Which lens to get for rebel xti?

[joytime365]

Where would I find these lens for sale at a good price from a rep. company?

Something like this be pretty good? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html

I think that's quite a good choice, and you can have a look at the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens also, it is the lightest 4x telephoto zoom lens in its class. Ideal for sports,portraiture, animals, etc:
http://www.dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=72485

 

[Cave Man]

I think that's quite a good choice, and you can have a look at the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Autofocus Lens also, it is the lightest 4x telephoto zoom lens in its class. Ideal for sports,portraiture, animals, etc:
http://www.dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=72485

That lens is horribly soft.

Until the OP tells us his/her intended uses for the lens, none of us can help him/her.

 

[nismo86]

That lens is horribly soft.

Until the OP tells us his/her intended uses for the lens, none of us can help him/her.

I stated I'd be using for getting those far away shots, and i'd be shooting at nighttime with a tripod on long exposers (if needed)

 

[Lovesong]

I think what caveman is going for is an example of what you want to shoot, as in specific... like so:

"I want to shoot the stars"
-Umm, OK, you need a telescope with a EF adaptor, and about $500 worth of tripods

"I want to shoot the moon"
-Right, that means you'll want the 70-300 with a teleconverter on your tripod

"I want to shoot the naked chick across the street"
-Umm, then I would suggest a lens with a wider aperture, as the low light focus hunting will be minimized, and you will be able to get more action shots. A prime would suffice.

"I want to take pictures of the city skyline"
Alright, you don't necessarily need to zoom in on a single skyscraper, so 200mm-equivalent is plenty- pick up a 135, and you're set.

 

[nismo86]

I'm not really sure what i'll be shooting at night because it always changes, but with a tripod and long exposer time will this lens (70-200 f4) do it?

 

[Lovesong]

I'm not really sure what i'll be shooting at night because it always changes, but with a tripod and long exposer time will this lens (70-200 f4) do it?

Yup- that lens will be the best piece of glass you will ever have had. Be careful, though- once you go L, it becomes a degenerative disease- you'll be trying to sell a kidney soon to get a 300mm prime. Happy shooting

 

[nismo86]

Yup- that lens will be the best piece of glass you will ever have had. Be careful, though- once you go L, it becomes a degenerative disease- you'll be trying to sell a kidney soon to get a 300mm prime. Happy shooting

LOL... greaaaat.

Yeah i'll be shooting a mix of things at night, stars, trees, cars driving by, houses, fields, etc... I like to play with light and the best time in my eyes is night.

 

[JFreak]

I'm looking for a lens that will go telephoto between 200-300MM. Looking to spend up to $700.

Are you talking about real millimeters or "full frame equivalent"? I mean, I'm sure you're aware that 200mm tube appears to be 320mm on a 1.6X crop body such as the Rebel. Using same equation a 135mm tube appears as 216mm.

If that's what you're looking for, then I'd recommend Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L or Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L which are very robust and high-quality prime lenses. Very cheap for what you can do with it on a crop sensor body!

 

[nismo86]

Are you talking about real millimeters or "full frame equivalent"? I mean, I'm sure you're aware that 200mm tube appears to be 320mm on a 1.6X crop body such as the Rebel. Using same equation a 135mm tube appears as 216mm.

If that's what you're looking for, then I'd recommend Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L or Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L which are very robust and high-quality prime lenses. Very cheap for what you can do with it on a crop sensor body!

I want a lens that I can adjust, not just set at "x" amount of mm. It seems whats been recommended will work, as long as in low light it'll still look good, of course using a tripod and long exposer.

 

[Cave Man]

I stated I'd be using for getting those far away shots, and i'd be shooting at nighttime with a tripod on long exposers (if needed)

What subjects? Are you shooting nocturnal wildlife? Will the subjects be moving or static? These are the things you need to tell us so that we can help you make an informed decision. Details are necessary. Hopefully, you're not shooting into people's windows.

 

[nismo86]

What subjects? Are you shooting nocturnal wildlife? Will the subjects be moving or static? These are the things you need to tell us so that we can help you make an informed decision. Details are necessary. Hopefully, you're not shooting into people's windows.

Subjects that are generally not moving, and if they are, they will be blurry on purpose (I.E. a car moving)

 

[Cave Man]

The lenses in your budget to consider are:

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L USM
Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM

If you're working cars, you should probably have an ultra/hypersonic motor. Since you're shooting with a tripod, the IS on the 70-300 is superfluous.

 

[nismo86]

I have the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens, and it works PERFECT for what i'm doing, if it allowed some more light that would be great. So your saying the 70-200l f4 isn't a good choice and I should go with one of the Ef lenses you listed?

 

[Cave Man]

So your saying the 70-200l f4 isn't a good choice and I should go with one of the Ef lenses you listed?

I did list the 70-200 f/4L. There are two versions - one with IS (more expensive), one without. If you're using a tripod, there's no need for IS.

 

[nismo86]

I think i'll try out the 70-200 f4, is there any good ones from 55-200MM for which I need?

 

[JNB]

Well...

If you get the 70-200, then you want something on the short end. I might suggest:

• EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ($850-$1200)
• EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($250-$350)
• EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM ($300-$350)
• Or an equivalent Tamron

The second or third ones in the list both make nice complimentary lenses to the 70-200, and make nice walk-around lenses as well. I think I might lean a teensy bit towards the 28-105, but that's just me. I'd love to have #1 on the list, though (drool!).

No reason to get too much overlap on the lens range, unless a particular lens has superior qualities at a certain focal distance than another. Assuming you don't have an unlimited budget, buy as much glass as you can stand, price-wise, for a given lens. Just don't buy some $99 piece of Phoenix crap just to put something in your bag.

 

[nismo86]

Say I'm shooting a scenery, or something thats mostly not going to be moving, and say I maybe want to shoot the stars when they move all of this would be done with a tripod on a long exposer, would the non IS ($550 one) 70-200MM f4 work good for me? I'm not asking if it's good for low light without long exposer because if I'm shooting in low light it'll be very long exposers.

 

[JNB]

Say I'm shooting a scenery, or something thats mostly not going to be moving, and say I maybe want to shoot the stars when they move all of this would be done with a tripod on a long exposer, would the non IS ($550 one) 70-200MM f4 work good for me? I'm not asking if it's good for low light without long exposer because if I'm shooting in low light it'll be very long exposers.

You know, the 50mm 1.8 does terrific starry night shots on a longer exposure, and it's all of about $70 through Amazon.

If you want some really nice astronomical photos, get a decent telescope (for probably less than you'd pay for a good lens) and an adapter for the camera.

Hmm. Just gave myself an idea...

 

[nismo86]

I'm still wondering, will the 70-200mm f4 be good for nightshots if its on a tripod?

 

[JNB]

I'm still wondering, will the 70-200mm f4 be good for nightshots if its on a tripod?

Kinda sorta. Perfectly acceptable if the aperture (more open than closed), shutter speed (longer rather than shorter), and ISO (higher rather than lower) are all appropriate for the shot and the lens. But the question remains, what do you consider a "night shot"? Fireworks? Starry skies? Moon reflecting on a lake? Downtown all lit up? A lot of different needs and parameter considerations there. Keep in mind that you may still not get every shot you'd like to. That's why I suggested the 50mm 1.8. It's cheap, way fast for it's cost, nice field of view, and can take "starry night" shots nearly handheld.

BTW, after yesterday's post, I looked into the telescope idea (I wasn't being facetious!), and ordered a Bushnell NorthStar 1250 x 90mm Maksutov-Cassegrain. Granted, I got it with hotel points, but for $50 real money, I can get the adapters necessary to mount the Canon on it. Canon's 1200mm glass is $83,000! (Yeah, I know, but still...) Now we're talkin' night shots!

 

[nismo86]

A night... hm.. usually means many different things for me. At night I shoot MANY different things, the moon reflecting off a certain object, cars coming at me while I expose the background, a sunset when its barely still light out with the moon out, moon by a bridge. Those type of things. The stock lens that comes with the canon rebel xti is perfect BUT I need more MM. Thats why I was asking if the 70-200 f4 will do the same type of thing as the stock lens does.

 

[form]

70-200mm f/4l has great reviews. It captures less light than your 18-55 when you're at 18, and more light than when you're at 55.

70-200mm f/2.8l captures more light, but is about $950 used, so out of your price range.

70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is also a pretty popular lens, with extra reach and a fairly small difference in image quality compared to the 70-200 (which is sharper than the 70-300). This lens captures about the same light as your 18-55.

I am not a Sigma enthusiast, but most people who get their 70-200 f/2.8 EX (around $700) seem happy with it. The reason to consider them over Canon is because they offer a faster aperture (f/2.8) for less money.

Another Sigma model (slightly out of your price range) is the 100-300mm f/4.

These are the lenses in your price range that best fit what you seem to be looking for. If you can find the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens that's not available in the USA, you might consider that one as well. Since you don't want primes (no zoom), I wouldn't suggest the 200mm f/2.8 (about $500 used) or 135mm f/2 (about $700 used)


For a general idea about lens capabilities, there are several websites to look at, including:

1. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html -
2. http://www.popphoto.com - search for specific lens reviews -
3. http://the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ -

 

[nismo86]

edit

 

[nismo86]

I can't decide between this one :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-GREY/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html

and this one :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html

Now for the use of the lens :

Daytime shots of objects too far to reach, like a barn, just objects I cannot reach. Sometimes I like to get up-close to an object, like a single flower or a piece of wood in-focus with the background out of focus.

Some shots will be at night, such as a sun-set, the different colors after the sun goes down, objects in some-what low light, a bridge with the moon in the background, a fence with the stars in the background.

The shots in the day will be non-tripod for the most part, the ones at night will be on a tripod with long exposer.

Which would best fit this? Or would something else fit me? I do want a lens where with a high MM as the current lens I have only goes to 55MM.

Please help..

 

[nismo86]

Anyone?