Taking the plunge with a Canon 400D (Rebel Xti) need lens help

kwl1763

Premium Member
Ok I need your opinion.

I am going to buy the body only of the XTI

I've been reading, trying borrowing taking pics for a couple months and decided on this over the sony A100 and the D80.

Rather then getting a kit lens I'll probably never use I'm thinking of going body only.

I want a good macro lens for the aquarium pics and a pretty set on a Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens as it seems to be quite highly recomended.

Am I correct in assuming that's a fairly good all around just vacation pics, etc lens also?

Other then the aquarium I also like taking nature pics of birds, etc. so I' also thinking of a Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. Having said when I do vacation I would want the wide angle for landscape but if I have to pick I want a good zoom lens.

Does it make sense to go with these lenses? What would be major limitaions/issues I would be missing?
 
Last edited:

ssbreef

New member
The 100mm macro is a GReat! lens for macro and portait photography. Not so great for a vacation lens. I would go with something like the 17-55L or if you want somthing cheaper the 17-85 IS for a walk around vaction lens. Even the 18-55kit lens is a good walk around vaction lens for the price.
 

MCary

Premium Member
A lot of people who have bought the 70-300mm claim to rarely take it off the camera. Non-reef keepers I'm sure.

At some point you are going to want to have these lenses.

A macro lens.
A wide angle
A midrange sports zoom
and a long lens.

My choices are:

A 100mm f/2.8
A 17-85 mm IS
A 70-200 f/4 L

and a yet to be purchased 400 mm L prime.

Buy the ones you can afford and will use the most now. But eventually you'll want the rest. Trust me.

Mike
 

kwl1763

Premium Member
So I've definitly decided to go with the 17-85 IS as the upgraded kit. I'll defintly go with the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

I'd love to go with the 70-200 f/4L but a $1000 lens is out right now. Plus while I want a good zoom it will probably get used the least for sports/fast action and more for birds, nature and even then I won't use it to it's capability often at all.

I don't know. I borrowed a buddies Sony alpha 300MM and could take killer closups of corals from about 6 feet away. Not the sharpest ever but man could I zoom in there. It took great pics of the fish even at f5.6.
 

ahuxman58

New member
Glad your going with Canon, save your money and get the 70-200MM 2.8 IS you wont be sorry believe me. My next lens is the Canon 100MM 2.8 Macro cant wait to buy it .
 

PL-Reef

Awesome Member
I agree with the macro choice, my first lens bought and don't regret it. I love my 24-70 f/2.8 for walk around, but alot of people say it's too heavy. I would suggest saving your money for the better quality lenses cause you'll probably want them eventually anyway so it's better to just buy them right away IMO. I have to say that I've read great things about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and is my next purchase :)
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
Yeah the 24-70L is monster but it's a great lens. Mine is attached to my camera probably 90% of the time.
 

jedininja

New member
I use the 17-85 IS as my main walk around lens. If you cant drop a thousand dollars for a lens, I highly recommend the 17-85 IS. Very sharp lens. Not incredibly fast, but the IS makes up for that. I've tried a few other lens that were under $600, and this was definitely the sharpest.
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
Sure - but also keep in mind that you don't have to buy brand new. B&H and Adorama (and some others) offer used and refurbished. I bought my 24-70L used from B&H and saved over $300. Unlike going the ebay route I had the option to send if back if it wasn't up to par.

Cheers
 

jedininja

New member
Wow, thats an awesome price. I've tried looking for L lens used and can never find them. THey always sell out before I can get to it.
 

MCary

Premium Member
The 70-200L f/4 is only around $550. The f 2.8 is the expensive one at ~$1000. The f 2.8 IS is $1300 I think.

Mike
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9290531#post9290531 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
The 70-200L f/4 is only around $550.

If you can find the old non-IS version....
 

PL-Reef

Awesome Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9284270#post9284270 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
Yeah the 24-70L is monster but it's a great lens. Mine is attached to my camera probably 90% of the time.

Ditto, the weight doesn't bother me, maybe it's all my mom muscles LOL
 

jeffbrig

Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9290543#post9290543 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
If you can find the old non-IS version....

Wow, did know it disappeared....I love my 70-200 non IS.
 

Willistein

New member
So I have an XTi and would also love a macro lens. What would be the three best choices at different price ranges, say $250, $500 and $1000?
 

jeffbrig

Premium Member
$250 - I don't think you can touch a true 1:1 macro without spending closer to $400.

$500 - EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro - fabulous lens, very popular
Also, the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105 for slightly less money

$1000 - EF 180mm F/3.5L Macro (~$1200) - a lot more money for a little more reach. Also, specialty super macro lenses like the MP-E 65mm (~$800?) come into play.
 
Top