my first DSLR -- kit lens or no kit lens?

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Bah you guys are haters.

I've taken some pretty nice pics with my kit lens when I had it. Here is one of them.

I'm not going to say that I actually liked the kit lens, but it is a great learning tool and gets the job done when you really need it.

I also recommend getting the 50/1.8 if you're on a tight budget. BTW, the 50 would never be able to take a shot like the one above because its magnification is so much smaller than the kit lens.

50mm vs 55mm? It's not that much a difference, and I thought the focusing distance was closer on the 50mm. I also thought that the EF-S 55mm was a true 55mm to the sensor, (whereas the non-EF-S 50mm is cropped like 80mm), but I could be mistaken.

Anyway, I'll agree that, imo, the kit-lens is perfectly fine and versatile lens for a beginning photographer. I've taken some decent pics with it. I don't know if that tamron was around when I bought my DSLR, but it does look like it would be a nice alternative.

 

[idiotekniQues]

id stick with the kit, keep the $200 - see the style you like to shoot the most, and put it towards a nicer lens down the road.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I just can't agree with the 50mm suggestions. It simply does not work for most casual shooters.

If you are upgrading from a little P&S the fixed 50mm is going piss you off to no end because it simply isn't wide enough for a lot of indoor stuff. It's fast, it's sharp as a tack, it's cheap, it's light, but it isn't friendly to a new user of a DSLR.

I like the kit lens simply for the fact that it's light and wide. And it's still a decent upgrade over most point and shoots.

I agree.

But instead of the kit lens I'd get the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm.

I have this lens and it simply isn't wide enough on a crop body like the Rebel XTi or EOS-30D.

We have a Canon 16-35mm that is used occasionally, but 90%+ of the shooting we do is with the Tamron.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Bah you guys are haters.

I've taken some pretty nice pics with my kit lens when I had it. Here is one of them.

I'm not going to say that I actually liked the kit lens, but it is a great learning tool and gets the job done when you really need it.

I also recommend getting the 50/1.8 if you're on a tight budget. BTW, the 50 would never be able to take a shot like the one above because its magnification is so much smaller than the kit lens.

50mm vs 55mm? It's not that much a difference, and I thought the focusing distance was closer on the 50mm. I also thought that the EF-S 55mm was a true 55mm to the sensor, (whereas the non-EF-S 50mm is cropped like 80mm), but I could be mistaken.

Anyway, I'll agree that, imo, the kit-lens is perfectly fine and versatile lens for a beginning photographer. I've taken some decent pics with it. I don't know if that tamron was around when I bought my DSLR, but it does look like it would be a nice alternative.

Magnification isn't a factor of focal length.

Also, EF-S lenses are still measured in standard 35mm focal lengths. So the 18mm end is actually about 29mm on an APS-C camera like the Rebels. 18mm on a 35mm camera is pretty damn wide.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I just can't agree with the 50mm suggestions. It simply does not work for most casual shooters.

If you are upgrading from a little P&S the fixed 50mm is going piss you off to no end because it simply isn't wide enough for a lot of indoor stuff. It's fast, it's sharp as a tack, it's cheap, it's light, but it isn't friendly to a new user of a DSLR.

I like the kit lens simply for the fact that it's light and wide. And it's still a decent upgrade over most point and shoots.

I agree.

But instead of the kit lens I'd get the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm.

One lens is like $50 while the other is seven times that. For a beginner, especially one on a budget, that is a huge difference.

 

[torpid]

The kit lens is not versatile enough.

I generally keep the 50mm lens on. It works really well if you are doing indoor portraits with no flash or outdoor looking a few dozen feet away.

The kit lens is mostly used when I am expecting a lot of different shots with no ability to take time to frame them, or when I need to get a wide shot of something that I can't back up from, such as taking shots of furniture layouts or the like.

I can't say I understand the comment that the 50mm is useless indoors or for group photos. I use it for that all the time. It's not good for CRAMPED indoor situations, but it is extremely useful for indoor portraits if you are like me and don't like having to use a flash. For $80 you get great indoor shots... you can't get a great hotshoe flash for that price.

If I were in your shoes I would very seriously consider the tamron lens being recommended. The 50mm lens plus kit lens will be ok if you don't mind switching lenses, but I wish I had the tamrom since it would cover almost every scenario when I'd use the kit lens or 50mm lens.

 

[foghorn67]

Canon 35 f2. Gives you a normal lens perspective. It's better built than the 50 1.8, focuses closer and it is a gem of sharpness.
The 50 1.8 is sharp, but that focal length is just plain awkward on a APS-C sensor.

 

[idiotekniQues]

i have the 50 f1.8 and for general usage my 17-85 is far more versatile. for indoor shooting you would be better off with the range rather than the 70mm equivalent FOV the 50 gives you.

for a noobie, getting some range like the kit lens gives is a better starting point.

while i love my little 50, it absolutely stinks at low light AF.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I just can't agree with the 50mm suggestions. It simply does not work for most casual shooters.

If you are upgrading from a little P&S the fixed 50mm is going piss you off to no end because it simply isn't wide enough for a lot of indoor stuff. It's fast, it's sharp as a tack, it's cheap, it's light, but it isn't friendly to a new user of a DSLR.

I like the kit lens simply for the fact that it's light and wide. And it's still a decent upgrade over most point and shoots.

I agree.

But instead of the kit lens I'd get the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm.

One lens is like $50 while the other is seven times that. For a beginner, especially one on a budget, that is a huge difference.

Too many people get into DSLR photography and focus on the camera. You have to be willing to spend some money lenses, and $350 is pretty reasonable. My wife and I have a 50mm f/1.4, and we have the Tamron, and we have two pretty expensive Canon L lenses that fill the range above and below the Tamron, and the Tamron gets the most use by far. I think it'd do a lot more for him than just a 50mm prime. The Tamron that fuzzy and czar and GTAudiophile suggested would be another great option.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Mrvile
One lens is like $50 while the other is seven times that. For a beginner, especially one on a budget, that is a huge difference.

Too many people get into DSLR photography and focus on the camera. You have to be willing to spend some money lenses, and $350 is pretty reasonable. My wife and I have a 50mm f/1.4, and we have the Tamron, and we have two pretty expensive Canon L lenses that fill the range above and below the Tamron, and the Tamron gets the most use by far. I think it'd do a lot more for him than just a 50mm prime. The Tamron that fuzzy and czar and GTAudiophile suggested would be another great option.

I agree, I learned that the hard way.

But to be realistic, beginners who make the dive just aren't going to be prepared to make the full investment on glass before they actually learn how to use the camera. And instead of purchasing an array of crap lenses, the kit lens and the 50/1.8 are very reasonable lenses to learn the system with. Once a beginner has learned everything they need to know about shutter speed, aperture, whatever, should they be ready to purchase some real glass.

Also, having the kit lens and 50 are great ways to "scope" out what future purchases are going to be. Shooters who find the kit lens too short may upgrade to the 28-75. Those who don't find the kit lens wide enough may opt for the 16-35 or even the 10-22. Same thing when it comes to primes - I personally find the 50 a bit too short at times, so my logical next step would be the 85/1.8, as opposed to, for example, the 35L.

There's a lot more to lenses than just the quality of the glass.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: LordSegan

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Nikon and Canon sell their fast 50s (50mm F/1.8) for ~$100.

That'd be the first lens I would buy with any SLR, digital or film.

Yes, but a 50mm can be almost useless indoors (group photos) or for architecture shots. For $100 the kit lens gives you some flexibility.

I use mine indoors all the time to take pics of my wife and son. Large groups photos though you couldn't get far enough away to fit everyone in...depending on room size of course.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Mrvile
One lens is like $50 while the other is seven times that. For a beginner, especially one on a budget, that is a huge difference.

Too many people get into DSLR photography and focus on the camera. You have to be willing to spend some money lenses, and $350 is pretty reasonable. My wife and I have a 50mm f/1.4, and we have the Tamron, and we have two pretty expensive Canon L lenses that fill the range above and below the Tamron, and the Tamron gets the most use by far. I think it'd do a lot more for him than just a 50mm prime. The Tamron that fuzzy and czar and GTAudiophile suggested would be another great option.

I agree, I learned that the hard way.

But to be realistic, beginners who make the dive just aren't going to be prepared to make the full investment on glass before they actually learn how to use the camera. And instead of purchasing an array of crap lenses, the kit lens and the 50/1.8 are very reasonable lenses to learn the system with. Once a beginner has learned everything they need to know about shutter speed, aperture, whatever, should they be ready to purchase some real glass.

Also, having the kit lens and 50 are great ways to "scope" out what future purchases are going to be. Shooters who find the kit lens too short may upgrade to the 28-75. Those who don't find the kit lens wide enough may opt for the 16-35 or even the 10-22. Same thing when it comes to primes - I personally find the 50 a bit too short at times, so my logical next step would be the 85/1.8, as opposed to, for example, the 35L.

There's a lot more to lenses than just the quality of the glass.

well that is true and all but nobody here is telling the OP to ignore lens quality & just get el cheapo stuff.

the fact is he has 200 bucks to get a lens if he doesnt get the kit. so the best thign to do at first is use the kit, learn the camera, know that your shots are being limited somewhat by the glass you have, save some money - and then get your first better lens armed with knowledge and more money.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

well that is true and all but nobody here is telling the OP to ignore lens quality & just get el cheapo stuff.

the fact is he has 200 bucks to get a lens if he doesnt get the kit. so the best thign to do at first is use the kit, learn the camera, know that your shots are being limited somewhat by the glass you have, save some money - and then get your first better lens armed with knowledge and more money.

as he's been shooting with an old russian i'd imagine there isn't much learning he'll need to do. in fact, he might be disappointed by the craptacular kit lens compared to the primes he's most likely been using

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Mrvile
One lens is like $50 while the other is seven times that. For a beginner, especially one on a budget, that is a huge difference.

Too many people get into DSLR photography and focus on the camera. You have to be willing to spend some money lenses, and $350 is pretty reasonable. My wife and I have a 50mm f/1.4, and we have the Tamron, and we have two pretty expensive Canon L lenses that fill the range above and below the Tamron, and the Tamron gets the most use by far. I think it'd do a lot more for him than just a 50mm prime. The Tamron that fuzzy and czar and GTAudiophile suggested would be another great option.

I agree, I learned that the hard way.

But to be realistic, beginners who make the dive just aren't going to be prepared to make the full investment on glass before they actually learn how to use the camera. And instead of purchasing an array of crap lenses, the kit lens and the 50/1.8 are very reasonable lenses to learn the system with. Once a beginner has learned everything they need to know about shutter speed, aperture, whatever, should they be ready to purchase some real glass.

Also, having the kit lens and 50 are great ways to "scope" out what future purchases are going to be. Shooters who find the kit lens too short may upgrade to the 28-75. Those who don't find the kit lens wide enough may opt for the 16-35 or even the 10-22. Same thing when it comes to primes - I personally find the 50 a bit too short at times, so my logical next step would be the 85/1.8, as opposed to, for example, the 35L.

There's a lot more to lenses than just the quality of the glass.

Alright, the kit lens + a 50mm wouldn't be so bad for a beginner - I thought people were recommending the 50mm instead of the kit lens.

 

[mrrman]

I have the standard lens when I bought the XTi and now its on the shelf...upgraded right away and going to sell that lens. I PM'd staples on the camera and got a great deal so I cant complain.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: mrrman
I have the standard lens when I bought the XTi and now its on the shelf...upgraded right away and going to sell that lens. I PM'd staples on the camera and got a great deal so I cant complain.

Good luck trying to sell it.

I just gave mine away

 

[mrrman]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: mrrman
I have the standard lens when I bought the XTi and now its on the shelf...upgraded right away and going to sell that lens. I PM'd staples on the camera and got a great deal so I cant complain.

Good luck trying to sell it.

I just gave mine away

$40 on CL...I dont care if I sell it or not lol

 

[TheChort]

thanks for all the comments so far ... it's been really helpful
based on the replies this threads been getting, I'm gonna up my budget and get something better.
for me
for my pocket

The question now is what would be a good general use lens?

I'm looking into the Tamron 17-50mm (thanks fuzzy )

any comments on these?
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Tamron SP Autofocus 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6
Wish I had that kind of money

 

[Kelvrick]

I think the Canon EF28-135IS is an awesome walk around lens at an awesome pricepoint. Don't forget to pick up the standard 50mm 1.8 prime for like 50 bucks too.

If you want wide angle and not spend too much, grab the tokina 12-24 or sigma 10-20.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: TheChort
The question now is what would be a good general use lens?

I'm looking into the Tamron 17-50mm (thanks fuzzy )

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a great lens, but personally I'm fonder of its larger brother, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. This lens is supposedly optically identical to my Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 and my Minolta is a lens I really love. For my style the 28-75 is nicer since I don't need the wider coverage, but both of these Tamrons are well-respected.

Enjoy your camera, have fun with it.

ZV

 

[TheChort]

Originally posted by: TheChort
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Tamron SP Autofocus 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6

I did some more research yesterday and ...
correct if I'm wrong (or incomplete) here, but one of the main reasons people haven't recommended these lenses is because of the aperture change when you zoom in.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: TheChort

Originally posted by: TheChort
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Tamron SP Autofocus 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6

I did some more research yesterday and ...
correct if I'm wrong (or incomplete) here, but one of the main reasons people haven't recommended these lenses is because of the aperture change when you zoom in.

Effectively.

In general, a zoom with a constant aperture is also a higher-end lens, which means that it's built for and marketed towards more demanding users, so these lenses typically are sharper (note that I said typically) and are also typically more resistant to flare and distortion than other zooms. It's also nice to have a lens that is fast at all focal lengths, it really stinks to lose one or two stops of speed just because you zoomed in.

ZV

 

[vi edit]

Besides cost, a disadvantage of many low aperture(fast) zoom lenses is that they are pretty heavy & or large compared to their slower siblings.

They will be 2x-3x heavier on average. Doesn't sound like much, but an SLR with a 70-200 F2.8 hanging around your neck is a lot of freaking weight. That's a 3 pound hunk of glass.

It sounds trivial, but if you aren't used to working with that much equipment, you'll find it cumbersome and a little annoying to lug around. If you hate having to haul it around or using it, it's just an expensive paper weight.

 

[TheChort]

hey, why didn't anyone say that the Tamron doesn't have image stabilization?

I think this might rule it out as my main lens, since I'm a pretty big fan of scenery/landscape shooting

 

[mrrman]

Ive got the Canon 28-135 mm and 75-300mm lenses by Canon both with the IS and they work great....you get what you pay for