id this a good package

during my DSLR research, I found that

75-300m is one of worst lens Canon has ever

made.... but Im sure other pros will chime in
 
^haha we posted at the same second without reading what eachother wrote. That should tell you something. I don't like the 18-55 either, though the IS version is better than the origional.
 
so would you think just buying the xsi and the other lense i was gonna buy with the camera ( sigma 105 mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens Canon AF) would be a better option
 
what do you want to shoot w/ camera? just tank shot? or close up

coral shot? 105mm macro lens is good for close up coral shot

but probably won't be good for shooting fast moving fishes... or

whole tank shot
 
coral close ups with the macro, but i want to get into nature photography also, but at the present time if i cant find a decently priced package of camera body and a good lense then i will only be able to get one lense and i would get the macro lense first
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13924144#post13924144 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dustinP
so would you think just buying the xsi and the other lense i was gonna buy with the camera ( sigma 105 mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens Canon AF) would be a better option
Click to expand...
I'd scratch the Sigma and get the Canon 100mm f/2.8
I wouldn't even consider a sub par 3rd party lens when your only talking about saving $20-$30
 
also, have you handled the xsi from local camera store??

how was feel in your hand?

I compared xsi and 40D... but 40D was better in my hand

as well as build quality (plastic vs. metal body)

so I went w/ refurbished 40d body... not much from

new xsi body
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13924444#post13924444 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dustinP
when my brother bought his XTI i played around with both XTI and XSI and i was much happier with the XSI
Click to expand...
The Xti and Xsi should feel pretty much the same. The 40D and the Xsi will be way different.
 
The 55-250 is no slouch and I won't directly recommend against it, but I would prefer a 70-200 f/4 in its place. If you are going to get the 55-250, pairing it with the 18-55 IS would make sense.
 
Titus can you elaborate on the 55-250 IS ... I am also looking at possibly adding this to my order as Amazon.com has $100 discount that makes the lense only $130 when purchased with a XSi.

I am planning to get the standard 18-55 IS as well... and later on when I have the money, the 100mm ;)

BTW Dustin, check out Amazon.com. I know everybody here recomends B&H, but Amazon has always been good to me... plus they let you price adjust for 30 days (which is nice since the price will likely go down beginning of the year after the holidays...) Right now they have the XSi with the 18-55mm IS lense for $635 (which I believe is the same as B&H) but you can add the 55-250mm IS for only $135... so you can have both lenses for like $770...
 
I like the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS, it is a very capable little lens. My main deal with it is that you can get a 70-200 f/4 which is a LOT better. The 70-200 f/4 is reasonably inexpensive. Assuming it has enough light to work with, the 70-200 f/4 will arguably give the best quality from a zoom lens that you can buy for a Canon EOS camera. If the quality of the image is a concern, it just doesn't really get any better. The 55-250 stops being useful in low light comparable to the 70-200. It isn't that the 55-250 IS is so bad (it's not), it is that the 70-200 is so dang good. Now after about ~150mm, IS really helps if you don't have the light. Of course there is a 70-200 f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8, and f/2.8 IS (my baby), but the f/4 IS is more expensive than the f/4. The f/4 does have the best image quality of the bunch though. The f/2.8 IS is just more versatile, allowing me to shoot the town block party outdoors @ midnight without flash or a tripod for example. If you turn on an NBA game and look at the photographers on the side line behind each basket, I would bet over half are using Canon 70-200's. I wouldn't be surprised to see an 85 f/1.8 in there either.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your expertise Titus! I have no idea what f/4 or f/2.8 means... but it sounds like the 70-200 is a better lens... :D lol
 
hey 90sshooter, where did you see anything about getting the 55-250 IS lens for only 130? i went to its page on amazon and it is 219.95 even with the XSi camera
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13926318#post13926318 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 90sShooter
Thanks for your expertise Titus! I have no idea what f/4 or f/2.8 means... but it sounds like the 70-200 is a better lens... :D lol
Click to expand...

A lens at f/2.8 can see TWICE as much light as a lens at f/4. The 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS zoomed out in the range of ~200mm+ can only go to f/5.6 while the 70-200 f/4 stays at f/4. f/4 sees twice as much light as f/5.6

The IS will help a bit in low light but you can get the f/4 with IS too. IS will inevitable takes away from overall image quality whether you use it or not. So the 70-200 f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 which is sharper than the f/4 IS which is sharper than the 2.8 IS which is sharper than the 55-250 IS. The order I listed of the 70-200's is up for debate, but they all produce a better image than the 55-250.

Again I want to stress the point that the 55-250 is still a good, high quality lens. The 70-200 f/4 is just that much better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

revclyburn
I think it's time
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Patrick Seastar
Patrick Seastar
T
Back at it after a 13 year hiatus.
Replies
7
Views
1K
griss
griss
revclyburn
Need some thoghts on skimmers
Replies
7
Views
1K
Timfish
Timfish
P
How can I reinforce a kitchen cabinet to support say a 90 gal tank?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Philip
P
E
Ben’s back at it 20G long
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
5K
ExitTrauma
E
Back
Top