File :-(, x, )
getting started, need lens advice Anonymous
this'll be a tl;dr unless you want to help a photography noob make some good purchases. so skip it if that's not you d-:

I bought a canon digital rebel eos xti for a backpacking trip (heavy, but i wanted good photos)

i've been using the kit lens for a while, since I got it. i never really considered buying other lenses, but now that i'm looking into it, it appears that said kit lens is not doing the camera justice at all.

i'm looking for a set of lenses to use, and i'm not really sure what i need where. i talked to a few photo people I know, and i've kind of got myself set on a trio of canon lenses - a 10-22mm for dramatic wide angles, a straight 50mm for most things, and then a 70-300mm with IS for zoom shots. is this a good setup for a budding photographer?

i haven't found a niche yet, i.e. wildlife (i live in Alaska, so i have a lot of that) or landscapes (got a lotta that too), cityscapes (not as much of that hehe) portraits, or macro or unusual stuff. i'm just enjoying myself in general now, but i want to have the equipment to allow me to try anything and everything.

are there any PARTICULAR lenses you recommend in these sorts of ranges (wide angle, specifically straight 50mm, and zoom) that are affordable (my price range is pretty much anything reasonable - under 700$ is all good by me)
>> Anonymous
Firstly, a zoom refers to any lens that can change focal length. The 10-22 you're looking at is a zoom, for example, but it's a wide zoom. The 70-300IS is a telephoto zoom. Telephoto is what people first think of as "zoomed in".

The 50/1.8 in the picture is a great lens, but it's a little bit too far towards the telephoto side on your XTi to be a "most things" lens, I think. It's like walking around with your kit lens zoomed in all the way all the time. Many people pair a 50/1.8 with an off brand wide-standard zoom, like Tamron's 17-50/2.8 or Sigma's 18-50/2.8 for versatility. If you want to go Canon, there's the 17-55/2.8IS, but it's damn expensive.
>> Anonymous
>>81937
OP here. Thanks for the clarification. The other thing I was looking at as a 'general use' one - well not really general use, but a sort of center lens, if you know what I mean - is a straight 30, by sigma. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007U0GZM/elliottcable-20

i blogged on this topic just now. my mephisto installation is being bitchy, but you should be able to see this post at least:
http://blog.elliottcable.name/articles/2007/10/photography-upgrades

near the bottom is a list of the 5 different lenses I'm considering, any thoughts?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I have a 50mm on a 1.4 crop (i think its 1.4) so it turns out abouy 85mm. Generally its pretty fine for a day to day lense but you must be prepared to move around a lot to frame stuff correctly. Getting a decent prime will show you what the camera is really capable of too as they generally have superior optics to ALL zoom lenses. Going slightly wider (30-20 range) wont be any worse but its probably going to be more expensive than a 50mm.

I would advise you to get another lense, decide if you prefer wildlife or landscape (long or wide basically) and then spend the rest on a tripod, some filters and other usefull equipment.
>> Anonymous
The 50mm 1.8 because it is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP and will let you get a good taste of what your camera can do. Also it won't be the end of the world if you get other lenses and add to the kit. It's still handy as a back up or for a particular length.
>> Anonymous !RX7/134byQ
>>81934a 10-22mm for dramatic wide angles

I highly recommend that lens if you have an EF-S capable camera. It's as wide as you're going to get by a long shot, and although some claim that the build quality isn't the greatest, it's not really a problem in the grand scheme of things--the lens is wonderful for your wide landscape pictures and indoor architecture pictures. Obviously, you should be careful when taking pictures of people--I made my fiancee look like a midget once X-D
>> elliottcable
Thanks for all the suggestions guys.

regarding the 50mm being a little too much zoom - what do you think of a straight 30mm instead? Will that be more practical?

>>81965
If I am going to buy something, I'm going to make a nice investment in it. I saw the 1.8, but I didn't see how a 50$ish lens would be worth it. 350$ seems reasonable for a good straight lens, in my (uneducated, of course)

>>81959
is the sigma 30mm a good lens for that kind of range? do you think it might serve me better than a straight 50mm? I'm also not quite sure, but it seems there's some conversion that needs to go on or something. full-frame versus these small ccd SLRs or something, I didn't quite get it. is the 30mm actually a 30 versus the 50mm? did that question even make sense? d-:
>> Anonymous
>>82058
On 35mm film cameras, 50mm is generally referred to as "normal". I.e., it's about the angle of view your eye would see unaided. Longer focal lengths are telephotos, shorter are wide-angle.

However, that only goes for 35mm film and full-frame digital. Most digital SLRs, including your XTi, have a sensor that's smaller than the 24x36mm of a 35mm film frame.

The upshot of this is that it's like taking a crop of the middle of the frame, which acts a lot like increasing the focal length in practice. Your XTi has what's known as a 1.6x crop factor, so to figure out the 35mm-equivalent field of view of a lens, you have to multiply the focal length by 1.6.

So, a 50mm lens on your XTi acts like an 80mm lens would on a film camera. If you want a normal-length lens, you need to take 50mm divided by 1.6, or 31.25mm. So the 30mm f/1.4 from Sigma would be a more or less normal focal length on your camera.

Other good choices are Canon's 28mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.0 (which is what I have as my fast normal prime). The Sigma is notoriously bad at accurately focusing on Canons, but the genuine Canon lenses don't have those problems.
>> Anonymous
>>82058
The reason the 50mm is so cheap is that it's incredibly easy to make a 50mm lens. Despite the fact that it's so cheap, it's one of Canon's best lenses optically, just because that's such a simple focal length to get right.

It's not a good lens for your only lens. It's definitely a good lens to have as a medium telephoto for low-light use.

Until you know enough that you can rattle off this sort of information to other n00bs, though, you should *strongly* consider sticking with your kit lens. Only upgrade when you really understand and really start to experience the kit lens' limitations.

(Then later, when you're good enough, you'll learn how to use the kit lens really effectively and you'll have a fun little renaissance moment when you start using the kit all the time again)
>> Anonymous
>Until you know enough that you can rattle off this sort of information to other n00bs, though, you should *strongly* consider sticking with your kit lens. Only upgrade when you really understand and really start to experience the kit lens' limitations.

This is stupid. Why should he get to understand the limitations of something not really worth using in the first place? Why not learn with the lens he'll actually be using most?
>> Anonymous
>>82069
Because if he doesn't know why the kit lens isn't a great lens, he doesn't know enough to make an informed decision on a better lens to get.

Additionally: The people who say the kit lens sucks are the sort of people who spend more time masturbating to resolution charts than actually taking pictures.