Good all-around lens for Canon Rebel XTi?

T

thepirat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
147
Hey all, I have a Rebel XTi (EOS 400D.) Right now I am just using the kit lens, and would like to upgrade. I would like a lens that could do well in lower-light conditions. Also, I would be doing portriats. My budget is around $300. I've been looking at the Canon EF 28-135mm, but I'm reading that it's better to get EF-S lenses. Anyone have some recommendations? I'm not very camera savvy. Thanks!:D
 
Canon 85mm 1.8 for portraits, 35mm f/2 for general use. The 28-135 is not a low light lens.
 
Would the 85mm 1.8 be good for lower light settings? Most of my photography would be outside with various lighting environments. My stock lens is an EF-S 18-55mm. I really want to stay away from having to use flash.
 
Both the 85 and the 35 are good low light lenses. The 35 is more general purpose, and the 85 is more for portraits. Another cheaper alternative is a 50mm 1.8 (you can get it for $80ish), personally I'm not a fan, but a lot of people like it.
 
What would be the difference in portrait quality be between the 35 and 85? It would be nice to have a better general purpose lens than my stock one, but I don't think I could afford both lenses.

Thanks for the help btw!
 
Last edited:
Stay away from EF-S lenses. They are a waste of money if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame body (not compatible).

For a general walkaround on a crop body (which your XTi is), you can't beat the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 in my opinion. It's one of the best lenses, PERIOD, in its price range. The wide end should be sufficient, and the reach at 75mm on a crop is more than enough for street walking. If you are serious about getting good portraits, you should be using an external flash (not the built it), and 2.8 + flash should get you the results you need.
 
I would have to put in a plug for the Canon 17-85is. It's not as fast as the 2.8 but with its bigger wide end and image stabilization it makes a truly formidable choice for and "All around lens". Heck, I used one almost exclusively for two years on my XTi. I have a 17-55is f2.8 now that I use a lot, but it was twice the price and I still find myself reaching for the 17-85 when I am doing daylight portraits and need the extra reach.

You will find that the 17-85 will give you much better images than the kit lens could.
I was amazed at the difference in image quality between my 75-300 and the 17-85. Of course the 17-55 is another step up, but what do you expect at the price. It's almost an "L" lens image quality wise.

As for not buying EF-s lenses because you can't use them on a full frame.... Horse apples.
If you have a 1.6 crop camera use a crop lens. Why deprive yourself of some of the best lenses out there for your camera? You can always sell your crop lenses IF you do go full frame. But with cameras like the 60D coming up why? You have to be a pretty serious photographer to NEED a full frame camera.
 
JohnnyNapalm said:
Stay away from EF-S lenses. They are a waste of money if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame body (not compatible).
Click to expand...

Thats really bad advice. If you are planning to go FF in like 6 months, ok maybe. But if not, dont worry about it. You can always resell them and get most of their value back, especially if you buy used. Most never upgrade to FF anyways...

The 10-22 and 17-55 2.8 IS are two fantastic lenses for example that are both EF-S. Nothing FF compatible really rivals either on a crop body.
 
I personally do stay away from EF-S lenses, but then again I have a direct plan to upgrade to 5D mark II next year after my lens collection gets a little better.
 
Hey, to each their own, but personally, I'm happy I went with the 28-75 over the 17-50...not having to shuffle your lens collection around SHOULD you choose to upgrade in the future is a nice thing. You know your lenses backwards and forwards, and there is a comfort in that to me.
 
Tamron 28-75 is the best bang for the buck. Was very happy with mine until I moved to 'pro' lenses.
 
Kadath said:
Tamron 28-75 is the best bang for the buck. Was very happy with mine until I moved to 'pro' lenses.
Click to expand...

Here is a relevent question for the "Pirate's" benefit.

How is the short end on a 28mm lens with a crop body? (28x1.6crop=44.8mm) vs (17x1.6crop=27.2mm) It's a pretty big sacrifice if you want to do anything inside where you need a wider angle.

I have found the wide end useful so I am a bad reference for asking if a 44mm short end is livable. Personally it would drive me nuts for a walk around lens.
 
Kadath said:
Tamron 28-75 is the best bang for the buck. Was very happy with mine until I moved to 'pro' lenses.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's in budget and will stay as part of a kit for a while. The 18-55 can still be kept for wider angle and if you need more quality for portraits in longer run the 85 1.8 is a great next purchase.
 
skymaster said:
How is the short end on a 28mm lens with a crop body?
Click to expand...
Fine for outdoors, not fine for indoors was my personal assessment. Not to say I didn't make do with what I had, plus the IQ from the Tammy blows pretty much everything else away.
 
I wouldn't call the 28-75 a great low light lens, and if you have to pair it with a flash it adds another $200+ to the price. How flexible is your budget?
 
JohnnyNapalm said:
Yes that's it. I'm cracking up at Amazon's listing:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75m...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1242161914&sr=8-1

They have list price at $1023. What is that about?
Click to expand...

Who knows, but their actual price is lower than BH by a few dollars.

Also note there is a $10 rebate on this lens right now ;)
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/rebates.asp

(download the rebate form and it is listed even though it is not listed on the website page)

Its a good lens, a bit long for a standard walkaround on a crop camera (I use a 24-105 and that is pushing it enough IMO), but if you can live with 28 on a crop camera it should be a very good lens for you.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Amazon's price is $391 for the Tammy. You have to add it to your cart to see the real price.

My budget is somewhat flexible, but $500 is definitely max. I do have an external flash already, but I don't know how good it is. I would like to stay away having to use flash, though, because I prefer to use natural light to prevent harsh shadows.

So what I'm reading from you all is that the Tammy 28-75mm would be good for more well-lit situations, but the 35mm would be better for lower light? Like how low of light are we talking about? I've done some shootings for bands on dark stages the past with a 28-135mm and it was definitely not good enough.

What would be the difference in picture quality between the 35mm and the Tammy? The 35mm seems to be running at around $300, 85mm at $422, and the Tammy at $400.
 
In all honesty, f2 vs. f2.8 is not that big of a difference and I would go with the zoom.

Really good low light is down in the f1.8/1.4/1.2 range. But remember your DOF gets thin as well....
 
I would pass on the 28-135mm, I had it for a while and sold it quickly. The IQ is really not that great. In that price range you have a few options: sell your kit lens and upgrade to the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The IQ is better than the kit lens and the 2.8 is nice for quick shutter speeds. If you are interested in trying out primes, you can not go wrong with the 85mm f/1.8. The lens is just stellar. Quick AF, and great IQ. Will seem a little long on your XTi, but you'll enjoy the results. They go used for about $285-315. Don't pay more than that for one. Another possible jump into the prime world is the Canon 50mm f/1.8. The AF is a little slow and noisey to some, but it goes for about $75 used. It a nice little lens to have around.
 
I found my flash. It's called the Speedlite 199A . Do any of you know if the canon 85mm would be good for taking more scenic pictures (with infinite depth of field) or would it only be good for portraits?
 
What Canon 85mm are you talking about? 85mm prime or like the one I have (17-85mm IS)

I have found that it is great for both. The only thing is, this applies to lenses in general, if you are too close to your portrait subject it makes thier nose look huge.


A couple of shots with my XTi and 17-85mm IS lens.
3526920389_161f5ff849.jpg


3527733090_0b0f495bc7.jpg
 
If you can stretch it to $500, go for a 50 1.8 and either the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75. The 50 will let you do portraits in low light, and the zoom will be a general purpose walk around. I prefer the 17-50 range on a crop camera, but it's up to you.

The 85 geared more towards portraits, but you can use it for scenery too. Here's one I took outside:
 
fugu said:
If you can stretch it to $500, go for a 50 1.8 and either the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75.
Click to expand...
Only thing to consider here is 17-50 is EF-S, and usually a little softer than the 28. Agree that its range is better on a crop.
 
skymaster: I was talking about the Canon 85mm 1.8 in my post

JohnnyNapalm: When you say "softer" do you mean it's not as sharp, or the colors are less vibrant?

Fugu: Would you recommend the 85mm f/1.8 if I was planning on doing both portraits and outdoor shots, or would it be better to pick up the 50mm 1.8 + tamron 28-75? I really would like a good low-light portrait lens (because I think that's what I'd mostly be doing) so I'm trying to decide how much different the quality of pictures would be between the 50mm and 85mm f/1.8. Awesome picture btw.
 
The 2 lens combo gives you more flexibility, but if you're pretty sure you'll mostly be doing portraits, the 85 is a bit better for that assuming you can get to the right distance. Are you taking mostly candid shots indoors?
 
It would probably be shots both outside during evening times and indoors. If the 85mm is only a bit better, then I would get the 55 and the Tammy. I'm just wondering what the difference would be.
 
Softer = not as sharp

Agree that the 85 1.8 is many people's lens of choice for portraits. Just ordered one today, in fact!
 
I'd suggest you get the 50 1.8 and keep your 18-55 (especially if it is the IS version). The 18-55IS is a better performing lens than the 17-85 unless you need the extra range (it is not as well built, but optically outperforms it). The 50 1.8 will allow you to learn how to use a large aperature lens and is dirt cheap for very good quality. The Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50 are both very good f2.8 zoom lenses that are closer to, but probably over your price range.

If you don't have a zoom lense, you could get the 50 1.8 and 55-250 and add much more capability to your kit and still be in your budget range. I'd do this before adding another lens that duplicates the range you already have covered.
 
Does anyone know how the quality of portraits would be differ between the 50mm and the 85mm 1.8 in low light or high light?
 
thepirat said:
Does anyone know how the quality of portraits would be differ between the 50mm and the 85mm 1.8 in low light or high light?
Click to expand...

I have had both. It's not the image quality that is a difference so much as it is the AF and the build. The 50mm is a $100 lens, you get what you pay for-a plastic mount. The image quality is great on both. You will appreciate the quick AF of the 85mm over the 50mm though. In low light, the 50mm's AF will hunt to lock on.
 
Another thing to keep in mind is weather or not you want full time manual focus. (Cool feature with short depth of field lenses)
 
CaliGirl said:
I have had both. It's not the image quality that is a difference so much as it is the AF and the build. The 50mm is a $100 lens, you get what you pay for-a plastic mount. The image quality is great on both. You will appreciate the quick AF of the 85mm over the 50mm though. In low light, the 50mm's AF will hunt to lock on.
Click to expand...

I'm not planning on taking pictures in super low light. Would the 50mm still hunt in like, sunset-level light, do you think?
 
edit: I bought the 85mm 1.8 today on ebay. Thanks for the help, everyone!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top