Need new lens for My Canon Rebel T1i

[Thurschild]

What are the best lenses for the Canon Rebel T1i?

I need one that is fast (for moving toddlers) and works well in low light.... Currently I am only using the built in flash....and the lens that came with the camera.

Thanks in advance to anyone with advice.

[inkista]

Best is relative. Some joker's bound to come along and tell you you need a $1000+ L lens.

You might want to state what your budget is.

For low-light without a flash, a fast prime, with a very large maximum aperture (i.e., a low f-number) might be a good solution.

If you're on a budget, the $100 EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a very common beginner's lens for this kind of portrait shooting. The autofocus performance won't be as nice as a USM lens would have, but for the price, it can't be beat.

If you have a bit more money and want more reach, you could consider the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (~$375). It may be a bit too long on a crop body in a small room, though.

[gine]

I also have a Canon Rebel T1i. The lense I have and like the most is the Canon Zoom Lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 (cost a couple hundred bucks at Best Buy.) I'm reading that off the lense in that I am not really sure what the 1:4-5.6 means. I'm obviously an amateur, but love my camera and taking pictures of my grankids. I have some other lenses bought on Ebay (I wouldn't recommend it unless you know what you are buying ) and have wasted a lot of money. So, with that said if anyone would recommend a good lense in the 5 to 600 buck range, I'd appreciate it. I could have already purchased it with what I've spent on useless poor quality lenses. Thanks in advance.

I am glad I found this sight and appreciate all the posts and articles. I'm learning so much that my brain is overwhelmed

[inkista]

Originally Posted by gine

The lense I have and like the most is the Canon Zoom Lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 (cost a couple hundred bucks at Best Buy.) I'm reading that off the lense in that I am not really sure what the 1:4-5.6 means.

The 1:x numbers on a lens are the maximum aperture. They're the widest the lens's aperture can be set. With a zoom lens, you'll have two numbers: one for the wide end of the zoom range, one for the tele end of the zoom range. So, with the EF 75-300 III, the maximum aperture when the lens zoom is set to 75mm (zoomed all the way out) is f/4.5, and when the lens zoom is set to 300mm (zoomed all the way in) it's f/5.6.

These are small apertures, which makes the 75-300 III a "slow" lens (i.e., a smaller aperture requires a slower shutter speed to get a proper exposure). Which is why it's so cheap. And it's also why the 75-300 III is lousy at taking shots indoors or in low light. It's also kinda soft at 300mm and wide open. It gets quite a bit sharper when it's stopped down to f/8. But then, at that point, you need a lot of light to get a shutter speed above 1/300s to eliminate camera shake blur (as the lens doesn't have IS). And, being USM-less, its autofocus performance isn't particularly fast.

I own a 75-300 III. I used it a lot until I finally made up my mind to get a 400mm f/5.6L as an upgrade, and I still use it when I need to go small and light but with telephoto reach outdoors, but for what the OP needs a lens for, I wouldn't recommend it.

[gine]

Originally Posted by inkista

The 1:x numbers on a lens are the maximum aperture. They're the widest the lens's aperture can be set. With a zoom lens, you'll have two numbers: one for the wide end of the zoom range, one for the tele end of the zoom range. So, with the EF 75-300 III, the maximum aperture when the lens zoom is set to 75mm (zoomed all the way out) is f/4.5, and when the lens zoom is set to 300mm (zoomed all the way in) it's f/5.6.

These are small apertures, which makes the 75-300 III a "slow" lens (i.e., a smaller aperture requires a slower shutter speed to get a proper exposure). Which is why it's so cheap. And it's also why the 75-300 III is lousy at taking shots indoors or in low light. It's also kinda soft at 300mm and wide open. It gets quite a bit sharper when it's stopped down to f/8. But then, at that point, you need a lot of light to get a shutter speed above 1/300s to eliminate camera shake blur (as the lens doesn't have IS). And, being USM-less, its autofocus performance isn't particularly fast.

I own a 75-300 III. I used it a lot until I finally made up my mind to get a 400mm f/5.6L as an upgrade, and I still use it when I need to go small and light but with telephoto reach outdoors, but for what the OP needs a lens for, I wouldn't recommend it.

Ahh haa, that makes a lot of sense. Everything you said about the 75-300 is very familiar. I am looking for different lenses as well, and will check out the 400mm f/5.6L. I am looking for a good lense, or maybe a couple of good lenses. I have some Tamrons and am not really happy with them, and of course the Canon one you discussed. I bought a 500mm mirror lense and it completely sucks, or I just don't know what to do with it. That was another couple hundred wasted. With what I've wasted, I could have probably bought the 400. Thanks so much for the input. I really really appreciate it.

I really need someone to tell me which lenses I need to get in the less than 2k range, then I can make my wish list I'm kind of frustrated.

And, I didn't mean to hijack the OPs thread.

[th83]

If you are looking for a good lens that is fast good in low light and inexpensive the best choise out there is the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 799.00 Great lens for short money

[Thurschild]

Still have a lot to learn myself.... and as an amateur I don't have the budget of a Pro.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Thurschild

Still have a lot to learn myself.... and as an amateur I don't have the budget of a Pro.

The best description of what lens "features" mean in practical shooting terms is this guide:

How to Choose the Best Digital SLR Lens

Reading through that will help you get a better idea of what all these similarly named lenses are. Also, taking a spin through the Fred Miranda board's reviews of lenses can help you get more of a feel for what an individual lens's character is, despite the fact that there will be contradictory opinions. Last, but not least, if you're interested in a lens, but not particularly sure about it and don't have a friend you could borrow it from, you could try renting it for a while, just to see, before blowing the cash on a lens.

I will also mention, if you're on a really strict budget, and you're not shooting action and don't need autofocus, there are alternative manual focus lenses you could adapt to the Canon mount. This is more of an eBay/flea market/bargain hunting thing, and not for the faint of heart, but as a Canon shooter it can be an inexpensive way to add to the lenses you have.

Originally Posted by gine

I really need someone to tell me which lenses I need to get in the less than 2k range, then I can make my wish list I'm kind of frustrated.

What do you need the lens FOR? What is it you want it to do that the 75-300 III doesn't? The features you're mostly going to be looking at for telephotos are USM (for faster autofocus performanc) and IS (for slower shutter speeds while handholding), as well as the max. aperture and focal length.

A 70-200 f/2.8 is a good general purpose lens that has available light capability--especially if you get a stabilized one. But if you need more reach, the 100-400L IS USM is also a great alternative in the <$2k range.

If you're willing to give up the zoom, because you're always too far from the action, then possibly the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM and a 1.4x tc for occasional longer reach, or the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM might fill the bill. (Like, say you mostly shoot field sports from the stands).

The 400 f/5.6L USM is a relatively narrow-use lens. It's considered to be the bird-in-flight handheld lens. It's sharper than the 100-400 @400mm, autofocuses faster, and is much lighter and takes teleconverters better than the zoom. But it's unstabilized, and the max. aperture is f/5.6, so you'll need to use a monopod or have a lot of bright sunlight to work with with the lens. Obviously, it's cheaper than the 100-400L, but it's also less versatile. I curse it and run backwards a lot when I'm at the zoo.

Once you go past 400mm in the Canon lineup, you're over your $2k pricetag mark. But there are some 400mm and 500mm alternatives in the Sigma lineup that are worth considering. There's the 120-400 OS HSM, the 150-500 OS HSM, and the now-legendary 50-500. Optically, the 50-500 (aka "the Bigma") is likely to be the best. The 120-400 and 150-500 ("Bigmos") have varying reports on build quality. Overall, though, the Canon Ls are going to give you better optical performance, but by a relatively narrow margin. Most Sigma supertelephoto users are happy with their purchases.

[AnimalGurl]

Inkista I just have to say thank you for being so helpful and so informative in these posts about lenses. I just got the Rebel T1i last night for my birthday, and this is my first DSLR. The whole lens thing is new to me and at first glance quite confusing! I've been using the S5 IS for the last few years and had a Macro lens for that...but nothing like what I am going to have to learn for my new Rebel!

With the camera I got the kit lens, plus these two lenses: EFS 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS, and the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III. Thanks to your posts here and direction to other links, I am learning a lot more already about these lenses and other options down the road.

I'm most interested in two things for lenses...eventually once I learn what my new camera can do that is! I love to take great animal closeups at the local zoo. I think those are just about some of my favorite shots ever...and also I am interested in getting some good fast action shots at sports games like basketball. The zoo shots will be first, so I'll be trying out the 250 and 300 lenses for that this coming week.

I know I have tons and TONS to learn...and I just wanted to say thank you Inkista for being so patient and helpful to DSLR newbies like me.

[inkista]

You're welcome. Although I'm going to say something you may not like to hear: you probably shouldn't have bothered with the 75-300 III. The 55-250 IS is a better lens in nearly every possible way, and they're basically both doing the same job. You really only need the 55-250 IS, unless you can afford to choose between the EF 70-300 IS USM and EF 70-200 f/4L USM.