Quality budget Canon Lenses for Amateur

I've had a Digital Rebel XT (film and now Digital) and am looking to take a step forward in lenses. I've been quite happy with the camera and its abilities, I thought about getting a 20 or 40D, but honestly the extra features aren't worth the cost at my level.

I have the "stock" lens that comes with it plus a good zoom lens and they work fine. The zoom is great, but the stock lenses are a little "sloppy" or loose, if you bump the barrel or lens it shifts and goes slightly out of focus. I had a friend visiting Boston (home) and he brought a nice camera to take some photos while doing the tourist thing about town and he explained the differences between some of the basic lenses and the lenses that are of a better quality, and it seems like a direction I'd like to explore. He mentioned it isn't necessarily the camera itself (though that is quite important) but the lens that can do the most to improve photo quality.

What lens(es) would folks here recommend for the mentioned camera and what are the benefits? I uploaded some photos in my gallery so folks could see what kind of shots I normally take. I also use it for photos of friends and family, but mostly for vacation and places.

Thanks for any suggestions.

The problem is, all the good lenses cost MORE than the camera. Of course they will likely outlive the camera.

What is this bumping issue that you describe? It makes little sense to me--- are you bumped as you are shooting?

Hi JohnQ, welcome to the forum. Like filters said quality lenses will cost more than your body. The kit lens that came with your Rebel is not though of as a great lens as you already know.

Canon has a large number of middle ground lenses that usually fall into the $400 range give or take a $100 or so. These are decent lenses.

Then Canon makes a number of high quality professional grade lenses these are designated by an L in their name. These lenses are all of very high quality in build and image quality.

An idea of your budget and what you want to shoot would be helpful in suggesting a lens. I took a quick look at your gallery and it looks like scenery and landscape seems to be your interest.

As to bumping out of focus, Hmmmm. I might think that would happen some depending on the bump to just about any lens. There definitely differences in quality between different lenses and the kit lens is about at the bottom of the barrel.

Here are some guides that offer advice on 'value' lenses for Canon EF mount. Would appreciate any comments from the forum veterans on the value of the guides. - TF

http://reviews.ebay.com/Canon-EF-Upg...00000000955896

http://reviews.ebay.com/CANON-EF-CLA...00000001398682

http://reviews.ebay.com/A-Guide-to-I...00000004546950

http://reviews.ebay.com/Canon-EF-Aff...00000000896295

TF

Cheap quality lenses depends on two things - your budget and what you plan to shoot. No matter what your answer is to that question, every Canon shooter should have the 50mm F/1.8 in his arsenal. It'll only set you back about $100. This lens is as sharp as any, and its fast glass helps in low light. It's best known as a portrait lens, but you can shoot anything you like with it - I've used it for sports, macros, and landscapes.

If you shoot a lot of landscape or indoors images, check out the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 for around $550. It's supposed to be a great lens, and has the fastest glass in its class.

I don't know why no one ever mentions the 50mm f/1.8 on this board - it is such a great lens! :p

Popular Photography just had a article on the "step up from the kit lens" lens and they recommended the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. It is about $500. That is the next one on my list.

Ouch. So the consensus is that any lens worth getting is going to be a $500 +/- a little? Kinda surprising that there isn't anything geared towards the non-pro shooter that has quality in the $200-$400 range.

John, let me know when you want the 20D I got two of them one with grip other don't.
Gracie, let me know if you ever need that 28-135ef lens I got that one too and I will both yall a real good deal. all item are in excelent condiction

I got my Canon 70-200 f/4L lens for $400 with rebates. It focuses silky smooth and fast and the images are fantastic. It's been a bread-and-butter lens for me and even shot a magazine cover. I eventually upgraded to a more expensive lens in order to get image stabilization, but I still like the f/4L for it's smaller size/weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Q. Camera

Ouch. So the consensus is that any lens worth getting is going to be a $500 +/- a little? Kinda surprising that there isn't anything geared towards the non-pro shooter that has quality in the $200-$400 range.

---

In that budget range, if you're looking for quality you may be better off getting ONE prime lens for now. One of these: 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, or 85mm f/1.8. Each is under $400, build quality is great, and the image quality is good stopped down (a little too soft IMO wide open or even stopped down moderately).

On an APS-C body, the 28mm can be used as an all purpose standard (walk-about) lens.


But if you can wait to pull together more funds, I'd look into several "L" lenses which are good values (17-40mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/4L non-IS, 200mm f/2.8L)

I have the Canon 50 mm f1.8 and love it, cost just over $100 Canadian. I opted to not get the kit lenses because I hadn't heard anything good abou them. I did get a Sigma 18-200 mm f3.5-6.3 dc os, cost over $600, and it's taking sometime to love it.

Kelli

Loupey, glad you mentioned the 85 f/1.8, this is a dream of a lens for
under $400. Very fast focusing, does a great job in-doors especially
for sports.

Yeah, the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent performer. All three (28, 50, 85mm) are of the same build class and performance. Easy to break a toe if you drop any of these as they are solidly built.

I eventually sold off my 28mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 but I did keep the 85mm.