I am seriously considering purchasing the new Canon EOS Rebel XSi when it becomes available. If a person had an additional $1500.00 to spend on Canon lenses which three would you recommend? I am a beginner, but do have some limited SLR experience from many years ago.

Welcome,
A little back ground would rely help. What are you looking to shoot? Do you have any lens currently? What features are you looking at with the XSi over the XTi or the XT?

James

Certainly purchase the camera with one of the kit lenses as they are most economical that way. You can learn the operations of the camera and decide if you want a longer 'reach' more zoom range, macro etc. to optimize what you are shooting.

You will undoubtedly see many recommendations for the 50mm f1.8 lens (less than $100 most places) and that is a goody. The f1.4 50mm is a faster and quieter lens but does not make significantly better images under most conditions.

One of my favorite really good units that Canon makes and is quite reasonable is the f4 70-200mm USM 'L' non-IS version. For the money this is a manageable (not too heavy) high quality image maker and it won't break the bank. They run around $700 and less online at the reputable vendors.

There are currently several threads in this forum about various current experiences that you might like to read through.

If you are considering an IS lens, you might check out quality used lens or 'refurbs' to keep your budget in check.

Also consider some third part lens like those from Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma, but remember not all of their units are created equal.

I'll not recommend any more specific lengths or zoom combos right now, because you may have a particular requirement later.

Let us know, more will certainly chime in I am sure, if not now, by the weekend certainly.

OK, I probably did not give enough information about what I would like to shoot. Mostly I would like to photograph wildlife and landscape as I spend alot of time outdoors hiking, skiing, and hunting in the backcountry of Colorado. So I will definately want to have in my lens set a good zoom/telephoto to get close to birds and skittish animals.

Thanks for providing some more background. When I saw the subject line I got excited because I thought this was a more general thread. And I like the idea a lot. So first I'm going to give me general answer :D

Canon has a lot of wonderful lenses and to choose the absolute best three depends on what you shoot and peresonal taste. But right off the top of my head, my favorite three are:

Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_104368_3128crx.aspx)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/canon/PRD_83382_3111crx.aspx)
Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-56 IS L (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_299753_3128crx.aspx)

Unfortunately, both of those telephoto lenses cost more than your $1500 budget. If you're doing a lot of telephoto photography and want to invest in a lens that you won't replace, I recommend you seriously consider the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. That's one of the best lenses available - period. If you want an alternative, take a look at the 70-200 f/4 IS L (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_387895_3128crx.aspx). It's less expensive, smaller, and lighter. And although neither one is super long, you can add Canon's excellent 1.4x tele-extender for more reach.

For landscape you are going to want a wide angle, for wildlife you are going to want long.

The Canon 10-22 is a great wide angle for about $700 leaving you $800 for the 70-200 f4 (non IS) and a 1.4x Teleconverter giving you wide & long and really long.

Edit: you could get a nice 50mm f1.4 for about the price of the 1.4x Teleconverter getting you a short telephoto and staying in budget.

Thanks for providing some more background. When I saw the subject line I got excited because I thought this was a more general thread. And I like the idea a lot. So first I'm going to give me general answer :D

Canon has a lot of wonderful lenses and to choose the absolute best three depends on what you shoot and peresonal taste. But right off the top of my head, my favorite three are:

Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_104368_3128crx.aspx)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/canon/PRD_83382_3111crx.aspx)
Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-56 IS L (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_299753_3128crx.aspx)

Unfortunately, both of those telephoto lenses cost more than your $1500 budget. If you're doing a lot of telephoto photography and want to invest in a lens that you won't replace, I recommend you seriously consider the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. That's one of the best lenses available - period. If you want an alternative, take a look at the 70-200 f/4 IS L (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_387895_3128crx.aspx). It's less expensive, smaller, and lighter. And although neither one is super long, you can add Canon's excellent 1.4x tele-extender for more reach.

I agree about the 70-200 f2.8 IS being a great lens but that busts his budget all by itself.

I've spent big money on getting some sweet glass but find myself going back to my wide short zoom (17-40 f4 on a 5D body) for most of my shooting. I mostly shoot landscapes but I also carry the 70-200 F4 IS and have gotten some pleasing bird images and tight landscapes with it. The third lens I usually carry is the 50mm 1.2 prime because I love the shallow depth of field. Still, any of these lenses will pretty much bust his budget too.

I'll therefore stick with my original suggestions to meet the $1500 budget.

I can understand and appreciate having a set budget; but I don't understand the importance of the "3".

Knowing now what your interests are, I can tell you that some activities are going to be contradictory. For example, wildlife = long bulky lenses verses skiing and hunting which won't generally allow such equipment. For serious wildlife shooting, you need to be able to shoot with a 400mm to 600mm lens. A 70-200mm with a 1.4x won't cut it.

Unfortunately, landscape and wildlife are on the opposite ends of the focal length spectrum. So you will definitely need more than one lens/zoom. I think if you force it by buying "3" lenses to use up your budget, you will end up with 3 mediocre lenses which may not do any one thing particularly well.


But I'll give you my choices if I was given $1,500 that I had to spend now:

24mm f/2.8 ($290)
50mm f/1.8 ($80)
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS ($1,150)

You will need to bum $20 from someone. You will be able to get a lot of types of images covered with this set. Everything except high detail (i.e. closeup) wildlife (birds and mammals) images.

I keep seeing people say that for landscape you need wide-angle. And while that may be true some of the time, telephoto is good for landscape, too. For the past year or so I've been shooting a lot more telephoto landscape than wide-angle. Different photos require different lenses. There are no rules.

I keep seeing people say that for landscape you need wide-angle. And while that may be true some of the time, telephoto is good for landscape, too. For the past year or so I've been shooting a lot more telephoto landscape than wide-angle. Different photos require different lenses. There are no rules.

Too True! I used to believe that to get good landscapes required a 17mm lens or so. After years of looking at my images, I said to myself "hey, they're all the same. And why is everything so small (except that cactus, flower, rock formation, tree, etc... in the foreground)?"

So I started experimenting. I got out my Dad's old 4x5, just because it only had a 150mm lens. Put a few quick loads through it and came out with some real winners. (I can't post them here cuz they're not scanned).

One of my best images lately is one of Delicate Arch (overdone, yes; beautiful still, absolutely) taken at the 40mm end of my 17-40.

It may take some time, but you'll get the hang of it. Just pick a lens setting for the day and go with it. Turn that 2000 dollar 24-105 into a 200 dollar 50mm!

Anyway, thanks for the good reminder PJ.

Too True! I used to believe that to get good landscapes required a 17mm lens or so. After years of looking at my images, I said to myself "hey, they're all the same. And why is everything so small (except that cactus, flower, rock formation, tree, etc... in the foreground)?"

So I started experimenting. I got out my Dad's old 4x5, just because it only had a 150mm lens. Put a few quick loads through it and came out with some real winners. (I can't post them here cuz they're not scanned).

One of my best images lately is one of Delicate Arch (overdone, yes; beautiful still, absolutely) taken at the 40mm end of my 17-40.

It may take some time, but you'll get the hang of it. Just pick a lens setting for the day and go with it. Turn that 2000 dollar 24-105 into a 200 dollar 50mm!

Anyway, thanks for the good reminder PJ.

i agree some of my favorite photos are of delicate arch at medium to long tele length. ( although my goal for the summer i lived there was to get "different" photos than you normally see of the arch).

i would say out west you do NEED a wide angle for landscape if your trying to encompas the size of everything out there.... while in the east its not as important (in general). i also take alot of wide angle landscapes in vertical format which makes them feel different.

That is all great information and I really appreciate the thought you put into your answers. I think I can figure out the short focal lengths pretty well, but could use some clarification/advice on the telephoto lens and especially how the teleconverter works in conjunction.

One thing I am sure of is that I will be disapointed if I end up with a telephoto zoom that will not give the close ups of birds and wildlife I want. I know that the Canon camera I am looking at has a crop factor of 1.6x which I understand does not really get you closer it just changes the field of view (that is my best laymens understanding).

After hearing you comments maybe I could be satisfied with a more general all purpose lens for landscapes and move up the the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS Autofocus. For a beginner do you think this is too much lens to handle as far as keeping it steady and will the shutter speeds be fast enough to capture some lower light shots?

Two lens package??
1. Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 Autofocus
2.EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS Autofocus

This combo's cost is right in the $1500 budget range.

May I suggest you rent the lens to see if they fit your needs. I see that you live in CO, since this place only ships within the continental USA.

http://www.lensrentals.com

I have rented from them on three different occasions and have been very pleased with the service. I currently have the 100-400 lens that you are talking about and it is a push/pull zoom, some people like it and some don't, you just have to get used to it. Great lens as I was just telling my gf that this is the lens that I want to get.

James

my vote is for the 300mm f/2.8 as being my favorite canon lens. But it's a little out of your budget.

I would really recommend having a wide angle of some kind.

You can always crop an image to get the same effect of a telephoto (except for the DOF); but you can't add more of a scene later.

I'd say, based on your constraints, for now I'd just go with

17-40mm f/4L
70-200mm f/4L (non IS)

If you find that you really like long telephoto photography, you can always buy a long telephoto later without necessarily replacing those two.

After hearing you comments maybe I could be satisfied with a more general all purpose lens for landscapes and move up the the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS Autofocus. For a beginner do you think this is too much lens to handle as far as keeping it steady and will the shutter speeds be fast enough to capture some lower light shots?



Re: the 100-400, I always handhold mine. I've got perfectly sharp photos at the 400mm end as slow as 1/160 second. Of course, the IS works great. I normally shoot at f6.7 to f8. I use the Canon 30D and have shot at an ISO as high as 800, if need be. No, this is not too much of a lens to handle. It just takes practice.

Personally, for wildlife, I wouldn't even bother with anything less than 300mm.

i agree with the 70-200 f/4 L (no IS) i have one and its a very good lenses with great picture quality when used with a good body

OK, here is what I have finally purchased with some advice from everyone on this site and some sales help from B&H.

Canon Xti- I decided to save $200 over the Xsi and put it in my lens package since I am a beginner and think this platform will be a good place ot learn and I can upgrade the body for the fraction of the cost of better lenses in the future.

Lenses:
28-135mm IS f3.5/5.6, a good all purpose lens that I can use in a variety of situations.

70-200mm IS L f/2.8, this was my expensive lens purchase, but think I will end up keeping this for a very long time and provides a good compromise on price for a f/2.8 lens.

1.4x extender, After discussing with B&H I think this will give some more options and learn about telephoto before spending big bucks on a larger zoom or fixed focul length.

Accessories: extra battery, mountain smith laptop camera bag (it does hold a laptop very well), memory card.

Total: $2500