New lens for Canon Eos 400D.

[Evangelion]

I bought a Canon Eos 400D (AKA Digital Rebel XTi) with the kit-lens last October. And while the kit-lens is OK'ish, I feel like it's time to move on to something a bit better. I'm not an uber-photographer, and my budget is limited (200-400 euros/dollars), so no need to recommend some super-lenses . I'm looking for a nice jack-of-all-trades lens. I would use it for sceneries as well as people, so it would have to cope with wide variety of uses.

So, any suggestions and/or recommendations?

 

[Coheebuzz]

Are you planning on keeping your kit lens and want something at a different focal range, or just replace it with something better?

For landscapes and portraits the kit lens range is very good so i can recommend the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-3.5. It's has slightly longer range, its better optically from the kit lens and it's also f2.8 on the low range. It can give you 1:2 magnification for macro too, which is something rare for zooms.

And it's also within your budget. Here is the link from Sigma, it says $590 MSRP in there, but last time i checked on B&H photo the price was less than $400.

I don't own this lens but at this price point it seems very attractive and it's in my wishlist too. It would be great to hear some comments from someone who owns this lens!

 

[Evangelion]

Are you planning on keeping your kit lens and want something at a different focal range, or just replace it with something better?

Well, I would most likely replace it. I would hang on to the kit-lens, but I don't think I would go about switching the lenses around that often.

And it's also within your budget. Here is the link from Sigma, it says $590 MSRP in there, but last time i checked on B&H photo the price was less than $400.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep my eye on that one

 

[miloblithe]

I'd second recommending the Sigma 17-70 DC Macro, although I'd also mention it's f/2.8-4.5 and 1:2.3 maximum magnification, not quite as good as the specs Coheebuzz mentioned.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm

Other lenses you might want to think about:

Canon 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 USM IS
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm

some people love it. I'd want to avoid the distortions and CAs.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

constant f/2.8

Canon 17-40 f/4.0
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

L-class build quality

Sigma 18-200 OS
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1007/cat/31

Or wait for the Sigma 18-200 OS to become available. (who knows if it'll be anywhere near as good as the Nikon 18-200 VR though).

 

[840quadra]

Don't rule out the classic glass either.

I have yet to buy a brand new lens, because, well, I haven't!

A good review on some classic glass
http://reviews.ebay.com/CLASSIC-CAN...uot-Best-Buys-quot_W0QQugidZ10000000001398682

Good lens reviews including new and old
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45

 

[robbieduncan]

Canon 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 USM IS
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm

some people love it. I'd want to avoid the distortions and CAs.

I have this lens as a replacement for the kit lens. It is significantly better than the kit but it has issues. My copy shows noticeable distortion at the extreme wide end. CAs are not too bad. The IS works well, but to be honest I'd rather have a faster lens than the IS...

 

[miloblithe]

I have this lens as a replacement for the kit lens. It is significantly better than the kit but it has issues. My copy shows noticeable distortion at the extreme wide end. CAs are not too bad. The IS works well, but to be honest I'd rather have a faster lens than the IS...

I'd rather have speed than IS too, although both would be nice. Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS sounds pretty drooly. I'd buy that and the 70-200 f/4 IS if I were determined to never own a home or provide for my children. Oh, and a 5D!

There do seem to be about three levels for lenses: with basic lenses running from around $80-150, "enthusiast" lenses running around $400-600, and pro lenses $1000 and up. I guess I wish there were more "frugal enthusiast" lenses. Something like the $200-300 range.

 

[sjl]

I'd rather have speed than IS too, although both would be nice. Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS sounds pretty drooly. I'd buy that and the 70-200 f/4 IS if I were determined to never own a home or provide for my children. Oh, and a 5D!

The 17-55 f/2.8 won't go on a 5D - it's an EF-S lens, not EF.

 

[miloblithe]

The 17-55 f/2.8 won't go on a 5D - it's an EF-S lens, not EF.

Oh, I know. In my fantasy world I'd keep my XTi as well.

 

[Evangelion]

I just wanted to thank you all for your suggestions . You have certainly given me quite a bit to think about. But keep those suggestions coming if you feel like it