So you got the 400D, what next?

[hitkaiser]

OK, this is an open question to everyone whos recently got themselves on a 400D or similar

Are you happy with the kit lens? If not, why?

Also, are you planning on buying another lens soon, if so, which one and why?

[orangeacid]

Hey there,

I am hoping to buy a 400d around Christmas (probably a little later, perhaps early January), and I was wondering what the pros and cons are?

I had a quick fiddle with one in a local camera shop earlier, and it seems to handle well. For saying most Nikon users I have talked to hate it for its 'plastickyness', I thought it felt quite satisfying. It being small is fine too because I haven't got the biggest hands.

Anyway, about the lens - is it as bad as people make out, or are they just trying to sound good?

[Olla]

OK, this is an open question to everyone whos recently got themselves on a 400D or similar

Are you happy with the kit lens? If not, why?

Also, are you planning on buying another lens soon, if so, which one and why?

Yes , I got my 400d few weeks ago and try to use it as much as I can .
I would never go for kit lens . Instead I went for Tamron 17-50 f.2.8 , Tamron macro 90 f.2.8 and Canon 70-200 f.4 . That gives my variety I need .

[Quamen]

I bought the 350D about 6 months ago... I passed on the kit lens though and bought it with the EF-S 17-85mm (http://canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/standard_zoom_lenses/efs17-85mm.html). I'm fairly happy with the EF-S, I don't mind the wide angle barrel distortion as I quite like the effect. My main gripe is its performance in low light conditions... due to its aperture rating, which I have recently learned to work around using the ISO settings of the camera.

I've also since purchased the EF 100mm Macro (http://canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/macro_lenses/ef100mmf28macrousm.html) which has become my favorite lens. I like bugs and flowers but I've found myself taking photos of pretty much everything with it despite it being a prime lens.

I also have the 580EX Speedlight (http://canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/speedlites/speedlite580ex.html) which I've coupled with a MuzzBounce (http://www.flickr.com/photos/muzzlehatch/sets/72157594285862466/) for use with Macro shots and I'm very impressed with the performance of a bottle and piece of cardboard strapped to the flash. The flash by itself gets used a bit at parties and is much better than the built in flash. Being able to fire it when using the telephoto range of my lenses withough causing a dark spot of shadow from the lens is the main reason I purchased it.

Next on my list is the EF 70-200mm F2.8L (http://canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/telephoto_zoom_lenses/ef70_200mmf28lusm.html) which I have the money for but am struggling to pull the trigger on the buy, it's a lot of money for one lens. I know I'll be happy with it, but yea, a lot of money...

*EDIT*

I should also mention I purchased the battery grip with the 350D as the camera is just that little bit too small for my hands. Also when holding the camera sideways it makes a world of difference having the shutter button and others in their normal spots.

[RainPacket]

I have the 400D (well, the Digital Rebel XTi, same thing), and I actually do have the kit lens. It's not necessarily the lens I would've picked, but it gives me a decent range, and the optics really aren't bad. I eventually want to get some better lenses down in that range (preferably a Canon EF lens, as opposed to EF-S, or else one of the Sigma lenses or a good Tamron lens), but it's honestly a fine lens to shoot with for general day-to-day stuff. I've done some pictures with the EF-s 18-55mm which I'm quite pleased with.

Now, it's not the only lens I use, nor would I necessarily recommend it as an only-lens for a long time. I have a EF 75-300mm as well, which covers anything I need really high-end zoom for and has lovely image quality. But the kit lens is fine for starting out, and you'll still be able to get some pretty decent shots with it.

[Feisty]

I too have the 350 with the 17-85 mm EF-S IS lens, which is my "walkabout" lens because of its versatility. This has been great for any 4X6 photos.

I also had the 75-300 mm EF IS lens, which had a great zoom range, and was fine for regular shots. However, when I started doing more professional work (weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, sports, etc.) I discovered the resolution was not sufficient for large prints with any cropping. I've since got the 70-200 f 2.8L IS lens, and it has been excellent; it has more than paid for itself.

I also got the 50mm f 1.8 prime lens, and it's been well worth the $50 I paid.

My "wish list" includes two additional lenses: an L-quality lens to replace my 17-85 mm, and the 100 mm macro lens. Then I'll have the glass covered sufficiently for hobby and professional use, except for the extreme telephoto for sports, and a higher-resolution camera will take care of that for most purposes.

The 400D sounds especially attractive to me because of the extra 2.1 megapixels. I like to capture the main story when I take the photograph, and then crop down when I think the story could be better told with less. I prefer to make this final decision in Photoshop, when I have more options. Meanwhile, the 350 does a fine job for most everything.

Having said all this ... for me the most important thing is to go out and capture the beauty and moments I see. I'll always have camera-envy, but I've seen (and taken) some beautiful pictures with very basic equipment.

-Jerry

[TNBDM]

I picked up a Rebel XTi a couple of months ago. Against my better judgment (I'd heard about shoddy quality), at the insistence of my wife, I went ahead and got the kit lens with the camera. She thought the kit would give me a useful range that I might not otherwise have access to. I also bought a used 50mm 1.8 at the same time for a whopping $45 US.

After playing extensively for several weeks, I find myself using the 50mm prime almost exclusively. Why? Well, it's not so much about image quality for me; it's all about aperture. I shoot a LOT of natural/low light indoors, and I've yet to find a good way to use the on-camera flash. Even with high ISOs, I find that I really do need the larger aperture values that the 50mm 1.8 gives me to get good results.

This isn't to say I don't use the kit at all. I've been happy enough with it when shooting outdoors or in better lighting conditions, and I'm glad my wife made me get it. I do plan to replace it eventually with a better quality, larger aperture lens at some point, but for now I have to say my next priority isn't a new lens but a flash, probably a 430EX. A flash that I have more control over will hopefully make the kit lens more useful for me, not to mention improve the already good results I'm getting from the 50mm 1.8.

One word of advice to anyone reading this thread and thinking about lens purchasing: if you shoot in the 50mm range at all and don't already own the 50mm 1.8 (or something very similar), do yourself a favor and go find one, today. As I said, I found a good used copy for $45, and that was without even looking very hard. And that's $45 worth of glass that sits on my camera probably 80% of the time. Don't let the fact that it's a prime bother you. It's handy enough that you'll be looking for more ways to use it, believe me.

[Papuass]

I do not have the experience with this gear yet, but I am about to upgrade to DLSR from my Panasonic Lumix FZ-4, the main improvement would be focusing and "on-to-shot" time.

I am getting body only, as basing on lots of reviews I find out that kit lens would not be a worthy purchase and I think I would need a longer walkaround lens, so I am getting EF-S 17-85 instead.

The thing I am concerned about is - my FZ-4 had a nice Leica lens with numbers 2.8-3.6 (35-420mm) on it. It also has Panasonic's IS Are these aperture numbers directly comparable to 4-5.6 on 17-85, which means I am getting a slower lens and my old "Superzoom" class camera wold produce better shots in dark conditions at the same ISO?

I am also getting EF 50mm 1.8 lens just because of price/performance.

Future plans include a 2.8 telephoto and external flash.

[Learner]

Hi. Just had to add this here. One of the reasons I got the Sony H5, (12x optical zoom) is because I knew that I would get caught up in wanting/needing a new or different lense to get the pic I wanted/saw in my head. I saw a coined phrase 'lense lust' and said: Oh! That will be me. No can't go there. So I happily went with the H5 and then!! realized I could 'uppgrade' with 3 different converter lenses. All of this being in my allowable budget, so here I am ready to learn and expand with all of you our creative side. :)

[thedailykimchi]

I bought a Kiss Digital X (XTi/400D) in Seoul about a month ago. I skipped the kit lens and started off with the "nifty fifty" prime. I just picked up the Tamron 17-50 and it's a marvelous lens--I love it. :)

Next up, looking for an ultra zoom, but one that won't break the bank. Suggestions?

[RainPacket]

I have the non-IS 70-300mm; it got tossed in for about $160 as a bargain deal if purchased within 2 weeks of when I bought the camera. It does definitely need a tripod unless you're shooting super, super fast -- I have gotten decent handheld images at short exposures or the 70mm end -- but has quite lovely image quality.

As an added note, the macro shots I've been experimenting with (well, really, only one or two are in my photostream) have all been taken with that lens using Kenko tube extenders.

[EntityDesigns]

I got the kit lens with my Rebel XT which is the same kit lens that comes with the XTi. If your a serious photographer the kit lens is not the best, but personally I use it everyday at work and it does the job. I work for a truck dealership and do all of our advertising. It is a good walk around camera, but it is soft.

So basically if your serious no it isn't the best lens but it is cheap in price, so basically I can't complain either. If this is your first DSLR or SLR it is a good learning lens or entry level get it.

[RainPacket]

I'll note that, it's a functional but cheap lens. This means, it's not only a good starter lens, but since it /is/ cheap but doesn't take bad photos, you can still stuff it into a pocket and walk around with it once you have a nicer lens, and there's less OMG NO MY LENS!! drama/crisis if it breaks. ;)

[Mtik]

I've had my 400D for about a month now. I opted to skip the kit lens on the advice of a friend.

Instead, I purchased a 28-135mm IS zoom. I really like the long range. However, it's really too narrow on the low end. I've supplemented it with the EF-S 10-22mm ( just came 5 minutes ago! woohoo! ).

From what I hear though, you really can't go wrong with the kit lens. It's really pretty inexpensive.

-Tim

[Crissy]

My husband just bought me one for christmas with the lens kit.
Going from a Panasonic FZ5 to this is a bit daunting. Still learning to use it at the moment.:)

[Feisty]

Papuass wrote:
(snip) The thing I am concerned about is - my FZ-4 had a nice Leica lens with numbers 2.8-3.6 (35-420mm) on it. It also has Panasonic's IS Are these aperture numbers directly comparable to 4-5.6 on 17-85, which means I am getting a slower lens and my old "Superzoom" class camera wold produce better shots in dark conditions at the same ISO? (snip)

Unfortunately, your Canon lens is going to be about 1 f-stop slower. Fortunately, the Canon Rebel XTi is among the best-in-class regarding noise at higher ISOs, so this should balance out. Leica lenses have an almost mythical reputation as being among the best, so you may have to look to the Canon L series lenses for top performance. But you won't have to worry about shutter lag, and in my experience the 17-85mm lens is excellent for anything up to 8 X 10 enlargements.

-Jerry

[Saralonde]

I got the Rebel XT(350) with the kit lens and it wasw a good choice for me. It gave me time to practice with the camera without spending a lot more and time to decide what I like to shoot and do research. Unless you are really sure what you want as your walkaround lens ahead of time, I usually recommend getting the kit lens. It can help prevent you from making an expensive mistake. That being said, if you can afford it, pick up a nifty 50 (50 1.8), too. Really a great little lens for very little money.

[Papuass]

Today I got my 400D. I opted for ar (super) KIT which contains camera body, EF-S 17-85 IS lens and vertical grip BG-E3. If I bought separately camera body and lens, that would cost as much as this KIT, so I got a nice bonus. I also got EF 50mm 1.8 II.

First impressions. As I got my battery charged after the sunset, I got to use it in room lighting and it felt pretty nice. It has a size and weight difference from Panasonic FZ4, but it feels pretty good. Tried EF 50mm without flash and got some nice background blur. Eager to try it in sunny day. Flash white balance adjustments are way better that in previous camera.

Coincidentally, my Crumpler camera bag (The Daily L) arrived today. Now trying to align those pockets, as body with 17-85 is too big for default arrangement, even without vertical grip (is there a forum for camera bags? :)).

Vertical grip seems pretty useful with 17-85. I see myself using it pretty often, although not every day.

[nonac]

Hey there,

I am hoping to buy a 400d around Christmas (probably a little later, perhaps early January), and I was wondering what the pros and cons are?

I had a quick fiddle with one in a local camera shop earlier, and it seems to handle well. For saying most Nikon users I have talked to hate it for its 'plastickyness', I thought it felt quite satisfying. It being small is fine too because I haven't got the biggest hands.

Anyway, about the lens - is it as bad as people make out, or are they just trying to sound good?

I recently purchase a 400D and opted for the Canon 17-85 Zoom lens as I believe the standard lens that comes with the camera is a 18-55 and is not rated too highly
If you purchase the 400D with the 17-85 lens it is called the "Enthusiasts Kit" and I think it is worth the extra money

[nonac]

Hey there,

I am hoping to buy a 400d around Christmas (probably a little later, perhaps early January), and I was wondering what the pros and cons are?

I had a quick fiddle with one in a local camera shop earlier, and it seems to handle well. For saying most Nikon users I have talked to hate it for its 'plastickyness', I thought it felt quite satisfying. It being small is fine too because I haven't got the biggest hands.

Anyway, about the lens - is it as bad as people make out, or are they just trying to sound good?

I recently purchased a 400D and opted for the Canon 17-85 Zoom lens as I believe the standard lens that comes with the camera is a 18-55 and is not rated too highly
If you purchase the 400D with the 17-85 lens it is called the "Enthusiasts Kit" and I think it is worth the extra money

[nonac]

I recently purchase a 400D and opted for the Canon 17-85 Zoom lens as I believe the standard lens that comes with the camera is a 18-55 and is not rated too highly
If you purchase the 400D with the 17-85 lens it is called the "Enthusiasts Kit" and I think it is worth the extra money

[Macbuckley]

I recently purchased the Canon XTi about a week ago , and upgradeing from a regular point and click camera to this has been an experience.
I love the freedom that the DSLR gives you and currently im reading the manual back to front to make sure im using the camera to the best of my talent.
Of course I am thinking of getting a better lens , it came with the standard lens kit , 18-55mm , which is ok , but im certainly looking to upgrade the lens with a better zoom and apeture rateing. Any suggestions?

[Saralonde]

I recently purchased the Canon XTi about a week ago , and upgradeing from a regular point and click camera to this has been an experience.
I love the freedom that the DSLR gives you and currently im reading the manual back to front to make sure im using the camera to the best of my talent.
Of course I am thinking of getting a better lens , it came with the standard lens kit , 18-55mm , which is ok , but im certainly looking to upgrade the lens with a better zoom and apeture rateing. Any suggestions?

A lot depends on how much you want to spend. Do you want a walk around lens? I bought a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 to replace mine. Very good third party lens for around $360. The Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS is a wonderful walk around lens covering a fairly wide range. However, it costs around $1039.
Are you more interested in the wide end or the long end?
Try checking out this site for help http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
If you want to try an expensive prime, the Canon 50mm 1.8 is a good deal at $70 and is great for portraits.

[Seltzer]

If you want to try an expensive prime, the Canon 50mm 1.8 is a good deal at $70 and is great for portraits.

i hope you mean this as an INexpensive prime.. ;)

and I agree, entirely depends on what you are needing to shoot, better zoom for what distance will you be shooting? Basically for a bigger zoom lens with Canon glass expect to spend as much if not more than you did on your camera..

[Seltzer]

there's a good mid-range 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 with IS for $410 (currently has a $20 MIR as well at b&h), did me well out at the St Louis Zoo indoors and out during a cold day this past October.

[Saralonde]

i hope you mean this as an INexpensive prime.. ;)

Duh! That's what I get for not checking what I wrote! :o Thanks, Seltzer.:)

[BLUEMEANIE]

I recently purchased a 400D and opted for the Canon 17-85 Zoom lens as I believe the standard lens that comes with the camera is a 18-55 and is not rated too highly
If you purchase the 400D with the 17-85 lens it is called the "Enthusiasts Kit" and I think it is worth the extra money

Agreed. The 17-85 is a great lens, I did the same with the 400D "Enthusiasts Kit" and I couldn't be happier.
I also picked up a Canon 100mm macro, a Canon 70-300mm image stabilized telephoto, the Speedlite 580EX, the remote trigger and a $60 used Canon plastic mount 22-90mm that's a nice somewhat disposable piece that I use when I don't want to bring my good glass with me. The only addition I'd like to make at the moment is a Canon 10-22mm wide angle.

Call me old skool but I also picked up a mint used Rebel Xs 35mm body which is compatible with all the above mentioned lenses with the exception of the 17-85mm (another reason I bought the 22-90).