Opinions on lens

[syee]

I'm moving up from the P&S world and into the dSLR world.

My first acquisition - a Canon Xsi.

It's a body only so I'm looking for a lens. I guess there's a few choices I need to make:

1. Go for the kit 18-55 for now (supposedly decent for the money but far from great) Cost - $100-$150
2. Find a good used 17-85 IS (which is supposedly the 40D kit lens) for a little bit more. (I've seen some used ones for $300)
3. Something else? Suggestions?

I was also thinking about getting the 50mm f/1.8 prime as well for low light photography (since it seems to be the biggest downfall of my P&S), but that's another discussion in itself. I'm just looking for a decent multi purpose lens that's suitable for 90% of the occasions.

What do you guys think of those two lens or are there any other decent and affordable suggestions for lens? I've read reviews on each of them, but I've never seen them compared side by side. I don't mind spending a few hundred more for a marked improvement in image quality - but I don't want to spend it if the improvement is just marginal at best.

Opinions?

 

[996GT2]

If you are just learning, get the 18-55mm IS. It's better than the previous 18-55mm non-IS and won't make a huge dent in your wallet. With some of the money you have left over, get the 50mm f/1.8 II. You can find it brand new for $80 on Amazon, and it's a ridiculously sharp lens especially when stopped down past f/2.8. The image quality even puts $1000+ professional grade zooms to shame.

I use the Nikkor f/1.8 with my D200, and it too is awesomely sharp. At f/2.8, the Nikkor is about as sharp as my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 stopped down to f/8 (and I have a particularly sharp copy of the Sigma, too).

Once you get the hang of things and know what subtle camera adjustments to, you can move up to a midrange fast zoom like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. Those lenses will run $300-400 each, are better for low-light, and produce better bokeh and shallower depth of field due to the faster aperture. IS isn't that necessary on fast lenses since the faster aperture means you can use faster shutter speeds.

If you do a lot of telephoto shooting (e.g. sports from a distance), then you should also consider getting a telephoto lens for your XSI. A good starter option is the 55-200mm IS, and it's not too expensive either.

 

[jpeyton]

Depends on your budget, but you're safe with any of the following three lenses:

1) Canon 18-55mm IS
2) Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
3) Canon 50mm f/1.8

 

[randomlinh]

I would say get the 18-55 IS or Tamron 17-50/2.8. The former to keep costs down in playing around, the latter is sharp, great for lower light, just a little buzzy and not the fastest AF.

The 50/1.8 is good to have too because it's dirt cheap, but depending on how low light, it might have some trouble anyway in focusing.

Another thing to consider is zoom. Is that of any priority? If so, a 18-55IS + 50-250IS kit wouldn't be so bad to start off to get a feel. And you can easily find these for sale in the used market to absorb depreciation.

 

[syee]

Thanks for the tips all. I guess when I mean low light, I'm talking about a dimly lit room or say, your standard restaurant where they don't have blinding lights.

Thanks everyone for the suggestion of the Tamron. I'm reading reviews on it and so far, most people say it's a great lens for the money. I'm actually considering this lens now. I'm also hunting down some used kit lens as well to see if I can get one on the cheap. I guess my only concern is the image quality of this lens. I don't want to keep purchasing lens (as I'll end up losing money each time). I'd rather just get one decent lens and use that throughout.

I guess zoom is secondary. I haven't really played around with the long end as I've been mostly using P&S. It's something I do want to try out as there's definitely scenarios where a longer zoom would have enabled me to take a better picture. I think I'll just get the kit lens for the zoom as usually there's plenty of light in those scenarios. (usually outdoor events)

 

[randomlinh]

I found in that lighting my 50/1.8 hunts some. And even wide open, that's fairly dim. You'd definitely want to have the tamron (or any 17/18-50 2.8 equivalent).