Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

First lens for Canon digital rebel

Nov 11, 2004 1:31PM PST

I just ordered a canon digital rebel,my first slr. What would you recommend as a good all around first lens with a good zoom foremost on my mind. I have heard that sigma is a good quality and cheaper alternative to Canon. Thank's.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 12, 2004 12:10AM PST

Tamron and Sigma produce many good lenses. Despite my many years SLR experience, their lenses' quality manufacturing control and technology aren't quite there yet. Canon places the SLR product into many categories, from cheap to very expensive. You must trade-off whether how serious the picture quality you really look for. Mostly Canon-L-series SLR lenses produce very good pictures, but the price lists are too extreme ! I've heard comments for Tamron and Sigma lenses when using with Canon DSLR which are :

1. some errors and imcompatibility
2. many lenses deformed and deteriorated in just a few years.

Just a precaution. By the way, don't get me wrong. Many good and nice pictures were taken by many Tamron and Sigma lenses. But, it's like an investment to me making a purchase of lense. So, choose wisely. Good luck.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 13, 2004 12:09PM PST

Thank's Jump for the insightful advice.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 13, 2004 3:23PM PST

One thing to remember with the Digital Rebel is that the CCD (your virtual film, if you will) is only about .625 the size of a frame of 35mm film, so when looking at focal length you must multiply by a factor of 1.6 to get the "effective" focal length. So a 50mm lens on the DigReb would get about the same results as about an 80mm lens on a film SLR. This is good if you shoot a lot with telephoto, as a 200mm effectively becomes a 320mm lens! The downside is if you want wide angle effects, you have to use a much shorter (and generally much more expensive) lens to get it (think an 18mm to get the 28mm look).
In general, I think that how "fast" (it's maximum aperture) a lens is doesn't get enough attention from first time purchasers. If you shoot mostly in daylight this won't be as much of an issue, but if you plan any medium to low light photography there is no substitute for a lens that lets you use as much available light as possible to keep your shutter speed in reasonable ranges. The lower the f-stop #, the better.
I've had generally good experience with a Sigma zoom lens on my EOS film camera, but I don't do a lot of cropping/enlarging in the dark room where any lens defects would really show up. I think it stacks up fairly well against the Canon lenses in the same price range.
One last piece of advice, since you mentioned this is your first SLR. Once you spend a little bit on your lenses protect them by spinning a UV or Skylight filter on them. You can afford to scratch a $10 filter a lot easier than the objective on a $500 lens! You will also have more peace of mind when cleaning the dust off the filter instead of the lens.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 13, 2004 3:38PM PST

Another thought. Since you mentioned this is your first SLR, I assume you mean film as well as digital. The only way you will REALLY learn what YOU want in a lens to do the type of photography YOU do (as opposed to what type I or anyone else does) is to start taking pictures and discover the limitations of what you are using and decide which features are more important for YOU. For that reason, I would think a cheaper non-OEM lens may be the way for you to go in the beginning until you dicover what YOU really need. Durability will be more of an issue with what you buy after you discover what works for your type of photography. Just think back to how much better you knew how to shop for a computer six months AFTER you bought your first one.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 15, 2004 2:57PM PST

Thank's for the sound advice Mgradyc.This is indeed my first slr period. I am upgrading from the fine canon g5. I do have a uv filter already and plan on using it. I would like to get a nice zoom to start out with and was looking at a sigma 28-300mm. What is a good solid lens just to take pictures from a short distance inside and out on a playground as I work in a school and take many shots of children interacting. Tks again.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 20, 2004 2:48AM PST

For what you'll spend on that Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 (which is kind of a jack of all trades- master of none), I think I'd rather have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8-4 (a little faster for indoor classroom shots so you can do w/out a flash and get more natural shots/be less of a distraction) and a Vivitar 70-210 f4-5.6 for out on the playground. (Remember the 1.6X coversion factor. That means a 35mm equiv. for the 210mm zoom of about 330mm). That's about as long a focal length as could be used handheld anyway.

If it where me, however, in your situation, I'd take a hard look at the Sigma 24-135mm f2.8-4.5 (35mm equiv. about 35-215mm) for about $70 more than the 28-300mm f3.5-6.3. That would be much more usable indoors (wider angle- translated into 35mm film equiv. of 35mm compared to 45mm) and at full tele-zoom be pushing reasonable limits of what you can use hand-held (vs. tri-pod) outside except in very bright sun. As I'm sure you are aware, many photographers like the early a.m. and late afternoon sun when it is much less bright due to the same atmopheric defraction that gives it illustrious color. The 6.3MP on the DigiReb will leave plenty of headroom to crop if you want more isolation on your subject.

Just my $.02

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 20, 2004 11:54AM PST

Thank's. You've been extremely helpful and I do appreciate it. I do have another question for you. Hope you can help. I want to get a flash and know that the 420ex is highly recommended. Can get online for about 182.00 inc, shipping and than get a 15.00 rebate. However,I was looking at Sigma and got a little confused.There's the Sigma EF-500 DG Super E-TTL II 165/50 m at 105mm and the Sigma EF-500 Super TTL. Same specs,only difference is the "E" in the first one after the word super. The first one was also 5.00 more.(194.85) These next two are going for 149.00. Sigma EF-500 DG ST TTL and the Sigma EF-500 DG ST E-TTL. Once again the "E" after ST is the only difference. Found these at pricegrabbers.com Any help is greatly appreciated.These are all for Canon EOS.

- Collapse -
Sigma EF-500 DG nomenclature
Nov 21, 2004 4:36PM PST

Sigma EF-500 DG Super appears to be the generic name for the entire line, regardless of which specific camera it is made to match. E-TTL II is Canon's name for the Through-The-Lens dedicated flash feature. (Nikon calls theirs i-TTL, Sigma S-TTL, Minolta ADI or P-TTL, etc...). So the EF-500 Super DG E-TTL II is the specific subgroup of the EF-500 DG Super model line made for Canon EOS cameras with E-TTL II. When Canon updates/improves a product line they tend to add a Roman Numeral "II" to the end so I'm assuming there was an earlier E-TTL. The EF-500 DG ST TTL for Canon EOS may be a model compatible with the first version of E-TTL, since the EF-500 DG ST E-TTL is compatible with E-TTL II Canons (according to B&H). To my knowledge (and according to Canon's web page) all Digital Rebels are E-TTL II compatible, but you may want to double-check the documentation with your camera to see if it specifies E-TTL or E-TTL II. Who knows why the other EF-500 Super DG models for the other cameras are all described simply as TTL (instead if i-TTL or P-TTL, etc)?

The ST is the standard model and has fewer features. The Super is the "deluxe" model. You can see a description and links to each one's specific feature set here:

http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/flashes.htm

Is the extra $40-50 worth the features? Only if you'll spend some time learning to use them and do the type of photography that will take advantage of them.

I do very little flash photography the lowly Canon Speedlite 200E can't handle, but I mostly shoot outdoors (landscapes, architecturals, etc..., where flash isn't a factor unless I just need some fill on something in the foreground). Most of my limited indoor photos tend to be candids so I like to use existing light so as to be less obtrusive and catch people in more natural poses (or non-poses). Much more challenging but in my mind also more rewarding. That low noise ISO 1600 setting on your new camera will come in VERY handy under such conditions.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 24, 2004 12:27AM PST

So many excellent points are made here that I too can benefit from. Thank you all and for the original question.

I'd like to expand on this, what should we newbies watch out for?

I love the image stabilization and the auto-focus. When you go to a third party like Sigma or Tamron, do you lose any of this? A similar example, I have read about the lens extenders being a cheap alternative to a long lens and I like nature shots and shots on my son on the football field. He could be 100 yards away but I want a tight shot. Sometimes you really have to reach out. But these extenders can make auto-focus moot and I am not quick enough to manually focus action shots. The ads don't tell you the warnings you guys can give us based on your experience.

In addition to the long nature shots I like indoor, low light shots and taking shots of fireworks. Recommendations? (I have a digital Rebel.)

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 24, 2004 2:07PM PST

IS is helpful for the long nature shots when subject motion (as opposed to camera motion) isn't a concern. For the football action (esp. under lights at night) it is not so helpful since the advantage of IS is that it lets you use 1.5-2 stops slower shutter speed. But since your subjects are moving, they'll just be a blur against the sharper non-moving parts of the picture.
When taking pictures of really fast moving subjects (race cars, etc) where you pan with the subject and intentionally let the background blur, they get in the way by trying to counteract the camera's movement.
Another comment re: football- I've yet to find two stadiums with the same "temperature" lights. Before the game starts, take a few test shots to see which white balance setting looks best and renders color as you see them. Pay special attention to dark blue and purple uniforms. If you wind up using a "custom" setting, a white test card to calibrate the custom setting is invaluble. Although it is possible to correct the color later in Photoshop, there's a steep learning curve to being able to get it right without spending a lot of time.
Whether using manual or auto focus and exposure, most pro sports photographers estimate where the shot is going to occur and pre-focus/meter before the play develops. And they take TONS of shots to come up with the few that show up on the next days sports pages. And their camera's and lenses cost more than a lot of cars!! There is no greater challenge to photo equipment than trying to catch rapidly moving subjects using long telephoto from a distance in low light. Spending more on equipment to allow more of that limited light to fall on the focal plane is what makes the difference in the right hands.

- Collapse -
Photography Basics
Nov 24, 2004 2:38PM PST

My recommendation to anyone just starting out with an SLR is to get a couple of good guides to the basic principles of photography. One "pocket guide" small enough to fit in your camera bag and go with you everywhere and one a little more comprehensive. Even if written from the perspective of film, they are very helpful with regard to composition, exposure, depth of field, etc... as it is still all about geting the light you want to fall on a focal plane (whether a CMOS or CCD sensor or a frame of film). Many have sections dealing with special types of photography and the issues specific to that area and offer general rules to follow to get good shots in that area. For example, you are interested in catching fireworks. Most discuss various exposure suggestions for catching individual bursts or getting composites of several shells in the same frame.
The next thing to do is to get out and practice. Don't wait until you need to record a "Kodak moment". With digital, it cost nothing but time to train yourself. Take pictures just for the sake of developing your abilities. When reviewing the results, use a viewer that displays the EXIF info (shutter speed, aperture, focal length, etc..) embedded in each picture file to see why each picture turned out the way it did. Try to learn good habits by turning off all the aids like auto focus, IS, etc... Once you have a solid basic technique down, these modern tools will be much more potent in your hands to extend the range of your ability instead of merely correcting for your mistakes. Although nobody likes to practice, everyone enjoys the results on "game day" when the price is paid in practice.

- Collapse -
Re: Photography Basics
Nov 27, 2004 1:30AM PST

Great tips and advice. Thank you.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 18, 2004 10:47PM PST

I have owned mine for a year or two. The first lens I bought was the 28-135 IS. SWEET lens. I take lots of pics handheld and I have seen a dramatic increase in quality due to its little gyro stabilizer. Plus it has decent glass.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 18, 2004 11:00PM PST

I am also a dad or 2 very small kids and try to do the school thing every friday. I took 2 gigs worth of photos last year of all the students in my sons class and passed them out to the parents. The prior comments are correct about lenes. They are the most important investment you will make. A good lens should outlive your camera.
If you try to buy an all in one lens you may regret it.
There is one lens that anyone with a canon slr should buy and that is the 50 1.8 it is like 60 to 70 dollars on B&H and is the highest quality lens that canon makes. They make so many they can sell it cheap. Don't be decieved by its plastic.
Go to Photo.net they have great forums and quality images to look up.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 20, 2004 3:18AM PST

While the lower priced 50mm f1.8 is hardly the "highest quality " lens Canon makes (even among their lower tier EF series, the 50mm f1.4 USM beats it but at 4-5X the price), it is an EXCELLENT value. I bought one years ago from B&H for my film EOS and in low light there is absolutely NO substitute for that big f-stop. But with the 1.6X conversion factor (because the CCD in your DigiReb is .625 the size of a frame of 35mm film), that makes it effectively an 80mm lens. Great for portrait work, but not quite wide enough for a lot of the indoor low light shots you'll want. Alas, there isn't really an alternative in the 28-32mm range with equal light gathering abilities until you spend around $300.

As for IS (Image Stabilization), I don't think you get anywhere near the difference in performance for the difference in price. If you develop good fundamentals in the tecniques of photography, it is not really a deal-maker. Sure it will allow slightly slower shutter speeds, but if you're trying to shoot active children you can't use those slower speeds anyway, because IS WON'T affect their movement, just the camera movement.

- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 21, 2004 9:56PM PST
- Collapse -
Re: First lens for Canon digital rebel
Nov 21, 2004 9:58PM PST

This was for my canon rebel also. I have only the lens that came with it 18-55.