Canon 20D, or 50D, or Lenses oh my

[ChrisBrightwell]

So many online have been saying how bad the kit lens is...

If you live within its limitations, the 18-55 kit lens is a pretty solid chunk of glass. It doesn't have the best build quality, and only really shines past f/8 (as should any decent lens, really), but it does its job and it does it well.

As soon as you take it out of good light and take it into light that's just "decent" or "marginal", you'll start to see the pitfalls of the 18-55 lens pretty quickly.

 

[romanaz]

If you live within its limitations, the 18-55 kit lens is a pretty solid chunk of glass. It doesn't have the best build quality, and only really shines past f/8 (as should any decent lens, really), but it does its job and it does it well.

As soon as you take it out of good light and take it into light that's just "decent" or "marginal", you'll start to see the pitfalls of the 18-55 lens pretty quickly.

for a starter lens that comes with the rebels its a good lens. But some people need len's that perform well at a much lower f/ stop. Sure, most lens do well in the middle of the range, but how many people buy the 50 f/1.2L to use it @ f/8?

 

[JFreak]

how many people buy the 50 f/1.2L to use it @ f/8?

Perhaps rather extreme example, but I do know many people buy the 50 f/1.2L to use it at f/2.8--4.0 because it is dramatically sharper than slower lenses capable of same apertures. And there is always the option of using the extremely fast apertures should one need to.

 

[JFreak]

18-55 kit lens is a pretty solid chunk of glass (...) and only really shines past f/8

It is a pretty solid chunk of junk, really. And no, it does not "shine" even past f/8.

And given that diffraction begins to limit sensor sharpness at about 10, it is not much range to have a lens "sharp" past f/8 combined with a body "sharp" at below f/10. That is f/8--10 "sharp" aperture range to play with, which is close to useless.

Try a lens that is sharp at f/2.8 to compare with the kit lens, and you can easily adjust your opinion about it

 

[tdmac]

Your best bet is to get a couple of books ("Understanding Exposure" is a good start) and demystify the jargon. The articles on Wikipedia can help a lot, too.

Thanks for the refernce. I picked it up over the weekend. Starting to understand this a little better. Man did I have the concept all wrong. I now understand that the Apreture rating, the Max aperture size, and thus you can always go smaller (thus higher f-stops). While I am only 60pages in, it seems most of his photo's are done with a small apreture (High f-stop) or mid f-stops f8-f11. I'm sure I'll get to it, but now want to understand when to use the large aperture (low f-stops). In this book he is all about Manual all the way.

As a novice going from auto settings to manual and Raw shooting are you better off taking baby steps and going Aperture Priority (Still pics, lanscapes, etc) or Shutter Priority (Sports/Faster motion) to get a better grasp of each piece of the triangle (iso, aperture & Shutter Speed)?

 

[JFreak]

are you better off taking baby steps and going Aperture Priority (Still pics, lanscapes, etc) or Shutter Priority (Sports/Faster motion) to get a better grasp of each piece of the triangle (iso, aperture & Shutter Speed)?

Yes.

AV for most of the stuff (choosing the aperture you need for the pic, letting camera calculate exposure) but TV whenever you use a flash (1/250 sync for example).

I do full manual very rarely.

 

[HBOC]

interesting thing is that i have NEVER used aperture priority or shutter priority ever. It is always full manual, but then again i haven't tried out sports. I would thing it would take a genius to shoot full manual at a hockey game or basketball...

 

[romanaz]

interesting thing is that i have NEVER used aperture priority or shutter priority ever. It is always full manual, but then again i haven't tried out sports. I would thing it would take a genius to shoot full manual at a hockey game or basketball...

I shoot indoor sports on manual, probably should user shutter priority, but so far so good. Now outdoors, I don't think I could do that.

 

[JFreak]

Aperture priority is like using an old film camera that has electronic (automatic) exposure calculation on body but mechanical (manual) aperture selection on lens. Back then (early 80's) you chose the aperture yourself and camera took care of exposure.

Also, to continue with that analogy; whenever I used flash with that particular Minolta film camera, the system was locked to 1/60 flash sync so I had to adjust the aperture accordingly. This would be Shutter priority in today's terms.

Old habits, I guess

 

[PimpDaddy]

Get some good lenses before buying a body.

And if you do decide on buying a new body some time soon, look at the 40D instead of the 50D. IMO you'll get much more for your money with the 40D. In many terms the 50D is just a overpriced 40D.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

It is a pretty solid chunk of junk, really. And no, it does not "shine" even past f/8.

This is absolute FUD.

And given that diffraction begins to limit sensor sharpness at about 10, it is not much range to have a lens "sharp" past f/8 combined with a body "sharp" at below f/10. That is f/8--10 "sharp" aperture range to play with, which is close to useless.

While this may technically be true, you won't really see it on any normal prints (4x6, 8x10, etc.) at any normal viewing distance (a couple of feet or more). If you want to print a 40x60 and go over it with a loupe, be my guest.

Try a lens that is sharp at f/2.8 to compare with the kit lens, and you can easily adjust your opinion about it

I'm not sure that I disputed this. I said that, "For $100, the kit lens is pretty solid." I did *not* say that "For $100, the kit lens will capture a better image than a 50mm L lens."

Did you actually read my post? I'll bet that you didn't.

 

[HBOC]

Get some good lenses before buying a body.

And if you do decide on buying a new body some time soon, look at the 40D instead of the 50D. IMO you'll get much more for your money with the 40D. In many terms the 50D is just a overpriced 40D.

I would buy a body BEFORE buying glass. He can get out and shoot, get practice and learn the camera and the basics. Then when a great deal comes along or he saves up, he can sell whatever lens he has, if he so wishes, and then get better glass. Not everyone wants to have a $500-$6000 lens laying around w/o a body. I know i wouldn't, and even when i bought my 10-20mm last week, it was torture since i couldn't use it.

 

[JFreak]

This is absolute FUD.

Just an opinion, based on estimate that about 85% of the time I shoot at sub-par light. I can get "decent" pics 15% of the time using that kit lens (having significantly worse keeper rate than with L lenses therefore less than 10% chance of being satisfied with the result), therefore in my opinion it's a piece of junk.

 

[toxic]

While I am only 60pages in, it seems most of his photo's are done with a small apreture (High f-stop) or mid f-stops f8-f11. I'm sure I'll get to it, but now want to understand when to use the large aperture (low f-stops).

read up on depth of field. also, larger apertures are required in poor light if you need fast shutter speeds.

As a novice going from auto settings to manual and Raw shooting are you better off taking baby steps and going Aperture Priority (Still pics, lanscapes, etc) or Shutter Priority (Sports/Faster motion) to get a better grasp of each piece of the triangle (iso, aperture & Shutter Speed)?

manual and aperture priority are the same - both require an understanding of how metering works, unless you're fine evaluative metering and all its inconsistent glory. in other words, you need to learn where to point the camera when you meter.

i use M most of the time, since i don't want to keep thinking about what i should meter off of. changes in light can be estimated quickly. Av, for me, only works if i'm using the zone system.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

Just an opinion, based on estimate that about 85% of the time I shoot at sub-par light. I can get "decent" pics 15% of the time using that kit lens (having significantly worse keeper rate than with L lenses therefore less than 10% chance of being satisfied with the result), therefore in my opinion it's a piece of junk.

... did you even read my post?

Specifically:

As soon as you take it out of good light and take it into light that's just "decent" or "marginal", you'll start to see the pitfalls of the 18-55 lens pretty quickly.

 

[JFreak]

did you even read my post?

Yes, I did. But I myself do not consider lens worth using if it gives me "decent" pics at best and even then there are few (decent) keepers. My definition of junk comes from this perspective. Lens' worth is in the keeper rate.

Yes, I have used that lens, there was few times I wasn't able to choose anything else. I hated that I had to just "set it to f/8 and be there", took about 1000 pics and chose less than 100 keepers. It's like a blind person taking a million pics, probably one of them looks nice.

But sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by commenting to your post.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

I would buy a body BEFORE buying glass.

The OP already has a 20D, so that's not really the problem. He's asking whether to upgrade his lenses or his body first.

 

[tdmac]

So as a followup, I have borrowed a couple of lenses from my friend. I had the 50mm 1.4 as well as the 24-70mm 2.8. I used the 24-70 when visting my kids at camp. WOW what a difference. Again I am a novice when it comes to photography but I had alot of good pics (by my standards). But I now Love this lens. I pretty much stayed in AP mode but played with TV when I was taking photo's of my Son shooting baskets. Even played around with the macro on the 24-70mm. My friend now gave me his 100mm to try for macro shots as well. I think I may rent the 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 for a week to try that out. I am going to Newport, RI for a couple of days and it can probably come in handy.


I'll post some pics or a link to an iweb album if I get a chance.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

So as a followup, I have borrowed a couple of lenses from my friend. I had the 50mm 1.4 as well as the 24-70mm 2.8. I used the 24-70 when visting my kids at camp. WOW what a difference.

Haha ... I remember the first time I shot on L glass. I looked at the lenses in my bag (17-85, 70-300 IS, 50 1.8) and thought, "What the hell am I doing with these?!".

 

[gkarris]

If you live within its limitations, the 18-55 kit lens is a pretty solid chunk of glass. It doesn't have the best build quality, and only really shines past f/8 (as should any decent lens, really), but it does its job and it does it well.

As soon as you take it out of good light and take it into light that's just "decent" or "marginal", you'll start to see the pitfalls of the 18-55 lens pretty quickly.

Yes, took my E-420 out over the weekend and used the E-500 Kit 14-45 lens with it (the older non-ED one, the newer is an ED lens). Same goes for that one - f/8...

I've been blessed lately with extrememly sunny partly cloudy skies for some nice pics with them...

 

[CodeRaven]

So as a followup, I have borrowed a couple of lenses from my friend. I had the 50mm 1.4 as well as the 24-70mm 2.8. I used the 24-70 when visting my kids at camp. WOW what a difference. Again I am a novice when it comes to photography but I had alot of good pics (by my standards). But I now Love this lens. I pretty much stayed in AP mode but played with TV when I was taking photo's of my Son shooting baskets. Even played around with the macro on the 24-70mm. My friend now gave me his 100mm to try for macro shots as well. I think I may rent the 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 for a week to try that out. I am going to Newport, RI for a couple of days and it can probably come in handy.


I'll post some pics or a link to an iweb album if I get a chance.

If this is the same friend that has the 135 f/2.0, be careful! I love that lens, and it is becoming my favorite. I'm looking at the 300 f/2.8 IS, but my wife will toss me out if I spend $4100 on a lens for a hobby....

 

[John.B]

So as a followup, I have borrowed a couple of lenses from my friend. I had the 50mm 1.4 as well as the 24-70mm 2.8. I used the 24-70 when visting my kids at camp. WOW what a difference. Again I am a novice when it comes to photography but I had alot of good pics (by my standards). But I now Love this lens. I pretty much stayed in AP mode but played with TV when I was taking photo's of my Son shooting baskets. Even played around with the macro on the 24-70mm. My friend now gave me his 100mm to try for macro shots as well. I think I may rent the 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 for a week to try that out. I am going to Newport, RI for a couple of days and it can probably come in handy.

The 24-70mm 2.8 is easy to love, but it's called "The Brick" for a reason -- as I'm sure you've figured out.

There is also a 24-105mm 4.0 IS with a little more reach (but one stop less light) and stabilization, which some people prefer when handholding a lens like that. Likewise, that 70-200 4.0 IS is a really nice handholdable zoom, as long as f/4 is fast enough for the existing light. The 70-200 2.8 IS is a tank.... Heavy to handhold for long periods of time, IMO.

The scuttlebutt is that the 24-70mm 2.8 might get updated with the new hybrid stabilization just announced, but its all just guessing and hoping right now and only time will tell (maybe September?) FWIW, I would buy that lens today, sight unseen.

The 100mm 2.8 Macro is still my favorite lens, though on a crop sensor body its not terribly versatile for general use. Mine is not always on my 50D, but it *is* always in the bag. A little practice with a monopod or tripod might be in order depending on what kind of light you are shooting in. Macro can be frustrating, it needs a dose of patience, esp. if you are trying to handhold a lens like that. Which is why we buy tripods with extension arms and ring lights and tripod rings and ... (I would love for this to get the new hybrid stabilization if it was usable at macro distances.)

 

[tdmac]

The 24-70mm 2.8 is easy to love, but it's called "The Brick" for a reason -- as I'm sure you've figured out.

I did not find it that heavy at all. I pretty much carried it all day long. Even my 8 year old daughter picked it up and shot a bunch of good pics with it .
Some better than mine.

I also wanted to try out the 100-400 as well. I know I will need a longer zoom and not sure which one yet. I think my friens is willing to part with the 24-70mm 2.8. He said rarely uses it since he has another lens that more or less covers the range. He also typically uses prime lenses.

So if the price is right...... But I'll wait it out a little and see if anything new comes down the Canon pike this fall. You have piqued my curiosity.

 

[JFreak]

Wasn't this "brick" the one that reverse extends? Shortest tube at longest focal length and vice versa.

 

[JFreak]

the 135 f/2.0, I love that lens

Me too, but I unfortunately do not own one. It's hard to justify buying that to go with my 70-200 IS f/2.8L though it (135) is so small I might at some point be forced to buy it