Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
better lens for Canon Rebel Xti
- Thread starter gernb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you want a better lens that covers the same focal length, a lens that covers a different focal length (wider or longer) or perhaps better low-light performance.
If you want a better lens in the same rough focal length then the Canon (I've never considered third party lenses so I know nothing about the Sigma and Tamron options) EF-S 17-85 IS USM lens is OK (I've got one). It's much better than the kit lens but still has some CA issues and distortion and the extremes. If you are willing to sacrifice length then the EF-S 17-55 IS USM is meant to be fantastic, almost L quality. It's also pretty fast at a constant f/2.8 so will work well in low light.
Unfortunately I think both of these cost more that $400.
So if you want low-light capabilities and sharper images with less CAs and lens distortions it might be worth looking at primes. The 50mm f/1.8 is amazing value for money and the 50mm f/1.4 is within your price range as well. Both are worth considering.
If you want to cover a different range then we'd need to know if it's wider or longer...
If you want a better lens in the same rough focal length then the Canon (I've never considered third party lenses so I know nothing about the Sigma and Tamron options) EF-S 17-85 IS USM lens is OK (I've got one). It's much better than the kit lens but still has some CA issues and distortion and the extremes. If you are willing to sacrifice length then the EF-S 17-55 IS USM is meant to be fantastic, almost L quality. It's also pretty fast at a constant f/2.8 so will work well in low light.
Unfortunately I think both of these cost more that $400.
So if you want low-light capabilities and sharper images with less CAs and lens distortions it might be worth looking at primes. The 50mm f/1.8 is amazing value for money and the 50mm f/1.4 is within your price range as well. Both are worth considering.
If you want to cover a different range then we'd need to know if it's wider or longer...
What do you like to shoot? Anything? Try and think of what you will shoot most, even if it's not your favourite thing. The 17-55 is a very nice lens, expensive and I've heard of a lot of issues about dust getting inside, a.k.a not weather sealed. For a cheaper price as well you can get the 17-40 L which is very good but a little short.
The 17-85 or 28-135 IS USM are probably very good "all round" lenses, but the 28 may not be wide enough for you and the 17mm on the former has quite bad distortion.
Sigma's 17-70 is heard to be a pretty good replacement for the kit lens and it has a wider aperture at 17mm and 20mm extra reach. Also have a look at the Tamron 17-50 which is pretty much the same focal length as the kit lens but has a constant f/2.8 aperture and better quality.
The 17-85 or 28-135 IS USM are probably very good "all round" lenses, but the 28 may not be wide enough for you and the 17mm on the former has quite bad distortion.
Sigma's 17-70 is heard to be a pretty good replacement for the kit lens and it has a wider aperture at 17mm and 20mm extra reach. Also have a look at the Tamron 17-50 which is pretty much the same focal length as the kit lens but has a constant f/2.8 aperture and better quality.
Options are limited given the budget but The lenses I use and like the most after my "kit" lens are the 50mm f/1.4 and my 85mm f/1.8 I prefer both of these over the slower zoom for people pictures. The 50mm is more generaly usful for indoors in smaller spaces like a house the 85 in lager spaces. The smaller DOF of the faster leses as usful in removing background clutter that always happens with candid indoor shots and you can use more natural lighting, although I always like to use some amount of fill-in flash if I can even if it is set a stop below ambient level.