Just bought a XTi 400D any advice?

[squeeks]

i see these types of threads all the time in the macbook forums, now its my turn to ask, i searched the first several pages, and didnt really see any threads on this camera, so im asking:

Any tips?

What accessories do you recommend for it?

and

Anything else that i should know?

 

[Grimace]

The first lens you should buy should be the Canon 50mm f/1.8. It is ridiculously sharp yet dirt cheap ($75.) I've taken some of my best shots with that lens.

 

[squeeks]

The first lens you should buy should be the Canon 50mm f/1.8. It is ridiculously sharp yet dirt cheap ($75.) I've taken some of my best shots with that lens.

this one?

 

[robbieduncan]

this one?

That's the one. It's a steal (although I spent a bit more for the f/1.4 version).

 

[squeeks]

should i get a UV filter or any other particular filters?

 

[Grimace]

nope, just get out there and shoot. This lens will teach you a lot about depth of field and it will force you to move your feet to get the shot you want instead of learning to rely on zooms. Zooms are fine, but it's better to learn composition with a prime.

 

[squeeks]

even now i prefer to shoot without zoom, causes less jitters

 

[M@lew]

Unless you plan on getting a really good UV filter for the 50mm, I would go without one. I had one on my 50mm and it produced way too much annoying flare and overexposed my images. The 50mm glass element is pretty far into the lens so it has a kind of makeshift protection anyway. Plus it's pretty cheap to replace should you need another fast after breaking.

 

[squeeks]

Awesome, thanks guys...

the camera kit should be here monday, but the new lens shipped today but isnt going to be here until the 19th? shipped from amazon, not sure what their problem is there...it shipped from amazon but wasent available for prime, and its going to take 10 days to get it, which is really strange, so i guess ill be playing with the kit lens for the first week...

 

[RevToTheRedline]

The first lens you should buy should be the Canon 50mm f/1.8. It is ridiculously sharp yet dirt cheap ($75.) I've taken some of my best shots with that lens.

I completely disagree, Unlike film a 50mm lens on any non full frame Canon or Nikon camera will offer 75-80mm (75 on Nik, 80 on Can) focal length which is a telephoto not a standard, making it way too long for most cases where you would use a 50. I'm not saying the 50mm lens isn't good it's just not as useful as it should be. No questioning that they are sharp and very fast, small, cheap and light, they are a win win, but in my opinion not so much in the real world.

The best choice is to go with a 28mm lens it gets a close to 50mm focal length, the Sigma 30mm F1.4 (30 x 1.6 crop factor = 48mm) If you don't mind going 3rd party is a great lens. Otherwise I
d go with the Canon 28mm F1.8 USM.

On my Nikon system I run the 35/2 because it gives me 52mm focal length.

Crop Factor on APS-C format DSLRs (any non full frame as stated) is a win/lose system, lose because wide angle lenses aren't so wide angle, but win because telephoto are even better. Just keep in mind multiply your lenses focal length by 1.6x on Canon and 1.5x for Nikon (Nikon uses a slightly larger sensor, closer to full frame size but still far off)

 

[Bigtree]

I completely disagree, Unlike film a 50mm lens on any non full frame Canon or Nikon camera will offer 75-80mm (75 on Nik, 80 on Can) focal length which is a telephoto not a standard, making it way too long for most cases where you would use a 50. I'm not saying the 50mm lens isn't good it's just not as useful as it should be. No questioning that they are sharp and very fast, small, cheap and light, they are a win win, but in my opinion not so much in the real world.

The best choice is to go with a 28mm lens it gets a close to 50mm focal length, the Sigma 30mm F1.4 (30 x 1.6 crop factor = 48mm) If you don't mind going 3rd party is a great lens. Otherwise I
d go with the Canon 28mm F1.8 USM.

On my Nikon system I run the 35/2 because it gives me 52mm focal length.

Crop Factor on APS-C format DSLRs (any non full frame as stated) is a win/lose system, lose because wide angle lenses aren't so wide angle, but win because telephoto are even better. Just keep in mind multiply your lenses focal length by 1.6x on Canon and 1.5x for Nikon (Nikon uses a slightly larger sensor, closer to full frame size but still far off)

I would disagree. At least with a 50 you can shoot people without getting large noses, hands, and etc.

BTW Do you fly R/C?

 

[Grimace]

I completely disagree, Unlike film a 50mm lens on any non full frame Canon or Nikon camera will offer 75-80mm (75 on Nik, 80 on Can) focal length which is a telephoto not a standard, making it way too long for most cases where you would use a 50. I'm not saying the 50mm lens isn't good it's just not as useful as it should be. No questioning that they are sharp and very fast, small, cheap and light, they are a win win, but in my opinion not so much in the real world.

The best choice is to go with a 28mm lens it gets a close to 50mm focal length, the Sigma 30mm F1.4 (30 x 1.6 crop factor = 48mm) If you don't mind going 3rd party is a great lens. Otherwise I
d go with the Canon 28mm F1.8 USM.

Well, I guess we disagree - I think 80mm FOV is just fine - the OP did not mention a type of photography or ideal focal length range.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens that lets someone learn a LOT about photographic techniques for very little cost.

 

[RevToTheRedline]

BTW Do you fly R/C?

Yah

Everyone on here must be a highly paid professional photographer, I'll never say anything again. My Opinions get bashed down.

 

[ChrisA]

should i get a UV filter or any other particular filters?

You don't need filters for digital. Filters were used by people ho cared about critical color using film. Some people think they need a clear or "UV" filter to "protect" the lens. But protect it from what? A lens hood will do the same thing and will actually improve the image. If you are worried about UV light don't.

I polerizing filter is usfull some times but should be removed when the effect is not wanted because it will seriously degrade the image and dim the view through the finder.

The best think to do is shoot lots of frames. But think first about the final print. What do you want the printed image to look like then use your feet and get the camera to the right spot. The #1 mistake is to be some place, see something and then simply put the camera in front of your face and take a snapshot thinking the camera will record what you see. No it will not. Camera make prints you eye/brain does not. The eye is selective in what it sees without effort but yo must put in some effort to make the camera selective

Quick beginner tips:
1) use your feet to get the camera into the right place such that subject is at the
"right" distance and the background is "correct". There is no way to fix this subject to background relationship later and the camera' automatic mode don't help. the zoom lens can't help either. gotta walk.

2) Remember the "rule of thirds"

3) Look at all four edges of the frame. "stuff" should be either in the fram or out and not left to chance but in or out for a reason you gave at least 1/4 second of thought to.

more advanced, non-beginner tip: Look at the light? either control it or wait till it is right.

Do the above and you will be ahead of 90% of all camera owners. Maybe even 99% The the camera can handle the technical stuff 80% of the time. 20% of the time you can dial in some exposure compensation or over ride the auto focus. But most the new "auto everything" camera get it right or close enough that you can fix it later.

What to buy next" Nothing. Shoot 1,000 frames, edit them, keep the good ones then after these first 1,000 frames think about what you missed, wanted to shoot but could not due to lack of equipment. then buy that lacking equipment. It could be a flash with a sync cord for off-camera flash or a faster lens or an ultra wide angle or studio lighting equipment or a macro lens.... you will not know until after those first 1,000 frames. It is a waste of money to buy equipment that does not contribute to getting those missed shots

One more thing. Read. Read a lot of photo books. Those big picture books of the masters and their work As a new photographer it is OK to try and copy the style of what you see in those books. look at the book section at http://www.aperture.org

 

[ChrisA]

Well, I guess we disagree - I think 80mm FOV is just fine...
The 50mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens that lets someone learn a LOT about photographic techniques for very little cost.

I have both the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 and use them both about equality. Many times I do want to wide f-stops. On a crop body the 50 is good for tight candid portraits and the 85 is to long for using in the house, unless the house has 40 foot square rooms. I've never needed a very fast wind angle lens but I don't shoot in bars and clubs.

My advice is to buy nothing. Maybe some books Dn'r buy a lens untill you have a good "feel" for focal lengths and f-stops and know which you use and don't use

 

[squeeks]

i did buy...this book to get a feel for how to use the camera, but im new to cameras with real settings and focal legnth and apature and stuff like that, ive been using digital cameras for a while now, but this is my first DSLR, so i need as much newbie help as anyone is willing to give, your advice so far has been great!

as far as types of pictures, basically shooting people inposes not action, inside and out, some moving peole too but not much, and scenery/landscape for when i go out west next year

 

[Grimace]

Yah

Everyone on here must be a highly paid professional photographer, I'll never say anything again. My Opinions get bashed down.

Sheesh! We disagreed in a polite manner, which doesn't mean that your opinion is wrong or invalid. I don't think "bashed down" is at all fair given the two replies to your advice. The OP never stated anything about lenses in the first place so all opinions and advice is legit.

Anyway, we're not trying to bash down opinions, just offer varying points of view.

 

[squeeks]

ok children lets get along for a few minutes and help squeeky thread starter learn how to use his new camera

 

[odinsride]

I just got this camera last spring and still haven't bought any other lenses. The kit lens is great for me. I bought a UV filter to protect the lens from scratches, works great!

 

[Bigtree]

Sheesh! We disagreed in a polite manner, which doesn't mean that your opinion is wrong or invalid. I don't think "bashed down" is at all fair given the two replies to your advice.

He's just a little nervous from fly R/C....

 

[beatzfreak]

The first lens you should buy should be the Canon 50mm f/1.8. It is ridiculously sharp yet dirt cheap ($75.) I've taken some of my best shots with that lens.

Agreed. I bought this lens with my 350XT a year and a half ago, and it's been a great lens to learn on. Especially for DOF and portraits.

Also, this book was helpful to me as a beginner:

http://www.friedmanarchives.com/rebels/index.htm

There are flickr and dpreview discussion groups for the Rebels.

You might want to get an extra battery and CF card.

Have fun and just take a lot of pictures!!!

 

[Blah64]

The first lens you should buy should be the Canon 50mm f/1.8. It is ridiculously sharp yet dirt cheap ($75.) I've taken some of my best shots with that lens.

Y'know, I heard/read that many times, so immediately after buying my XT I ran right out and bought one. But 99% of the time it sits on the shelf. Why? I tend to get better pictures with the kit lens (!!), which to me doesn't really make sense. The shots I get with the 50 1.8 are never sharp, so I just don't tend to use it.

The reason I wanted this lens is for indoor shots where I'm not quite close enough for the flash to be effective. Granted, this is a difficult environment, but I would still expect the 1.8 to do significantly better than the kit lens, and it just isn't.

Now, this could be due to my ignorance of how to make proper use of the lens, but what kind of common things might that be?

 

[jwt]

To respond to the original post,

I bought a 400D a few months ago not knowing much about photography. At that time I just wanted to take better pictures than my then current camera could take. Before I bought anything--during the homework stage--I was contemplating whether or not I should get the kit lens or buy another lens since most people seem to poop on it. In short, I got the 400D with the kit lens. In doing so, I started out cheap, starting taking pictures, and learning what my lens can do and what it can't. When I realized what I wanted to shoot that it couldn't, I started buying lenses. There's no limit to what you can spend on lenses, and since you, like me, probably aren't made of money, you'll want to buy what you need. So, my recommendation is buy the camera with the kit lens and start taking pictures. You'll take different pictures than me, so I can't tell you which lens to buy. You have to see what kinds of pictures you want to take, and when your lens no longer cuts it, you'll need to choose the upgrade path that's right for you.

 

[Grimace]

I tend to get better pictures with the kit lens (!!), which to me doesn't really make sense. The shots I get with the 50 1.8 are never sharp, so I just don't tend to use it.

Now, this could be due to my ignorance of how to make proper use of the lens, but what kind of common things might that be?

That's really weird -- maybe a bad copy? I would take it to a local camera store and see if they can find anything wrong with it -- maybe it's focusing is off. [Bold statement] I don't think you'll find anyone who will tell you that the kit lens is *ever* sharper than a 50mm f/1.8. Aside from the prime vs. zoom difference, the optics are just so different (simpler, better) in the prime.

 

[Abstract]

I completely disagree, Unlike film a 50mm lens on any non full frame Canon or Nikon camera will offer 75-80mm (75 on Nik, 80 on Can) focal length which is a telephoto not a standard, making it way too long for most cases where you would use a 50. I'm not saying the 50mm lens isn't good it's just not as useful as it should be. No questioning that they are sharp and very fast, small, cheap and light, they are a win win, but in my opinion not so much in the real world.

I'm going to agree with you.

The problem with lens recommendations from some older, more experienced people is that the recommendations they'd make for 35 mm film SLRs are still the same today for most modern DSLRs. They're still going to recommend the 50 mm f/1.8 and the 85 mm f/1.8 for portraits whether you're using a 35 mm film SLR, or a Canon 400D. Why? They give you totally different perspectives on these two types of cameras.

I'd say a Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 is a fantastic general lens, and it's equivalent to around 50 mm focal length on your Canon 400D body. The 50 mm f/1.4 now acts more like the 85 mm lens of old. The 50 mm lens was fantastic as a walk-around lens for general photography, but if you want to know why film shooters believed this, get a Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 to find out why. In other words, the 30 mm + 50 mm lens combo is the new 50 mm + 85 mm lens combo of old.

The 50 mm lens is no longer the ideal low-light lens for indoor photography. The Sigma 30 mm f1.4 seems much more usable in most situations.

It's interesting, though. All the people who would recommend a 50 mm as a walk-around lens would tell you that a 24 or 28 mm lens on a DSLR is wide enough for wide-angle shots. It would have been for film, but they'd never recommend it for wide-angle for your DSLR.

Get a Sigma 30 mm f/1.4.

Also, get the 18-55 mm kit lens. These 2 lenses will give you what you want unless you're looking to zoom out really far.