Need advise... XTi vs XSi

[t5Nitro]

I have a friend who is traveling to Alaska in the summer. He has a budget of around $900 and wants the best camera / lens for his dollar. He was going to buy the XTi and stock lens. I convinced him otherwise to look at an XTi body only and a better lens or the XSi and stock lens. What exactly makes the XSi's stock lens better than the XTi's? Is it because it has IS? I think they're both 18-55mm, correct? I gave him a few options for his $900 budget:

XTi body only and 28-135mm canon IS lens

or

XSi and stock lens

Do you guys all think the XTi and better lens is a better choice? Can anyone come up with a better combo for $900, or did I make a good recommendation?

Thanks in advance.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The Xti has a 18-55 mk I
The Xsi has a 18-55 mk II
The mk II is completely re-designed. The guts are different, the glass is much higher quality, everything about it is better. Of course, it is still an entry level lens and you could do MUCH better...the 17-55 IS for example. The stock Xsi lens is a significant improvement over the old version though.

He needs to figure out what he is shooting with only one lens. I would assume landscapes, which would command a wide angle. Then there are those cool trees with 20 bald eagles perched...a nice telephoto would be ideal. Who knows, maybe he'll see a polar bear? But he would most certainly want a telephoto then! It is hard to choose. I would go with the 28-135 I suppose. It is not wide, and it is not really telephoto, but its the best mix of both in your price range I'd guess.

 

[t5Nitro]

That's what I thought. I would think he wants this camera to last him while he's at home, too, other than just at Alaska where he may want a telephoto etc. That was one reason I thought of the 28-135mm. I'm not too familiar with the canon lenses. He asked me what was the step below the 28-135mm? Is it any good?

 

[BlueCorn]

If he can go a little higher than that, this is what I'd do.

Get an XT or 20D body (used)

Buy:
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ($500)
EF 70-200 EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM ($600)

If he went used on the lenses as well he could probably come in at ~$1100 The 28-135 lens, on that body, is a terrible landscape lens. I had one and hated it. The happiest memory, that I have, of that lens is the day that I sold it. It's not wide enough at the short end and it's not long enough to be really useful. Color saturation isn't good, the IS is an early generation and isn't especially good, the build quality stinks..... (yes I really hated that lens)

If it's too much money, I'd still get the used body, and the 17-85 but then I'd recommend renting the 70-200 for the trip at someplace like rentglass.com

 

[jwedehase]

I really don't want to agree with Beerguy on anything, but I'm sort of forced to. I have a 20D and the 28-135mm. While I don't HATE the lens as he does, I find it to be the weak link in my setup often. Given a choice, I'd prefer the 17-85 IS he listed instead. The "wide" end of the 28mm often misses the shot for me.

My next lens will most likely be the 17-40mm F/4L. My only hesitation is how slow it is, since I never shoot landscapes. I prefer people and events, but the 16-35mm f/2.8L comes with a MUCH heftier price tag than the 17-40.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I'm not any fan of the 28-135 either. It's just so hard to work with people on a budget. DSLR photography just isn't a budget friendly sport. Now the 70-200 is just a great lens and pleasure to work with (all four versions) . I have the cutting edge f/2.8 IS $2000 version, but the $600 f/4 is still wonderful. Don't think you can't use a telephoto at home either. I would say the 70-200 is my right hand lens, sharing the throne with my 24-70. The 70-200 is the lens mounted on my camera and ready to go at all times. Okay, so it fits in my bag perfectly that way with the hood in the ready position, but it would still be the lens I wanted attached regardless. The 70-200 is also my primary portrait lens. He will also need a wide angel, and I suggest the 10-22 here.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12518515#post12518515 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jwedehase
I really don't want to agree with Beerguy on anything

Hey! It's not so bad!

:lol:

 

[t5Nitro]

Nice, got a little more info. on the canon lenses now So I should tell him to go with a 70-200mm I guess.

Thanks.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I would, ACCEPT its telephoto not wide angle, there I suggest a 10-22. I'd get one or the other (but ideally both). I do not like the 17-85 any more than the 28-135.