Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 19, 2006, 4:09 AM   #1
jmc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17
Default

After researching the options, I've decided to replace my Nikon Coolpix 8700 with a Canon Rebel XTi, thus propelling me into the DSLR realm. Startup speed, speed between shots ('specially flash!), and low light performance are a couple of reasons I'm switching.

It's been about 10 years since I last had to deal with interchangeable lenses - not since I sold my film camera (gads, has it been that long??)

In reading various reviews, many say the usual kit lens (18-55mm) isn't very good, and recommend looking for a kit with the 17-85mm USM IS lens. But, some folks don't think this is a great lens either. I see "get this lens, get that lens" and now I'm totally confused.

I want to minimize the number of lenses I own, I'm a small person and don't like to carry around lots of kit (which is one reason I've stayed out of DSLR until now).

Normally, I do landscape type photography (and touristy stuff, since I live overseas), with a smattering of macro when the opportunity presents itself. I use the zoom a *lot* on my current camera.

However, on occassion, I do fast-action photography, usually horses. I'd need to be able to zoom in here as well, but a shorter zoom would be OK - fast is more important.

Sometimes I need good low-light performance as well, which I gather the 17-85 isn't much good at. Would I need yet another lens for shooting in low light situations?

You can see my dilemma. I really haven't a clue as to what I should get, to meet my needs. Please help!

Oh, and what other kit do I need? filters, hoods, ?

Any help appreciated!

jmc

[edit: Looking at the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8. Is this a good 'walkaround' lens? Price is an issue only 'cause I'm not a pro, and can't quite see paying more for a lens than the camera - tho I'm sure I would if I was a pro!]
jmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 19, 2006, 9:44 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
O.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 139
Default

well ... here is a kicker ...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

may be a Nikon d80 is a way to go since you haven't bought a Canon system yet?


O.S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2006, 10:25 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The 18-200mm VR is definetely a sharp lens!
Just its distortion (and CA) which can be disturbing: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56vr/index.htm
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2006, 1:41 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
O.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 139
Default

NHL - you are right
O.S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2006, 6:45 AM   #5
jmc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 17
Default

Just to follow up, I decided to go for body-only, and just the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] SP AF Zoom (thank you, cutandpaste!).

I'll definitely need something to zoom with, but I'm not sure exactly what I'll need yet, thinking something out to 200mm? I do mostly handheld so I'm a bit limited there.

Suggestions welcome

jmc
jmc is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:09 PM.