Good lens for under $400

[ron_brown5]

<p>Can someone please give me an idea of a good lens for my Rebel XTi for around 3 or 4 hundred dollars. I want something that is a good general lens. Something for inside or out, something for portriats or landscapes. I'm not a professional, and I can't really afford much, but I have to get something besides this 18-55. Thanks all.</p>

[sking]

<p>Why?<br>

While it doesn't turn heads and impress people with how much money you can afford to spend, the 18-55 is a very good lens. Rather than invest your money in a replacement for a perfectly usable lens, why not invest instead in a 50mm or a telephoto zoom? They would add to your arsenal rather than simply replace it.<br>

I am a working full-time pro. I never add a piece of gear until I can articulate what the new item will do that I currently cannot accomplish.<br>

Then, instead of collecting cameras and gear, I have can collect memories and photos of the places I've visited.<br>

Good shooting.<br>

Steven</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Rob, the best general purpose EF lens for under $400 is without doubt the 50/1.4. It'll be superb on your XTi for portraits, but not nearly wide enough for most landscape shooting. For that, you'll have to go to a wide angle lens, which will put you over your budget. There are some zooms that do a good job with landscapes <em>and</em> portraiture, but these, alas, are also well beyond your budget.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>The 50mm is a superb landscape lens if you use it in portrait orientation and stitch several images together, even hand held the Canon Stitch software does a great job.</p>

[bob_himmelright]

<p>50mm f1.8 or f1.4<br>

35mm f2<br>

24mm f2.8</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>My first response is a 50 1.4 but a better choice for you might be a pair (since you like to take pictures of everything...:-) ). a 50 1.8 & either a 17-85, or a 28-135 might pair well enough in that budget. You get the advantage of a great cheap 50 (actually 85 on your XTi), plus the range of decent zooms (for your budget at any rate), both zooms have IS, & USM (w/ full time manual focus override).</p>

<p>For general purpose shooting at a non-pro level w/ that budget.... figure a 17-85 or 28-135 (suggested since you already cover 28+ effective WA w/ the 18-55) goes for no more than $300, and a 50/1.8 is about $100...</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>used EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for versatility ($300 or less on ebay) + 50mm f/1.8 II for low light ($100)</p>

[hjoseph7]

The 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 is a very good cheap lens for undre $300 one of my favorites.

[steven_f1]

<p>From the B&H catalog (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com">www.bhphotovideo.com</a>).</p>

<ul>

<li>24mm F2.8 $324.95</li>

<li> 28mm F2.8 $269.95 </li>

<li>35mm F2.0 $319.95 </li>

<li>50mm F1.8 $109.95 </li>

<li>50mm F2.5 Macro (1:2) $299.95, (to go to 1:1 you need a converter sold seperately for $260.00)</li>

<li>70-300mm F4-5.6 $200.00 </li>

<li>100-300mm F4.5-5.6 $295.95 </li>

<li>55-250mm F4-5.6 IS $255.00 </li>

</ul>

<p>I don't own any of these but adding the 55-250mm IS would be a good addition to your 18.55 giving you coverage from18-250mm. The 50mm F2.5 Macro is reportably quite good and gives you macro capability plus a wider aperture which is useful in low light conditions. The 50mm F1.8 is the cheepest on the list and has the widest aperture.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Sorry I missed the 28-105 at $199.95. I didn't include the 50 F1.4 because it is $1 short of 400. Add shipping and taxes and it's over $400. My catalog doesn't show the cost of the recently discontinued 17-85 or the cost of it's replacment the 15-85.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>The very best general purpose, inexpensive lens for your XTi is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC zoom. It is a very good match size and weight wise with your camera body and with the constant 2.8 maximum aperture much easier to get good results with your camera than the decent but slow (5.6 on the long end) 18-55mm kit lens. Unfortunately with the slide of the dollar it has gone from the high $300s to $470 in the last year or so. Good, inexpensive and all around versatile general purpose, take your pick two out of three. You just won't get all three these days. </p>

[songtsen]

<p>+1 for Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. </p>

<p>Bob Atkins has some useful lists on <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html">this page</a>.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>if you have the 18-55<strong>IS</strong> - that is a good inexpensive lens!<br>

but if you have the old 18-55 I would get the Tamron 17-50 2.8</p>

<p> </p>

[looscanon]

<p>Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. The only none L lens I own. Costs about $350, has great image quality and I believe is the best lens ever made for the money it costs. For your camera it would be a good mid-range telephoto lens.</p>

[steven_crist]

<p><em> "I never add a piece of gear until I can articulate what the new item will do that I currently cannot accomplish.<br />Then, instead of collecting cameras and gear, I have can collect memories and photos of the places I've visited."</em></p>

<p>Well put. That's my philosophy as well. </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>24mm 2.8 / 28mm 2.8 / 50mm 2.5 CM / 35mm 2.0 / 50mm 1.4</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>If you like the focal range of the 18-55 but (like me) your XTi came with the old non-IS version, I hear that the newer IS version is much better. I have an old 28-105 and it is a respectable lens, though I think I'd opt for the 28-135 IS instead--Amazon has it for about $365.</p>

[matthijs]

If you have the non-IS kitlens: get the IS version.

 

If you have the IS already: get a fast prime.

 

(My choice would be the EF 100/2 but you might want something wider like 50/1.8 or 35/2 or sigma 30/1.4.)

[maury_cohen]

<p>You might find the Canon 18-135 IS at this price if you shop around.</p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>50mm 1.4 gets my vote as well.</p>

<p>This lens will let in almost 8x more light than your current lens at 18mm and 16x at 55mm. With a 1.4 lens, you'll be able to control the background blur more effectively by producing more bokeh. Also, this lens could be used indoors without flash. Being a prime lens, it'll be sharper than most zoom lens out on the market.</p>

[carlviensphotographe]

<p>Hi Ron! Here's my first contribution on P.net!</p>

<p>I have an XTi and the same 18-55mm non-is. Last year, I was also looking to spend approximately the same money as you on new lens but I decided to go with a Speedlite 430EXii. I didn't want to buy a lens I would regret or too similar to my actual lens. And I knew that one day, I would buy a flash.</p>

<p>This decision made me "rediscover" or appreciate my 18-55 non-is. Since most of my pictures are taken indoor, I was now able to use ISO's different than ISO1600, to have fun bouncing the flash on the ceiling and walls, and do better portrait of my familly and friends. It really changed the way I was using this basic kit lens.</p>

<p>I'm glad I then saved some money ; I recently could afford to purchase that nice 17-55mm f2.8 IS :)</p>

<p>Whatever you choose Ron, Have fun!</p>

[steve_murray1]

<p>Going to add another vote for the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Having used both the old 17-55 non-IS kit lens and newer 17-55 IS from Canon as well, I can't say the IS alone is worth the money. Upgrading to the Tamron has been the best bang for the buck lens purchase I've ever undergone, even considering the 50 1.8 in my bag.</p>

 

[ds_meador]

<p>I'll suggest the 430EXII flash as your next addition. I found this on the PNet home page this morning. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3995970">http://www.photo.net/photo/3995970</a> The data says it was taken with the 18-55 kit lens. So, more light may do you just as much good or more good than a 2.8 zoom. I have the EF 24 2.8 and sometimes need more light indoors to keep from shooting at ISO800 or ISO1600. So, I found an acceptable price on a used 430EX. This has changed what I can shoot indoors with my existing gear (I shoot with an XSI).<br>

Just my thoughts.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[felix_mizioznikov]

<p>85mm 1.8</p>