camera afficionados

[christyf5]

Originally Posted by TimT

Hi Christy,

My wife uses a 24-105 F4L lens a lot. It is a good all around range for life shots. Here is more info.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4L_IS_USM.html

Cheers,
Tim

Thanks Tim, I'll have a look at the link

[sphelps]

Prime lenses (no zoom) take better photos in general. An all around lens won't compare but some are definitely better than others. Ones with lower f numbers (bigger aperture) and better glass will for the most part take better photos but cost goes up. Lenses with larger ranges in zoom will also usually sacrifice more in the areas you're concerned with, so for zoom lenses stick with smaller ranges.

For example, replace that 18-55mm with something in the range of 16-35mm which will be a good fit along side the 50mm prime.

[kien]

If you are sticking with your Rebel XT (or even upgrading to another cropped sensor camera body), then I highly recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. It's a great step up from the kit lens and is very versatile just like your kit lens in the same range. It's a great little all purpose lens.

It's relatively fast with f2.8 across its entire focal range unlike the canon kit lens that is variable aperture across its range. If you want a bit more bling it happens to come in a Vibration Compensation model (for more money of course). I bought this lens when I had a Rebel a few years ago and still use it with my Canon 40D. I recommend it to all of my friends who also love this lens. I love this lens so much I bought it's larger brother, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 that's meant for full frame camera bodies like my 6D

[kien]

For the record, I also have the Canon 24-105L lens which I use on occassion but usually end up using my Tamron 28-75 (on full frame) and Tamron 17-50 (on cropped frame) more than my Canon lens. The Tamron lenses are MUCH lighter and easier to lug around (yes I'm a wimp, deal with it).

[christyf5]

Originally Posted by kien

For the record, I also have the Canon 24-105L lens which I use on occassion but usually end up using my Tamron 28-75 (on full frame) and Tamron 17-50 (on cropped frame) more than my Canon lens. The Tamron lenses are MUCH lighter and easier to lug around (yes I'm a wimp, deal with it).

good to know. yeah I'm already lugging all my lenses around and then a 2 year old on top of that (interestingly enough my camera bag makes a great seat for a 2 year old, its a cross shoulder sling bag). Gets a bit much sometimes. I've never been able to find a point and shoot that I'm happy with though

[kien]

Originally Posted by christyf5

. I've never been able to find a point and shoot that I'm happy with though

The best point and shoot money can buy in my opinion is the Canon G16 (at the moment). They are coming out with a G17 sometime this year. I don't own one but have used one an WANT ONE. If you have big pockets it'll fit. If you have a purse it'll fit better. Takes phenomenal pictures that rival DSLRs. Obviously not a replacement for a good DSLR with a nice lens but for a pimped out point and shoot it's pretty darn good. Pricey though. Fast lens, good zoom range and all manual controls (if you're so inclined).

[christyf5]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Prime lenses (no zoom) take better photos in general. An all around lens won't compare but some are definitely better than others. Ones with lower f numbers (bigger aperture) and better glass will for the most part take better photos but cost goes up. Lenses with larger ranges in zoom will also usually sacrifice more in the areas you're concerned with, so for zoom lenses stick with smaller ranges.

For example, replace that 18-55mm with something in the range of 16-35mm which will be a good fit along side the 50mm prime.

yeah thats something like the 17-40 which I was looking at a number of years ago, just couldn't do it then, wish I had in hindsight though