy good glass you'll never regret it. If you buy consumer class you may or may not regret it. At some time you will buy another camera but you will keep your lenses for life.

[gdanmitchell]

Keep in mind that for many users "good enough is good enough," and that some PN

participants have different goals than you may have. :-)

 

(E.g. - watch out for posts suggesting that money is not object or that you really just need

one good prime. While true for a few people, such recommendations are unlikely to be

right for someone with your current goals.)

 

Take care,

 

Dan

[jeff_higdon]

Rebecca, I have an Xti also. I have borrowed and rented many lenses in the last 6 months trying to settle on one or two lenses that might solve, by coincidence, the very issues you raised.

 

While neither your budget not mine allows for it, I would suggest either a very good 50mm prime (1.4 or 1.2)or an 85mm prime (1.2) for your closeups and the Canon 70-200 2.8 (maybe the 4)(either way - preferably with IS) for the school play shots.

 

Since all three of these are way over budget, consider the Canon 85mm 1.8 lens for the closeups and the Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 (a lens that's been around forever but is still sold new)for the school play stuff. The later can be bought on eBay for as little as $150 while the 85mm 1.8 is new for about $330. I have both (I am renting the 85mm)of these lenses and have used them successfully for your stated purposes. I have the 50mm 1.8 also but the 85mm is far superior for a host of reasons. It's also about $250 more.

 

Unfortunately, if the school play is in a dimly lit auditorium, you are going to need a tripod for the 100-300 to get reasonably sharp photos. Interesting, this summer, I rented the much more expensive Canon 100-400 (over $1,000) for a dance recital (in a dark auditorium). I did not use a tripod (it has IS built-in) and the quality of my photos was just identical to those taken with the 100-300 in the spring (of course, to be fair, I used the tripod with the 100-300).

 

Much depends on how you feel about either lugging around a tripod or lugging around a huge, expensive white professional lens (while the 100-400 is over $1,000 - you could rent it locally probably for $35.00 for the weekend). The 100-300 is black, so not that noticeable, and it's light and cheap. It really does a nice job outdoors or in any situation where there is plenty of light. Otherwise, it'll do fine with a tripod and provided your subjects are not moving around too quickly.

 

I also have the 17-85 Canon. I paid $360 for it on Craig's list. It will probably cost you $550 locally. I'm pretty happy with this lens. But I don't use it that much for portraits/closeups as the bokeh (the amount of background blur) is not that great. It also won't help you much for the school play if you are 50 feet away unless you want group shots. I like it's wide angle and it's all around use as a one lens solution on vacations. For your two stated purposes, I would not recommend it.

 

Plenty of people are thinking that the Canon 70-300 IS (not the DO version) or the soon to be released 55-300 would be perfect for your school play purposes. I have not used either but the 70-300 IS (at about $550.00) would leave no room in your budget for a nice portrait lens so that's why I suggested a package purchase of the 85mm 1.8 and the 100-300mm 4.5-5.6. The 55-300 is about to be released and you might want to wait to see its price and reviews before making a decision.

 

Enjoy the Xti.

[jmarshall]

Rebecca, I don't have kids myself, but I have spent a lot of time over the last 10 years taking pictures of my 7 nieces and nephews.

 

I'm going to guess that you're looking for a lens you can basically leave on the camera.

 

I'd suggest going with the 28 - 135 IS Canon zoom. Yes, it duplicates the lower end of the lens you've got now (probably the 18 - 55), but it's much longer at the long end. You'll be able to put the lens on and it will work for most shots you want. The downside to this lens is that when you are using it inside at 135, you may find that you can't get good shots unless the light is relatively strong.

 

Other options are the 28 - 200 zoom or, as several people have recommended, the 70 - 300 zoom (which I had the first version of). But the 28 - 200 doesn't have image stabilization, and with the 70 - 300, you might find you can't get far enough away from the subject when you don't want a close-up. And if you're watching the baby, you might not want to be distracted by changing the lens. Same thing with the 55 - 200, which is currently available.

 

As your daugther is only 11 months old, you're still a couple of years away from needing a lens to take shots in an auditorium. I'd wait and see what you need in this regard. You might find you have different needs in a lens if she turns out to be a soccer star rather than an actress!

 

Have fun!

[gdanmitchell]

A note: The 17-85mm on the crop sensor Digital Rebels has essentially the same angle of

view as Jennifer's 28-135 would have had on a 35mm SLR.

 

Sooo... (assuming that Jenifer has been using 35mm for those past 10 years) the 17-85

would fit the bit in terms of focal length on the XTi.

 

Dan

[jason_hall4]

Check out the answers in this post.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MVcj

 

Jason

[jmarshall]

Dan -- Some women can do math ;)

 

Yes, the 17 - 85 is the equivalent of 28 - 135 when used on a camera with a 1.6 crop factor ... but the 28 to 135 becomes (effectively) a 45 to 215 when used on a camera with that same crop factor.

 

Realizing that the 28 - 135 will have an almost 60% longer effective reach on the telephoto end, and given that the OP is looking for more telephoto, I stand by my original comment that the 28 - 135, being used on an XTi with its 1.6 crop factor, makes more sense than a 17 - 85. Just my opinion.

[isabellesmom]

Alright, I am going to read and then reread all of these posts tonight and over the next few days/weeks before I make a decision.

 

In the mean time, I posted a few pictures that I took today to my portfolio (http://www.photo.net/photos/IsabellesMom). The pictures are of my sister, my baby, and some animals. Please remember that this is my very first attempt at taking pictures with my Rebel, and today is my first day reading about photography. I am open to any suggestions/critisms. I think the only way I am going to learn how to take good quality photographs is by taking them wrong first, and then having someone tell me, "This is what you need to do next time with a shot like that..."

 

Thanks everyone for all of your help!

[maddalice]

hi. i have a carl zeiss 50mm1.7 planar T on my canon. it is smashing and brilliant for portriats. thank u. alice.

[maddalice]

a piture with it. alice.

[bob_osullivan]

Rebecca:

 

This is a bit off the topic but since you're new to photography and your little on is the main subject I'll share some advice. Don't every use flash with very young children. Thier eye's are vulnerable up to a cetrain age since thier blinkin reflex isn't as fast. Now, onto the lenses. I you don't mind switching leses from time to time one of the longer zooms mentioned like 70-200 would be fine. If you want to leave the lens on most of the time something that starts on the wider end would be better like the 17-85 or 28-135. For her school plays and such, you probably won't need much longer than 100mm expecially if you sit up close. Having IS (image stablization) does help in the poor lighting of a school play privided you take the shot when the kids aren't moving too much. It helps only with your hands holding the camera steady but does nothign for moving subjects.

[ellis_davison]

I think I may see a little confusion of concepts here: "Zoom" changes the size of the image by changing the focal length of the lens. This is the control on the lens with something like "17" or "18" at one end and some larger number like "50" at the other end. The smaller number is "Wide Angle" which takes in more of the view, closer to what your eye perceives. You see more of what is there, but individual stuff (like the kid's head) is smaller. You would use this end for a group, but typically not a portrait of an individual. The larger number is the "Telephoto" end, where the lens is acting more like a weak set of binoculars, better for a portrait.

"Focus" you may not be thinking about much, because the camera be default takes care of this itself. There is also a control for that on your lens, but you probably will not use it much. One reason why this may be difficult to follow at first is that many of the less expensive lenses do not have a footage scale showing where the lens is focused. To get a larger image using focus, you merely move closer, and the camera and lens adjust to keep at least part of the picture (usually what the sensors perceive as closest) in focus and sharp. If your lens does not have a footage scale, just keep moving closer until it seems like the image is not getting sharp. Your lens will probably allow you to get fairly close.

With adults, head on, you do not want to get much closer than five feet, or there will be apparant distortion (noses get bigger with respect to the rest of the face, etc. With small children, this effect is not so pronounced - smaller faces, smaller noses. Your camera is a marvelous machine, capable of making all sorts of decisions by itself that will make your pictures better. The down side is that it makes it a lot harder to understand what is going on and take control yourself, which you ultimately are going to want to do.