Rkkwan, I believe you vastly overestimate both the quality and quantity of my research (but thanks for the compliment). I have not gone into nearly the detail that your discussion with other posters shows that you have mastered.

That said, and now that I am committed to the XTi, what lenses might be available at good value in a telephoto zoom? I am more likely to want that before replacing the kit lens in the same range.

A good site to look at lens reviews is fredmiranda dot com. With all things being even, L lenses are your best bet. However they are expensive and it's not always an option for everyone (don't let folks "bully" you into L lenses if you really can't afford it).

Also remember that the XTi has a 1.6 crop. That means that a 75-200mm lens will provide the equivalent of a 120-320mm lens on a regular 35mm SLR. So you gain in the telephoto end, but you lose in the wide angle lens.

How much zoom are you looking for?

In the 24-80mm range, you have the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L lens, the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens, and the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 lens. They will give you a nice fast lens at varying price ranges.

In the 70-300mm range, you've got the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM (not the other versions), the Tamron 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 lens, and the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens.

In the over 300mm range, you've got the Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3 lens, the Sigma 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens and the Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 lens (aka the Bigma).

Those are all assuming you want to keep it under $1000USD. If you can go higher, look at the Canon L lenses.

I've got the Tamron 28-75mm and I really like it. It works for most of my people shots and with extender tubes makes a good macro lens. I also have the Canon 75-300mm III USM. It works and was inexpensive (it was an emergency purchase when my prior camera broke during vacation and I needed the zoom). I do plan on replacing it with the Sigma 80-400mm or adding the Tamron 200-500mm at some point.

Nikki - One of the best <b>value</b> is the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM, for about $550. Very sharp, with very good image stabilization. But of course, it's over $500, and has its flaws too.

Here is a gallery that I shoot mostly with this lens, in late afternoon, all handheld and no flash:

rkkwan.zenfolio.com/p724165999/

But if you don't want to spend that much, there are several other choices. There are basically two focal length ranges you need to decide on. First is 55-200. This is compliment your kit lens, which ended at 55mm. The choices are Canon ($210, all B&amp;H prices, other stores may be cheaper), Tamron ($180), Sigma ($150). I don't think the Canon is better than the other ones except for focusing speed and motor noise. The Tamron is supposed to have very good image quality, but focusing relatively slow and noisy, and has a plastic lens mount.

The other focal range is 70/75-300. Canon has a 75-300 for $160 without USM (ultrasonic motor), $190 with USM. Sigma has a 70-300 for $140, and an APO lens with super low dispersion glass for $220. Tamron has a 70-300 for $190.

These lens will leave you a small gap in focal range, but I never find it bothersome. But will give you a longer reach (300mm, which on an XTi, is equivalent to having 480mm on a 35mm film camera). The Tamron gets super reviews for image quality. But again, focusing speed and noise is worse than Canon's. The Sigma APO also gives great image, but it's more expensive.

Nikki - Send me an email at rkkwan at earthlink dot net. I have an offer for you.

---

Well, I know Nikki has already gotten her Canon, but someone's thinking about just a basic dSLR body, kit lens and a telezoom, but nothing else, one should really look into the Nikon D40/D40x kit and the 55-200 VR lens. That lens cost only ~$250 with image stabilization. Excellent value.

Rkkwan - I know someone with that lens and she loves it. It's a great value for a nice walkaround lens.

I used to be really into it about 20 years ago, had a top Canon SLR (film), zoom lenses, motor drive, filters, etc.

Used to lug all that around in a big case along with a tripod. Not only was this all heavy and not suited for the long walks in my trips -- mostly take public transportation and walk everywhere in between -- but it takes longer to change lenses, take the lens cap off, etc to set up shots.

Compared to a point and shoot where I can just take some quick, spontaneous shots and I can take it out and put it away in a few seconds, I can't imagine going full bore on digital SLR.

There are some things disappointing, such as poor dynamic range, issues with haze/glare in outdoors.

But I know people who lug around the much heavier and bulkier dSLRs around and then after they get the shots, they're doing all kinds of post-processing with histograms and such.

Thanks rk and toed for your information. I am continually amazed at the expertise available on this forum. The lens info wil provide places to start exploration on the web.
I thought I had a grasp on 35mm slr but this is a whole new cat. Already I can see that iso alone is going to add a new dimension to photography - iamgine changing film speeds without changing film!
Nikki you are going to have a ball with the new Rebel once you are past the inevitable buyers' remorse! LOL

rk and toed - is there still a place for a fixed lens - say 50mm or 55mm - between zooms or is that now redundant?

A lot of people still like prime lenses. They're often the only choices for super-telephoto, fisheye, and macro. Also for super wide aperture. Few zoom lens have f2.8 aperture, and even those are big and heavy, like my Canon 17-55 IS. To get f2, 1.8, or even larger aperture, prime lens is the only way to go.

I still use the super cheap Canon 50mm/1.8. Good for portrait (to get the narrow depth of field) and indoor action use (as IS cannot stop action).

Thanks Robjame. Everything I learned, I learned from a group of guys on a photo site I was on. None of us are on that site anymore, but they still provide me with a wealth of information.

As for fixed lenses, you will still get better image quality for your money than you will with a zoom lens. However, they aren't as versatile as the zoom. For most of us amateurs, I think the zoom's versatility outweighs the better image quality.

With zooms, generally you get a better image with shorter zoom lengths. A 28-75mm zoom will perform better than a 28-200mm zoom. And you will get a faster lens.

You may find that if you're doing a lot of portrait shots, that a good fast fixed lens at about 50mm (which becomes a 75mm or 80mm with the camera's crop factor) f1.8 could come in very handy even if you have a 24-80mm range zoom.

Changing the ISO on the fly is great! There are also several good free or cheap noise reduction software out there (noiseninja and neatimage are both good) to clean up photos that were taken with the high ISO.

One thing to remember is that with digital, if you blow out the highlight you are s**t out of luck. Except if you shoot RAW format. Then you can &quot;rescue&quot; some detail. You really want to shoot as close to the highlight edge of the histogram without hitting it. One trick I've learned for outdoor shots, is to expose on the blue sky, then recompose and shoot. The blue sky is close to the grey card grey. In post processing, I can then bring out the details in the shadows more.

<i>One thing to remember is that with digital, if you blow out the highlight you are s**t out of luck. Except if you shoot RAW format. Then you can &quot;rescue&quot; some detail. You really want to shoot as close to the highlight edge of the histogram without hitting it. One trick I've learned for outdoor shots, is to expose on the blue sky, then recompose and shoot. The blue sky is close to the grey card grey. In post processing, I can then bring out the details in the shadows more.</i>

The dynamic range of most consumer and pro-sumer level dSLRs are still kind of limited, so this is a real issue. I also shoot RAW exclusively to deal with this problem.

There are actually several schools of thoughts in this. What toedtoes describes is protecting the highlights. But this may underexpose the main subjects, and even though you can bring the levels up for the shadows, you will increase noise.

Others will actually &quot;shoot to the right&quot;, overexposing most shots when they don't care about the highlights (like shades of clouds). That will bring more details and graduation in the lower and middle section.

Anyways, the Canon 400D's metering tends to protect the highlight (like what toedtoes is doing already). Many people complain that the 400D underexpose in many occassions. And when I do post-processing (I use Apple's Aperture), often I'll need to increase exposure to bring the main subject up to proper level. But the highlights are protected and not clipped to just plain white.

Buyer's remorse? Well, I don't think I have that exactly. More like, what have I gotten myself into? But I know there's no perfect choice, and I'm not being graded on this. Well, maybe by you guys...

Rkkwan, you have mail.

Nikki - no grading here! :)

It is a bit daunting at first, but once you've landed a few &quot;Ahhh!&quot; shots, you'll forget that and just have a blast taking photos.

I would suggest a lens in the 18-55 to 17-85mm range. Remember that the XTi has a 1.6 crop factor. So if you get a lens in the 24/28-?? range, you're not getting much of a wide angle, which I think is essential in Europe.

Here's Canon's version:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html

But the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is another good choice...here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_XR_Di.html

I believe the OP bought the XTi kit with the 18-55 kit lens. It's cheaply made, but optical quality is not too bad.

Yes, the obvious upgrades from the kit lens are the Canon 17-85 for its longer range and IS, the Tamron 17-50 for its optical quality and f/2.8 aperture, and the Canon 17-55 IS for its optical quality, IS and f/2.8 aperture (but cost quite a bit more).

Thanks for all the advice. I'm looking forward to figuring this digital thing out.

So now that I have the camera, I dug out my old camera bag to put everything in. Actually I made my husband dig it out because I can't crawl that deep into my closet under the bottom shelf any more.

Took out my old Nikon FM2 and couldn't believe how heavy it feels. No wonder I stopped lugging it around. There's still film in it. And the battery still works. Found a credit card receipt in there from February, 1993. It's a virtual time capsule.

Lots of memories in that bag. Feels good to have it out in the light of day again.

I'm having a posting glitch, so apologies if this appears twice.

Checking ebay, a good condition and working FM2 can still fetch $100 or so. ;)

Go to your newsstand and pick up a copy of the current issue of CONSUMER REPORTS which has a long cover story and the most up-to-date ratings of digital cameras. It will move you up the learning curve--and they address the issue of shutter lag time.

Truth in Advertising:

http://tinyurl.com/368pjl

Check out this ad on ebay for a lens for your SLR. I am not interested but someone else might find this offer too good to pass up...