What to get?

[brent]

Hello all!
I'm pretty much an amateur photographer and I'm considering buying another lens for my Canon Rebel XTi. I already own a Canon Rebel 2000 (film) with a 28-80mm standard lens and with my XTi I have a 18-55mm standard lens. I want to do better here. I am fixing on going on a choir tour of Italy in May and I really want to be able to have superb pics (I know it's more of the photographer than the lens) from that trip. I also am going to be doing my first wedding gig in June in which I will be needing to use this equipment too. Does anyone know of a lens that I could upgrade to? Oh, one more note of specification. I'm a college student and my budget won't support a lens that costs more than $300. I still have to eat though. Here's what I've come across and let me know what you think:

I'm guessing I'll upgrade to a telephoto lens with a focal range greater than the 18-55mm lens that came with the XTi. I really need to work on my low-lit situations too because the current lenses I have are pretty slow. I'm just not sure where to start and I need yalls help!

[irispatch]

A $300 budget will be tough to fit anything much longer or wider. Rentals can fill in till you are working and saving.

Decent lenses that you might find a good used copy in your range.

28-135 3.5-5.6 Decent enough has IS


70-300 USM IS Decent enough good range with the IS pretty sharp.

28-70 3.5-4.6 a real cult lens one of the first EF from Canon. small no USM no IS great glass.

20-35 2.8L sometimes you can get lucky finding one of these supurb older lenses at a price below $350 but that is real luck. No USM no IS. Excellent Glass, sharpness and color and fast.

[brent]

hey thanks!

one question about your recommendations...
Why is it that the more professional (and expensive) lenses you recommend (the last two) both don't contain USM and IS?

[inkista]

28-70 f/3.5-4.6 isn't a pro lens. The pro lenses are the ones with "L" in the name. That doesn't necessarily make them better, but it does tend to make them fuller-featured.

And those two lenses don't have IS and USM because they were released before Canon put USM and IS into most of their lenses. They're both discontinued. The 20-35 f/2.8L, for example, was replaced by the 17-35 f/2.8L USM, then the 16-35 f/2.8L USM, and the current lens holding that spot is now the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM. You'll only find a 20-35 f/2.8L used, and it'll be over 10 years old. And finding it for $300 or less? not that likely. More like $500-$600. The 17-35L goes for around $700, the 16-35MkI for about $1000. f/2.8 wide L glass is still f/2.8 wide L glass and thus desirable.

I'd actually recommend blowing $100 and getting an EF 50mm f/1.8 II. It's not the best lens out there or pro-grade, but for $300 you're not going to get pro-grade anything for low light. You need to be looking at the max. aperture, more than at the focal length. I recommend the 50/1.8 because it's so inexpensive, and over the faster, more expensive 50/1.4, because knowing what focal length you want is going to take some experience with a prime lens, and it may be better to start with a "training wheels" lens so you won't regret spending the money if it's not "the one".

Also, the 50/1.8 blows the 18-55 kit out of the water in terms of image quality and performance, as well as getting you a max. aperture @50mm that's more than three stops faster than the 18-55 kit @55mm (f/1.8 vs. f/5.6). It's small, light, and eminently trashable which makes it a great travel lens.

And primes teach you more about composition than zooms do. With primes, the question of composition very neatly resolves itself into one simple question: where do I stand? You may not need a longer lens. You may just need to learn to get closer.

[brent]

thank you so much for your help! That article on maximum aperture was just what I needed too! I'll probably start with the 50/1.8 and see what I can do from there. Thanks again! (Can't wait to get it and share photos!)