Hi all,
(sorry this is long - I want to give all the detail I can to help!)
I have posted a handful of questions up here for the photog experts, and I now have a new one. I have been doing a ton of research and reading reviews on a couple lenses. I know this is a common dilemma but I haven't seen this one answered for someone who owns a Rebel XS (just got it last week).
I am fine with playing with the kits lens in the short term to learn a little bit on the camera. This is my first DSLR and my first foray into the manual settings on any camera, much less a DSLR. I am not a pro, and while it sounds like it would be an amazingly fun job, i don't see myself doing this professionally anytime soon/ever. My main goal is to get great photos of my family, my vacations, and occasionally get a little "artsy" and grab some shots to blow up and use as frame-able pics in my house. Prob pretty common amateur type use.
I am confident the Rebel fits the bill for what I want to do with it. I was drooling over the full frame 5D, and who knows, maybe - maybe, I will go that route in the longer run.
The reason I say all that is it plays into my decision lens wise. I am looking for one upgraded lens to do it all (or at least all that I need). My understanding is there is a lot of unlocked potential via getting new glass than even getting a new body. I don't need super telephoto or anything (obviously anything over 55mm is a bonus however) but I do want a good wide angle. My upcoming honeymoon to Hawaii begs for the widest shots I can get.
I am between 2 lenses that for the most part have gotten rave reviews. They are;
Canon EF 24-70 2.8L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM
If I could make a hybrid of these two I would be all set! The first lens is obviously the better constructed L series, and would be great IF I ever went full frame (as it wouldn't go obsolete). The only reason I would go full frame would be if they introduced full frame on the mid or entry level cameras. If full frame stays in the top tier, I likely never will. I am not educated enough on the SLR road map to know what they are planning there? The little extra reach on the high end is a plus too. The biggest shortfall here is 24 on the wide end, and a smaller issue is it doesn't have IS. Not sure how much this last bit matters?
The second lens, while not as rugged construction, does do the same constant 2.8, AND goes to an extra wide 17mm (which I need all I can get due to the 1.6 crop factor on my body). I do loose a little reach and the ability to use this lens should full frame ever make its way down to the masses on the mid or entry level bodies, leaving my with an expensive paper weight. It does have IS which is a nice bonus too.
Though they are both expensive, price isn't really a factor between them as relatively speaking they are both fairly close ($887 vs $1057 on the L). I don't mind stretching a little as I understand a good lens will last over several cameras and they hold their value pretty well.
The reviews I have read said the 17-55, given a magnesium casing, would be an L series, as the optics are really great. I am really leaning that way given its optimized for the crop sensors too. But this is a double edge sword, not knowing what the future holds for full frame filtering down to the "lesser" cameras.
So while I know the L series are the holy grail, what would YOU do if you were me?
Why oh why Canon, did you just not add and extra 7mm (~11mm on my 1.6x) to what is otherwise a perfect lens?!? Throw in IS and you have my extra ~$200 without question...
Thanks for enduring my LONG post guys/girls
- Duncan
(sorry this is long - I want to give all the detail I can to help!)
I have posted a handful of questions up here for the photog experts, and I now have a new one. I have been doing a ton of research and reading reviews on a couple lenses. I know this is a common dilemma but I haven't seen this one answered for someone who owns a Rebel XS (just got it last week).
I am fine with playing with the kits lens in the short term to learn a little bit on the camera. This is my first DSLR and my first foray into the manual settings on any camera, much less a DSLR. I am not a pro, and while it sounds like it would be an amazingly fun job, i don't see myself doing this professionally anytime soon/ever. My main goal is to get great photos of my family, my vacations, and occasionally get a little "artsy" and grab some shots to blow up and use as frame-able pics in my house. Prob pretty common amateur type use.
I am confident the Rebel fits the bill for what I want to do with it. I was drooling over the full frame 5D, and who knows, maybe - maybe, I will go that route in the longer run.
The reason I say all that is it plays into my decision lens wise. I am looking for one upgraded lens to do it all (or at least all that I need). My understanding is there is a lot of unlocked potential via getting new glass than even getting a new body. I don't need super telephoto or anything (obviously anything over 55mm is a bonus however) but I do want a good wide angle. My upcoming honeymoon to Hawaii begs for the widest shots I can get.
I am between 2 lenses that for the most part have gotten rave reviews. They are;
Canon EF 24-70 2.8L USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM
If I could make a hybrid of these two I would be all set! The first lens is obviously the better constructed L series, and would be great IF I ever went full frame (as it wouldn't go obsolete). The only reason I would go full frame would be if they introduced full frame on the mid or entry level cameras. If full frame stays in the top tier, I likely never will. I am not educated enough on the SLR road map to know what they are planning there? The little extra reach on the high end is a plus too. The biggest shortfall here is 24 on the wide end, and a smaller issue is it doesn't have IS. Not sure how much this last bit matters?
The second lens, while not as rugged construction, does do the same constant 2.8, AND goes to an extra wide 17mm (which I need all I can get due to the 1.6 crop factor on my body). I do loose a little reach and the ability to use this lens should full frame ever make its way down to the masses on the mid or entry level bodies, leaving my with an expensive paper weight. It does have IS which is a nice bonus too.
Though they are both expensive, price isn't really a factor between them as relatively speaking they are both fairly close ($887 vs $1057 on the L). I don't mind stretching a little as I understand a good lens will last over several cameras and they hold their value pretty well.
The reviews I have read said the 17-55, given a magnesium casing, would be an L series, as the optics are really great. I am really leaning that way given its optimized for the crop sensors too. But this is a double edge sword, not knowing what the future holds for full frame filtering down to the "lesser" cameras.
So while I know the L series are the holy grail, what would YOU do if you were me?
Why oh why Canon, did you just not add and extra 7mm (~11mm on my 1.6x) to what is otherwise a perfect lens?!? Throw in IS and you have my extra ~$200 without question...
Thanks for enduring my LONG post guys/girls
- Duncan