Noob Canon Lens Question

[Vortexfl]

for guaranteed *sharp* pics - you still can't go wrong with a 50mm f/1.8. Yes, it's not a zoom, but you will capture amazing quality -- just move your feet!

I also have the same lense it does a awesome job and benefit is, if you break it your only out 75.00. I have taken pictures of the kids, my friends dog at the dog park and its the best 75.00 I have spent.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-...7?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1174573473&sr=8-1

Here is a article that talks about the the lense:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

This is my next lense for the money, the cannon lense is alot more expensive:
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC SLD ELD Aspherical Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm...7?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1174573213&sr=8-3

I love my Cannon Rebel XT 8.1MP.

 

[bmat]

contrary view

The kit lens isn't great, but it really depends upon what you want to do. And it's not a bad lens to start out with. Especially dending upon what you're shooting.

Basically, if you're willing to stop down, the kit lens will produce nice shots. Now, if you need fast glass (f2.8 or wider), then you're not going to be able to afford that in a zoom anyway on the less than $250 budget. So, if you want something last, then I'd recommend a prime of some sort. The 50 1.8 is very good, but also consider a 35 2.0. It's a more normal field of view on a crop camera such as an XTi.

While this may be a contrary view, sometimes it's better to start slower rather than quicker. That way you can decide whether you're going to shoot wide (maybe saving later for a wide angle like a 10-22 or sigma 10-20 would be better) or tele (like a 70-300 IS). But until you spend awhile with it, you may not know what it is you're really going to shoot.

Of course, if you know the focal lengths you want, then that should narrow it down.

 

[jlcharles]

... or tele (like a 70-300 IS)...

That lens is $550. Your money would be much better spent on the $580 70-200 f/4L

 

[miloblithe]

That lens is $550. Your money would be much better spent on the $580 70-200 f/4L

Depends on what's important to you. The 70-300 IS has two obvious important advantages over the f/4L: it's 100mm longer and has IS. It's also lighter, if that's an advantage (for hikers, while traveling, etc). The f/4 isn't really that much faster. Both are f/4 at 70mm, and at 200mm the 70-300 is f/5.0, only 2/3 of a stop slower than the f/4. It's only f/5.6 closer to 300mm. Likewise, the f/4 would become an f/5.6 at 280mm with a 1.4x extender (which would cost another $250?? to boot). They are both good sharp lenses, with some small advantage going to the f/4. Obviously, the f/4's big advantage is durability and build quality and full-time manual focusing. And the front end doesn't rotate.

 

[xfiftyfour]

Wellll.. I ended up just buying the XTi with the kit lens, and have been borrowing a friend's lenses (75-300mm IS and his 60mm f/2.8 USM macro) to fool around with.

At any rate, the kit lens blows after you've been spoiled, lol. So now we're saving up first for a better walk around (the EF-S 17-85mm IS), and then hopefully a telephoto (the 70-300mm IS, or if we run into some money, the 70-300mm IS DO ). Well, those are our picks right now anyways.. might change by the time we've actually saved up enough for 'em.. lol

 

[bmat]

congrats on the camera

I still might consider the 50 1.8, just because it's pretty cheap and offers low light without a flash capability and bokeh that you might not otherwise be able to capture. That brings up another point, which is, as much as you focus on glass, don't forget saving for the external flash as well. Properly used, it's very difficult to tell a bounced flash from an ambient light pic.

 

[-hh]

I still might consider the 50 1.8, just because it's pretty cheap and offers low light without a flash capability and bokeh that you might not otherwise be able to capture.

With as easy as it is to crank up to ISO 800+, while I know that fast glass is always good, I'm inclined to opine that its not quite as important to have a 50mm prime anymore.

BTW, I have a copy of the "Plastic Fantastic" Tokina 19-35mm on my Canon 20D. Its not as wide as I enjoyed on my 35mm, but that goes with the course.

For my last couple of vacations, I've been carrying just the 19-35 and my Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x This does leave me a focal gap of 35-70, but for that, I can 'zoom with my feet' - - I don't even bother to carry my EF 28-135 IS anymore...or my 50mm prime. Where I want to go next is to reestablish something really wide...thinking about something like the 10-22 EF-S. Overall, I'd not avoid buying any EF-S mount lens that isn't any wider than what I can get with an EF mount, which essentially means that I consider around 17mm to be the upper limit for focal length on an EF-S.

That brings up another point, which is, as much as you focus on glass, don't forget saving for the external flash as well. Properly used, it's very difficult to tell a bounced flash from an ambient light pic.

Much of it can depend on your preferred subject - - for some, it may be more beneficial to get a tripod first.


-hh

 

[BurtonCCC]

I bought the XT body with the 50mm f1.8 that was mentioned above. It worked out well, but I wish I would have gone with a zoom lens. If you're a beginner, the kit lens is perfect for you. If you want a little bit more length on the lens, you can get this older 28-90mm Canon lens refurbished by Canon for quite cheap from Adorama here. Note that that lens is f4.0, which is pretty "slow," but not that much slower than the f3.5 kit lens.

As for the question of the XT vs. the XTi, the assumption that the XTi is better is actually a false assumption. The XT, even at 2 megapixels less, takes pictures just as sharp as its 10 megapixel counterpart. This isn't just a rumor, it's documented on the best digital photography review site on the net, DPReview. Here is the link to the page where they compare the image quality side-by-side and conclude that the only thing difference between the cameras is image SIZE and that the image QUALITY actually looks better on the less expensive camera. To take it a step further, here is a comparison that shows that the XT images look just as good as the images from a Canon 20D. How impressive is that? If you want to spend several hundred dollars more for the same quality images, be my guest, but I'll save my bank.

Hope this helps.

Daniel.

 

[Westside guy]

As for the question of the XT vs. the XTi, the assumption that the XTi is better is actually a false assumption. The XT, even at 2 megapixels less, takes pictures just as sharp as its 10 megapixel counterpart.

I've been trying to coin a new phrase for this - the "megapixel myth".

It's especially in play when you see someone bragging about their 5 megapixel cell phone camera. But even with dSLRs, it's very true - for the vast majority of photographers, there's just no practical difference moving from 8 to 10 or 10 to 12.

Of course just about everyone figures "That may be true, but I'm the exception".

 

[BurtonCCC]

I've been trying to coin a new phrase for this - the "megapixel myth".

I like it! And the "megapixel myth" is born!

Daniel.

 

[islandman]

So, I'm about to purchase my first DSLR. I know the basics of photography, and have taken a photography class, but I'm still quite a beginner, I'd say. I'm hoping to start taking photos every day to get better (I'll never be a professional photographer or anything, but I am studying graphics, so this skill can only help).

Anyways, I was set on getting the Canon XTi, but I've read that the kit lens is pretty horrible. So, as a second option, I was thinking about getting the Canon XT body instead, and opting for a slightly better walk around lens.

My question to you is: for a somewhat beginner, is the kit lens really all that bad? If so, are there any lenses you'd recommend instead (either Canon or third party), that is a good walk around lens, but is still only around ~$200-$250? Or, would you just opt for the better camera, and worry about the lens at another time?

Oh, and while I'm getting advice anyways - what do you think about the differences between the XT and the XTi? Even if I go with the kit lens, would anyone think that the XTi might be overkill for a beginner, and would you think that the XT would be the better/smarter buy?

Thanks for the advice!

A great lens that's just outside of your price-range is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. You can read great things about it in the Canon SLR Lens Talk forum at http://www.dpreview.com/ or read about it at http://www.fredmiranda.com/.

I own a 20D, a 20D, a 300D (that I rarely use), and several lenses, including:
Sigma:
12-24
70-200 f/2.8

Canon
50 f/1.8 (Love this one)
85 f/1.8 (Love this more than the 50mm)
70-300 DO IS USM (great for travel, but expensive)
17-55 f/2.8 (my favorite lens, but very expensive)

Tamron
28-75 f/2.8

Of the lenses above, the Canon 50 f/1.8 and the Tamron are the best bang for the buck, by far. All of the other lenses that I own are expensive. I love them, but I shoot professionally from time to time, so it's a business expense for me.

 

[walangij]

If you're looking to upgrade, then Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens for around $450. In some terms, it is an equivalent to the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS minus the IS and around $500. If you can't afford the Canon, the tamron is a great bang for your buck lens, with better IQ than the Canon 17-85mm F/4-F5.6 IS and cheaper as well. Check out the fredmiranda.com site that miloblithe and islandman have both recommended. Excellent user reviews which will help in your choice.

 

[Regis27]

Well, see, my point exactly: I think I ought to wait until I actually NOTICE these things on my own before spending cash on a better lens. I guess I'll know I've progressed once the kit lens starts to tick me off.

Until then, I think a better lens would just be wasted on me.

I don't think it's just a matter of noticing the quality of the lens, but more importantly using the kit lens will give you a chance to notice what kind of photography you enjoy doing.

There is no perfect lens, and the ones that even come close are $1000 or more. There are plenty of good or great lenses around $200-400 but they don't do everything.

Use the kit lens for a few months and ask yourself these questions:

Did I find myself wanting to get closer to my subjects? -> you'll need a zoom past the kit's 55mm. look for something that goes to 70, 85, or 105mm.

Was the 18mm (wide angle) enough for most subjects? if not, you might want to concentrate on a 10-22 wide angle.
more than enough? plenty of great lenses start at 24mm or 28mm. If you don't need the wide angle of the kit, you can start at these focal distances and save some money (and get further on the tele end.)

Did I shoot a lot of low light and don't like using a flash. -> look into the fast primes. the 50mm 1.8 is almost universally recommended to people starting out.

There's no perfect lens at the price you're looking (believe me because that's approx. my range too.) So instead, figure out exactly what kinds of pictures you like taking and get a first lens to fit that. It will end up saving you money in the long run. (e.g. if you get a good wide angle, you can later compliment it with a middle zoom as your shooting styles change. This is much better than getting a low quality super zoom and then replacing it completely as you realize that it doesn't meet your developing expectations.)

 

[Regis27]

One more thing:

The kit isn't as bad as people make out, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW ITS WEAK POINTS.

Take a look at the charts here:

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm

What does it tell you?

If you're using the kit at 18mm, don't use it wide open at f/3.5. (Horrible edge sharpness.) At 18mm keep it at f/11, and it has decent quality.

At 35mm and 55mm, you can get good and very good sharpness across the board.

Is it a great lens? No. But at least don't make it worse by using it at its worst points.

 

[Regis27]

This is my next lense for the money, the cannon lense is alot more expensive:
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC SLD ELD Aspherical Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 can be found now and again for around $410. Might also be worth checking out in comparison to the sigma.

there's a review here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx