Buying a new Camera need some advice on a lens

[Wedge]

Hey Everyone,  I don't think I have posted on APS since it was created...

Anyways, I am buying a new camera, a Canon Rebel XT.  I have a film Canon EOS Rebel Ti and like it, have a 420EX flash and wanted to stay with the Rebel XT (which coincidentally fits my stubby hands like a GLOVE)  anyways I am going to buy the camera body only as I already know what sort of quality goes into their kit lenses (I have one on my EOS Rebel Ti and it is definitely a poor lens, I really don't like it).  The kit lens I have is a 28-90 and will make for a good "want to take some pictures but wouldn't want to ruin a good lens" type of situation.

So the question:  I am looking for a good lens and have it narrowed down to 3.

1st: 17mm-40mm f/4.0 L. 
2nd: 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. 
3rd: 50mm f/1.4 USM

My friend has the 17-40mm L lens and said it is his most used lens.  The 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM would be nice to have for more telephoto type shots and with the IS would be nice for indoor telephoto shots (like taking pictures at a wedding while in the audiance).  Finally the 50mm f/1.4 is very fast and would allow for me to take pictures without the need for a flash and should work well for trying to get some action shots playing with my dog and within we'll have kids to take pictures of and indoor shots without a flash will be something nice.

I am open to other options as well.  I have also thought about getting the 50mm and maybe an 85mm both prime lenses since it is my understanding that optically the non L prime lenses are still very good and much better than the zoom lenses.

Thanks!

[mtnbkr]

I'd go with either the 2nd or 3rd choices.  The 2nd zoom is more flexible, but the simplicity of a fast 50mm frees your mind from dicking around with the zoom so you can spend your energy on taking the picture.  At least for me...  A zoom is just something else to fiddle with. My 50mm is my most used lens and the one I grab if I don't know what I'll run into. 

Considering I find my 24mm lens too wide most of the time, I'd expect the 17-40 to be too wide for all but scenics or very close indoor shots.  However, it would make a nice companion to the 28-135...

As for Prime vs Zoom, the quality of zoom lenses is getting better all the time and the performance gap is narrowing.  That said, 2 of my 3 lenses are primes (24mm, 50mm, and 70-210mm).  I would be willing to use a recently designed zoom other than the cheap ones used in kits.

Chris

[Wedge]

Thanks Chris,

I was already leaning towards choice #3 myself so I think that is what I am going to get. 

My buddy that has the 17-40mm lens also has a 70-200mm lens...and he told me that he is going to buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens because he needs something faster for inside.

Thanks again!  I may end up getting either a zoom or prime 100mm lens in the future as well.

[Big Hairy Bee]

One thing you have to consider is the XT's crop factor of 1.6X.  Meaning that because of the XT's sensor size lenses will have an apparent magnification of 1.6 times that of a film camera or a full frame digital.  The 50mm will act as a 80mm and may be a little long for indoors.  If you want a 'normal' lens a 30mm is needed.  Don't discount the 50mm 1.8--known by many as the nifty fifty and available for less than  $100.  The Canon 17-40L is a fantastic lens but pricey at close to $700.  Good alternatives are made by Sigma and Tamron.  Just make sure that they are compatible with your film camera.

I have and XTi and my battery includes a Tamron 17-35, Canon 50 1.8, Canon 70-200 f4L, and a Sigma 150 Macro.

[MillCreek]

I would lean towards a zoom with a minimum of 17 mm on the wide end, in consideration of your crop factor.  On my Canon 20D, my Sigma 17-70 is one of my most used lenses for indoor and outdoor work.

[esheato]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ is a nice place to go and read reviews.

I have the Rebel XT and, considering the 1.6 crop factor, I opted for the 24-105L as my everyday lens. Pricey and a bit heavy, but I get very sharp photos.

As far as your options, I was debating picking up the 28-135 IS for the wifes film body. Looking at the reviews and sample photos using that lens, I decided to go with the 28-105 without IS instead. The 28-135 just felt a little cheap to me (and it's not at $400).

Ed

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My current setup is a 10D body, a 50/1.4, a 28/1.8, and the 18-55 kit lens. 

The 50/1.4 is by far the best lens.  It's wickedly sharp, fast, and lightweight.  It was my favorite lens back when I was using film.  It'd still be my favorite lens if not for the fact that the crop factor turns it into a short telephoto.

I bought the 28 because I wanted a more normal prime lens.  It's not quite as sharp or as fast as the 50mm, but it's still a good lens. 

I bought the 18-55 and hacked it up to fit my 10D because that was the cheapest way to get wide angle coverage.  It has proven to be surprisingly good for a cheap kit lens.  It's noticably better than the film body kit lenses. It's as good as the nicer 28-105 ans 28-135 lenses.

If I were starting out fresh to build a new system, I'd buy a Rebel XTi body with the kit lens.  I'd add a fast normal prime lens as my "go-to" lens, probably a 35/1.4L.  The kit lens would be reserved for times when I absolutely needed wide angle or telephoto.

Don't forget to consider the 17-55/2.8 IS lens.  It's pricey, but its optics are L quality, it's fast, and it covers everything from wide angle to normal to short telephoto. 

[Wedge]

Well I decided to go with the 50mm f/1.4 lens.  Thanks for all the advice.

I am sure that the next lens I get will be the 17-40mm f/4.0 L.  I've also got my cheap kit lens from my film Rebel Ti. 

I'll have to post some pictures when it all arives!

[Standing Wolf]

I bought a Tamron telephoto lens for my Nikon. The salesman said it was just as good as the equivalent Nikon lens and considerably cheaper.

Well, it was less expensive, anyway. It's not a bad lens: just not a great lens.

[mtnbkr]

I never understood why someone would buy a 1st tier camera like Nikon or Canon and stick 3rd party lenses on it.  I have yet to hear of a 3rd party lens that was as good or better than the name brand lens and they certainly don't have the resale value.  The only time it makes sense is when the 3rd party company has a lens the big boys don't make.

Chris

[Big Hairy Bee]

I never understood why someone would buy a 1st tier camera like Nikon or Canon and stick 3rd party lenses on it.  I have yet to hear of a 3rd party lens that was as good or better than the name brand lens and they certainly don't have the resale value.  The only time it makes sense is when the 3rd party company has a lens the big boys don't make.

Chris

There are some Canon and Nikon lenses that are of just average quality as well.  Tamron and Sigma have several excellent lenses in their lines that are equal to N/C counter parts. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Well I decided to go with the 50mm f/1.4 lens.  Thanks for all the advice.

You won't be disappointed with that lens.  It's as close to perfect as any lens can be: fast, sharp, lightweight, well constructed, and affordable.  I wish there were more lenses like that.

[MillCreek]

For me, photography is a hobby, not how I earn my money.  I therefore weigh each purchase decision from a cost-benefit standpoint.  Although I would like to have all 'L' glass, and actually could afford it, I am not sure that the cost would substantially improve my semi-amateur level photography.   And I agree with Harry that Sigma, Tokina and Tamron make some very fine lenses.

[Brad Johnson]

Wedge, if you don't mind saying, what is your lense budget?

Brad