Announcement

**HedsSpaz** · 16 December 2003, 11:56

I just recently purchased a 10D and had to go through the exact same process. I initially had planned on carrying over my kit lens from my old Rebel xS film slr, however, once I got home and tried it I quickly realized that it just wasn't going to work. The quality was obviously lower than it would have been with a better lens.

So I started looking into getting a different lens. I read a whole bunch of posts on the dpreview forums. I eventually decided on a Canon 24-135 IS USM. I couldn't be happier, quick quiet focusing, very clear shots, solid build quality. It is a slightly heavier lens, which is the one reason that some people don't like using it as a walkaround lens. Personally the weight doesn't bother me at all. The lens runs ~430$ retail and you can find deals if you look around a bit.

Having said all that, I have also read that the kit lens that comes with the DRebel is a surprisingly high quality lens. One point in favor of getting a seperate lens however is that should you ever decide to upgrade to a 10D or higher end Canon DSLR, the EF-S lenses may or may not be compatable. If you go with a straight EF lens then you are garaunteed it will work with any EOS body you put it on.

Have fun with it either way. Having thrown off the reigns of film is a wonderful feeling. I never hem and haw over whether or not to take a shot anymore for fear of wasting valuable space on a roll of film.

Ian

**Hulk** · 16 December 2003, 12:33

Ian,

Thanks for responding. What is the magnification, or zoom factor of that lens?

Mark

**HedsSpaz** · 16 December 2003, 13:23

I think you might have a slight misunderstanding of of the multiplier.

The lens that comes with the kit is a EF-S 18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 zoom lens that is 28-88mm equivalent in 35mm terms. The lens is closer to the sensor with these new "EF-S" lenses so you multiply the numbers by 1.6 to account for this.

The multiplier arise from the fact that the CCD sensor is smaller than a normal 35mm peice of film would be. The multiplier is actually a crop which manifests itself to our perception as a zoom or multiplier. For the 10D and DRebel the focal length multiplier is 1.6x. The Nikon D100 has a 1.5x multiplier, and the Canon 1D has a 1.3x multiplier. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/

The EF-S mount design allows for smaller and lighter construction of the lens from what I've read, and not much beyond that. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page5.asp

I also made a mistake about he lens I bought. It's actually a 28-135 not a 24-135.

One more comment, if you are concerned about having a plastic lens then you might want to think about budgeting a little more and getting a 10D. The DRebel body is plastic whereas the 10D body is Titanium. If you can find a local store that will let you actually handle the two so you can feel the difference you'll get a better idea of just how much difference there is in the construction.

Hope that helps,
Ian

**Hulk** · 16 December 2003, 13:40

I'm miscommunicating.

I'm talking about the zoom of that lens? I thought it was calculated as 135/28=4.83 magnification of the image, right?

I'm confused by a telephoto 70-200mm/f4 lens? What is the zoom ratio of this lens?

Mark

**HedsSpaz** · 16 December 2003, 13:55

Ahh, ok, I gotcha now. The numbers on a zoom lens is the range of angles it can shoot. For example, 35mm is the base or human angle of vision (which is where the 35mm camera and film standard came from). Although a 35mm lens would not be able to see as much as we can, the zoom factor would be the same. So, if I were to try and calculate the effective zoom multiplier for a lens I think it would be Xmm/35mm. So my 28-135 would be a 0.8x to ~3.85x multiplier. (this is before the 1.6x inherent multiplier from the 10D and DRebel).

Does that answer your question?

Ian

**Hulk** · 16 December 2003, 15:52

Yes, thanks!

Mark

az · 16 December 2003, 15:53

This is not quite correct IMHO (but I don't know much, so please stop me if I'm saying bullshit).

50mm lenses are considered "normal", 35mm is slight wide angle. But that has nothing to do with "zoom multipliers". Example of a "multiplier" (if I get what you mean) A 10x zoom is a zoom that goes from, say, 38 to 380 (380/38=10), if that's what you mean.

Or do you mean the "focal length multiplier", "crop factor", however you wanna call it, that all consumer DSLRs have? The 1.6? This only means that you have to multiply the lenses lengths by 1.6 to get the 35mm equivalent (=to get the same field of view that a lens for a 35mm cam would have at the "equivalent" length.) This is so because sensors on DSLRs are smaller than 35mm film. The crop factor means that it's easy to get long zooms out of a DSLR (200mm x 1.6=320mm!), but also that it's hard to get decent wide angle (18mm would be super wide angle on a 35mm cam, on a DSLR it's only 18x1.6=28mm, only average wide angle).

The numbers mean the following: first, the widest and most tele positions of the lens, and after the slash, the biggest aperture (smallest f-number) the lens can manage. The bigger the aperture (the smaller the f-number, becuase it's really F/4, but that gets abbreviated to f4), the bigger the aperture, the more light gets into the lens and the shorter exposures you can use etc.

So the 18-55/f3.5-f5.6 goes from 18mm (18x1.6=28mm) to 55mm (55x1.6=88mm on your cam), and the biggest aperture at wide angle is F/3.5, and at full telephoto it's F/5.6. IS is image stabilization, USM ultrasonic motor, EF-S only fits DSLRs (but I'm no expert at Canon SLRs, so I might have gotten the acronyms wrong).

I'd go with the kit lens, BTW. It's relatively good quality, it's small and lightweight, and has decent wide angle (the 24-135 starts at 24x1.6=38 mm, the 18-55 starts at 18x1.6=28, a BIG difference! It's hard to find good wide angle lenses for DSLRs). It will be compatible with all future Canon DSLRs, and it costs next to nothing, you could probably sell it for more than you pay for it if you get the kit instead of the cam without lens.

AZ

**Wulfman** · 16 December 2003, 16:03

It will be compatible with all future Canon DSLRs, and it costs next to nothing, you could probably sell it for more than you pay for it if you get the kit instead of the cam without lens.

there are rumorus canon wants to use the EF line only at the lower end.
btw, whom should he sell the lens? it only fits on the rebel, atm - so the market will be rather limited....

mfg
wulfman

**Hulk** · 16 December 2003, 16:34

Thanks for the help guys. I have been reading and the Canon 28-135mm IS seems to receive very good reviews.

I'm so confused, lens kit, Tamron lens, Sigma lens, Tokina lens...

I'm starting to think just buying the camera with lens will be the best option.

Mark

az · 16 December 2003, 17:01

It's certainly the easiest and cheapest option, and a start. Even if you get the 28-135, get the kit lens for the wide angle.

Also, for less confusion and the same feature set in a smaller package, you could look at "prosumer" digicams like the Sony Cybershot F828 (8 mp, F/2 lens!) or the Minolta Dimage A1 (Image Stabilizer, almost SLR-like AF!). Both have 28-200mm focal length, Manual Modes, Focus and Zoom rings, and pretty much handle like SLRs (but you get an EVF with all its merits and shortcomings - mainly being WYSIWIG and limited resolution, but at least the A8 has an 8x magnifier to help manual focus). They'd be cheaper, lighter, smaller, and less confusing

AZ

**Hulk** · 16 December 2003, 17:51

I've downloaded some pics from the same review sites from the cameras you mentioned and to my eye the 300D photo quality was significantly better.

Thanks for all the help and advice. I think I'm going to get the body only and either the Canon 24-85mm or 28-135IS lens.

The way I see it, the 24-85mm is very similar to the lens kit lens but of higher quality. I think it would be a good starter lens since I am moving from a decent camera - Olympus E10

az · 16 December 2003, 19:55

It is not similar: It lacks the VERY important wide angle.

BTW, what's the cost of body only vs. kit?

AZ

**Hulk** · 16 December 2003, 20:06

28.8 vs. 38.4 for the wide angle kit vs 24-85mm

You save $100 by not buying the lens kit.

Mark

az · 16 December 2003, 20:18

the 10 mm are a BIG difference, IMHO.

But you're buying the camera, not I, so just have fun with it

AZ

Announcement

Lens selection for Canon digital Rebel?

Lens selection for Canon digital Rebel?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment