best walk around/general lens for canon XSi

[claysu]

i recently purchased a canon XSi and have started to get the hang of the exposure. ive mostly been using the stock lens and have also inheirited a canon 50mm f1.8 lens which is a wonder for me in low light situations.

im now looking to get another lens, but i dont have a ton of money to get all different kinds so i need to choose one that will be more for general use. ive found that i generally like to shoot candid shots at parties as well as sports (usually indoor volleyball) so i think the lens will need to be faster for lower light. my 50mm works well enough, but sometimes i do wish i had the zoom option like on my stock lens.

any suggestions on what kind i should get? if there are also options made by other brands, please let me know as well!

additionally, i do like the way wide angle lenses can squish in a lot more into shots. do all lenses distort shots like even if it is a telephoto lens or are they something special?

Thanks for the help!

[skyline photo]

how much $$ to spend. a good walk around lens is the 24-105L canon. I think its about $1200..

[skyline photo]

Canon Digital SLR Camera and Lens Reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com. I RECOMMEND THIS SITE HE REVIEWS MOST EVERY CANON LENS PLUS SOME SIGMA AND TAMRON

[claysu]

thanks for the tip and link! well, im not looking to spend $1200 bucks, which i know limits my choices by a lot considering what im looking for. i would ideally like to spend between 400-500 dollars, but from what ive seen, thats not going to get me anything that will perform in low light as well as id like.

any info regarding my wide angle question? thanks again!

[BCampbell]

For wide angle, Canon has an excellent 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. It's not for use in low light, but about the best you can do for wide angle on the Rebels without completely breaking the bank.

Note that because you have an APS-C sensor, you automatically have a crop factor multiplying your focal length by 1.6. So that 50mm is actually 80mm (in terms of 35mm frame equivalency) and the 10-22mm is 16-35mm. If you really want to go wider than that, you'll want a full frame camera like the 5D.

A few other fast lenses in the wide to normal range: Sigma 24mm f/1.8
Canon 28mm f/1.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon 35mm f/2

[inkista]

You've asked for something like three different lens recommendations in your post: something wide angle, something faster and longer than the 50, a low-light zoom, and...

Look. Your 18-55 can do wide angle @18mm. Your 50 does low-light. If you want a low light telephoto zoom for sports, you're sure as hell not gonna get it with only $400 to spend.

Use the lenses you have. Save your money. Figure out what lens is your top priority. If you haven't even settled on what type of lens you want recommendations for, I'd say you want to wait until you do. Whatever frustrates you the most about your gear is going to point to your next equipment "need". Right now, I think it may be a little too early to be considering a third lens.

Shooting fast action photography in a gym, like volleyball, is actually going to be one of the most demanding on your gear: you need telephoto and large max. aperture in combination. And, if your subjects move around a lot, you probably want to add zoom to that. That's going to cost. (Ideally, you'd probably want a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, which is about $1600). The two lower-cost lenses I could recommend would be the 85/1.8 and the 100/2--both are USM lenses and will autofocus much more quickly than the 50/1.8. But. They would eat your whole budget, and they're the same type of lens as your 50/1.8.

For "general purpose" rounding out, I think what you really need is a telephoto zoom to cover the "more reach" issue. But for $400, you're only going to be able to afford a slower consumer-class lens, and certainly not one that's going to be great for volleyball in a gym. I'd recommend looking at the EF-S 55-250 IS (~$250). It's mean to be a longer companion to the 18-55 kit lens.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by inkista

Shooting fast action photography in a gym, like volleyball, is actually going to be one of the most demanding on your gear: [...] The two lower-cost lenses I could recommend would be the 85/1.8 and the 100/2--both are USM lenses and will autofocus much more quickly than the 50/1.8. But. They would eat your whole budget, and they're the same type of lens as your 50/1.8.

I think those are both good recommendations, actually; not having zoom will be difficult but considering it's in a gym and the sensor crop, anything more than 100mm will probably not be neeed, The 85mm f/1.8 is a great portrait lens period and will stick around even if the OP upgrades to a full frame body, so it's not a bad buy. But, I agree that this will probably not satisfy all the OP's desires, just fill a small gap.

For "general purpose" rounding out, I think what you really need is a telephoto zoom to cover the "more reach" issue. But for $400, you're only going to be able to afford a slower consumer-class lens, and certainly not one that's going to be great for volleyball in a gym. I'd recommend looking at the EF-S 55-250 IS (~$250). It's mean to be a longer companion to the 18-55 kit lens.

Not a bad lens but most people are better off saving a little more to get something better. One note is that I don't think the OP needs IS, especially if they're shooting action. The 70-200 f/4.0 L might fit the bill, and it's under $700 -- just over the budget but not so far over that it's unreachable.

Other than that I think those were all excellent points. It's probably bets to wait a while and really get an idea for what's missing.

[SilverBullet07]

The Tokina 16-50 f2.8 is a nice lens in your price range. Tokina | 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X 165 PRO DX Autofocus | ATX165PRODXC

I have this on my xsi and like it a lot.

[natek313]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Not a bad lens but most people are better off saving a little more to get something better. One note is that I don't think the OP needs IS, especially if they're shooting action. The 70-200 f/4.0 L might fit the bill, and it's under $700 -- just over the budget but not so far over that it's unreachable.

While true, it's not a low-light lens. I have the IS version of that lens, and I don't bother with it indoors. Outdoors, though, it really shines. Haha.

I just don't think it would be worth dropping the money on it while still needing a low-light telephoto lens.

[Alexander]

You might want to seriously consider the 100mm f2. Its around your budget (give or take) and will give good service. Can be used for sports, portraits, nature, etc. I actually have the 100mm f2.8 macro, but if you're not really interested in macro, the f2 lens will give you another stop faster. I've taken pretty good basketball and volleyball photos in a high school gym with the f2.8. Its a lot cheaper than the fast zoom.

You do have to crank the ISO up pretty high in the gym, but the results are acceptable. If you're looking to photograph college or pro sports, you'll probably need more reach (since you're less likely to be very close to the court.) You might consider the 200 f2.8. Its a little pricey, but its still a lot cheaper and smaller than the 75-200mm f2.8 zoooms. Its next on my list of lenses to purchase.