lens help

[sage10]

I am getting a Rebel XSi this week (I hope) what lens can you not live without? The camera is coming with one lens, but I having someone else pick it up for me, so I won't be there. And the clerk selling the camera said that I should upgrade the lens, but I am not sure what I should upgrade it to. I am new to the dSLRs. I have a canon point and shoot (powershot a570) and a nikon 8700 coolpix. I really DISLIKE my nikon so I chose the canon rebel. Anyway, thanks for your advice. I can't wait to get this camera.

BTW: just so I am right (which I think I am) this camera doesn't have a problem with shutterlag right?

Thanks again for any advice I can get. I am getting a fantastic price on this camera and can't really pass it up.

[annnewjerz]

I also just purchased my first dSLR (a Nikon) and against my own advice, immediately rushed out and purchased an upgraded lens, which I LOVE and am so happy I got.

That being said, a lot of people will give you the advice not to rush out to upgrade your lens. Learn techniques, take lots of test photos and get a feel for photograpy with a dSLR with the standard kit lens that comes in your package. Once you find yourself starting to say "I wish I _____ (had a wider shot, had a better zoom, had a faster lens, etc.)"...then you should go out and upgrade to fit your needs.

Like I said, this is really great advice, but advice I didn't follow and don't regret one bit, I'm really happy with my lens. :goodvibes

[boBQuincy]

The kit lens is what it is, an inexpensive lens Canon provides with the camera for a low cost to get new owners started. It is not all that bad though and a Canon forum has a lot of posts taken with the kit lens to show how good it can be. We got ours for about $30 and it is a great bargain at that price!

Still, it is not a fast aperture, not fast focusing, and not a wide zoom range, most photographers will want more in time. Canon's 55-250 was designed to complement the kit lens for those wanting a longer lens. Wider zoom lenses get expensive but Canon's 10-22 is a really nice lens.

[Wingman]

I would not purchase any lens until you get a feel for what you want and what the kit lens can provide you. The kit lens with the XTI is actually a very good lens to start off with.

[Cdash]

I am about 2 months ahead of you. I got a Rebel XSi from Costco and it came with a 18-55 IS lens and a 70-300 non-IS lens. This makes for a good starter kit. The 18-55 (assuming that is what you got) is a decent lens. It'll take better pictures than your used to seeing out of a point and shoot from my experience. If I only had the 18-55 lens, I'd be wanting more zoom, but having the zoom, I now know that it can be a hard lens to use. Limited aperature, which affects performance in lower lighting conditions.

But I also find myself wanting a lens in the range of 28-250, good versatility for taking pictures, wide and zoom, without changing lenses back and forth all the time.

It all depends on what you do. Something that someone pointed out, that makes a lot of sense, at 12 megapixels, you can crop the heck out of a picture to get what you want out of it, so the zoom capability may not mean all that much.

Me, I am wanting a lens that will perform good in low light, which with what I have read, points to what they call the "nifty fifty". A 50mm f/1.8 lens that can be bought for under $100.

I agree with the others. Use what you have to figure out what you need. You'll get good enough pictures out of it to start!

Here is a good reference site: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

[boBQuincy]

Btw, a number of people on this board use Wega 2 software to show what focal length, aperture, and ISO they use the most. This can help to show what we really use and what we really need in a lens.
Then we go out and buy what we wanted to anyway... ;)

http://www.photo-freeware.net/wega2.php

There was a recent thread that included some Wega charts but it figures I can't find it now.

[jann1033]

i love my canon 70-200 f4 because it is so sharp, (probably would like it 2.8 better but that's twice the cost and i think weighs more...)but like everyone said i'd see how you like to shoot first if this is your first dslr. if i don't use that one i use my canon 28-135 IS but use those two almost exclusively ( so why i carry at least 3 others as well, who knows.) i am probably going to be exchanging the 28 for a lower light one in the same general range as soon as i can

[Groucho]

Btw, a number of people on this board use Wega 2 software to show what focal length, aperture, and ISO they use the most. This can help to show what we really use and what we really need in a lens.
Then we go out and buy what we wanted to anyway... ;)

http://www.photo-freeware.net/wega2.php

There was a recent thread that included some Wega charts but it figures I can't find it now.
You're probably thinking of this thread (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1971819)... if so, I think everyone there used Exposure Plot (there's a link in that thread) which produces those graphs.

(edit: Apparently Wega2 including Explosure Plot, but you don't need Wega to get EP.)

As for that kit lens... it's not possible to get a decent photo out but you'd probably have to look hard to find a worse lens being sold today. C/N are fairly well known for using a very cheap 18-55mm kit lens, which can do OK when stopped down but not so good wide open and with very poor build quality, rotating front element, no dedicated focus ring, and no lens hood. Still, if it's what you have, I'd definitely say use it for a while and see what you wish you could do better with. A higher-quality lens can be a bit of an investment and you'll want to make sure that you're buying one that will actually fit your own particular wants.

[Wingman]

You're probably thinking of
As for that kit lens... it's not possible to get a decent photo out but you'd probably have to look hard to find a worse lens being sold today.

Are you really saying that "it's not possible to get a decent photo" with the XSI kit lens? I strongly disagree with that statement, I think with the old kit lens that may have been more accurate, but with the new one the images come out very good for a kit lens. I will agree that the build is not all that strong and the front element rotates, but for the money it is a very strong lens and certainally a great lens for someone new to DSLRs.

[ukcatfan]

Are you really saying that "it's not possible to get a decent photo" with the XSI kit lens? I strongly disagree with that statement, I think with the old kit lens that may have been more accurate, but with the new one the images come out very good for a kit lens. I will agree that the build is not all that strong and the front element rotates, but for the money it is a very strong lens and certainally a great lens for someone new to DSLRs.

I think he means not impossible. They did improve the optics, but the build quality is really an Achilles heel. It is all too clear that they build it that way to encourage a $400+ upgrade.

[Wingman]

I think he means not impossible. They did improve the optics, but the build quality is really an Achilles heel. It is all too clear that they build it that way to encourage a $400+ upgrade.

Maybe it is built that way to provide an inexpensive lens with Image Stablization that produces very good pictures for a new user?

[Groucho]

I did mistype. I did mean "it's not impossible." I stand by the rest of it - you'll have a hard time finding an overall worse lens to buy new. Of course you can get a decent photo out of it, if you're in good light and it's stopped down to F8 or wherever. That doesn't count as a particularly good lens in my book. It's basically built as cheaply as they possibly can build it.

[Wingman]

I did mistype. I did mean "it's not impossible." I stand by the rest of it - you'll have a hard time finding an overall worse lens to buy new. Of course you can get a decent photo out of it, if you're in good light and it's stopped down to F8 or wherever. That doesn't count as a particularly good lens in my book. It's basically built as cheaply as they possibly can build it.

I guess that is where we disagree. I think the image quality and the image stablization is a very good value for the price of the lens, especially when purchased as a kit with the XSI. It appears that you are referencing the old non-IS kit lens, which I will agree with all your statements.

[Groucho]

I guess that is where we disagree. I think the image quality and the image stablization is a very good value for the price of the lens, especially when purchased as a kit with the XSI. It appears that you are referencing the old non-IS kit lens, which I will agree with all your statements.
I've read two reviews of the newer IS lens and one said that it was a sizable improvement IQ-wise and the other said that it was about the same. :confused3 Regardless, build quality is still bottom-barrel (or worse!) and again, I think you would have a hard time finding an overall worse lens, in any mount, still being produced.

[Wingman]

I've read two reviews of the newer IS lens and one said that it was a sizable improvement IQ-wise and the other said that it was about the same. :confused3 Regardless, build quality is still bottom-barrel (or worse!) and again, I think you would have a hard time finding an overall worse lens, in any mount, still being produced.

Have you shot the lens or are your comments strictly based on someone else's opinion? I hope you have and are not just bashing it without having personally used it.

I am not saying it is a great lens; all I am saying is that for someone starting out, who chooses to go with Canon, it is a very good value with good image quality. Which is why I recommended to the original poster to keep the kit lens until they determine what they want to shoot and what lens they may need, as you also did. However I did not send them off with a bad taste in the mouth about a lens that they have not even taken possession of.

[Groucho]

Have you shot the lens or are your comments strictly based on someone else's opinion? I hope you have and are not just bashing it without having personally used it.

I am not saying it is a great lens; all I am saying is that for someone starting out, who chooses to go with Canon, it is a very good value with good image quality. Which is why I recommended to the original poster to keep the kit lens until they determine what they want to shoot and what lens they may need, as you also did. However I did not send them off with a bad taste in the mouth about a lens that they have not even taken possession of.
1) I have played with the lens a little and seen many photos taken with it. Again, come up with a worse lens sold new today (even a worse kit lens from anyone else! Not that the N/S ones are much better.) Maybe there's one or two bottom-barrel third-party lenses, but you'd have to dig around.

2) If you read my first response, I also said to keep the kit lens. "Still, if it's what you have, I'd definitely say use it for a while..." The good news is that just about anything else will be an upgrade. :)

[Wingman]

I've read two reviews of the newer IS lens and one said that it was a sizable improvement IQ-wise and the other said that it was about the same. :confused3 Regardless, build quality is still bottom-barrel (or worse!) and again, I think you would have a hard time finding an overall worse lens, in any mount, still being produced.

1) I have played with the lens a little and seen many photos taken with it. Again, come up with a worse lens sold new today (even a worse kit lens from anyone else! Not that the N/S ones are much better.) Maybe there's one or two bottom-barrel third-party lenses, but you'd have to dig around.

2) If you read my first response, I also said to keep the kit lens. "Still, if it's what you have, I'd definitely say use it for a while..." The good news is that just about anything else will be an upgrade. :)


I did read your first response and also stated in my last response that you did recommend that they keep the kit, we agree there.

I don't personally have any experience with any other kit lens other than Canon, so outside of using someone else's experience to find as you stated a “worse lens”, I can't do it. I have read many poor reviews on the Sony kit lens when I was researching which brand I wanted to buy, but never personally used it.

I have seen bitterness towards Canon in several of your posts, so I don't think that I can convince you that the lens is not as bad as you stated. If you want to compare it to what I have read of the Pentax lens, then there appears to be no comparison. Regardless of your opinion there are many many many users that disagree with you and you can count me in as one of them. :thumbsup2

[ukcatfan]

Maybe it is built that way to provide an inexpensive lens with Image Stablization that produces very good pictures for a new user?

Well, then how do you explain that Pentax and Oly can make a kit with so much higher of a build quality for the same low price? :confused3 They do not have anywhere near the same resources as Canon and Nikon. It has IS b/c they were forced to bow to the pressure that in body IS is putting on their sales. They did not want to offer it out of the kindness of their hearts.

[Wingman]

It has IS b/c they were forced to bow to the pressure that in body IS is putting on their sales. They did not want to offer it out of the kindness of their hearts.

Whatever the reason they did, I am just happy that they did it.

[greens_in_WA]

Like the OP, I'm facing a lens delema, but mine's a little different.

Do I buy the Xsi with the 18-55mm and get the 55-250mm?
Pro: Better range for wide angle and telephoto Con: carrying around another lens

Or

Do I buy just the body and get the 28-135mm?
Pro: only having one lens. Con: not as much wide angle or telephoto range.

The three lenses all have the IS built in and the packages have a similar price in the long run ($75 difference). I really like the idea of only carrying one lens, but is it worth it and is it a better lens than the other two?

[RadioNate]

and to piggyback further on this thread - has anyone tried the new 18-200 IS?? I have the 28-135 and really don't like it. I need a wider shot but I love having a zoom capability w/out changing lenses.

[Master Mason]

Like the OP, I'm facing a lens delema, but mine's a little different.

Do I buy the Xsi with the 18-55mm and get the 55-250mm?
Pro: Better range for wide angle and telephoto Con: carrying around another lens

Or

Do I buy just the body and get the 28-135mm?
Pro: only having one lens. Con: not as much wide angle or telephoto range.

The three lenses all have the IS built in and the packages have a similar price in the long run ($75 difference). I really like the idea of only carrying one lens, but is it worth it and is it a better lens than the other two?

and to piggyback further on this thread - has anyone tried the new 18-200 IS?? I have the 28-135 and really don't like it. I need a wider shot but I love having a zoom capability w/out changing lenses.

I have to ask you both the same question.

What are you shooting and what conditions are you shooting under. Without that information, no one can recommend anything to you.

As for the 18-200 with superzooms such as this, you will always have degredation at both ends of the spectrum, only you can decide if that is worth it to you for the convienience.

[greens_in_WA]

and to piggyback further on this thread - has anyone tried the new 18-200 IS?? I have the 28-135 and really don't like it. I need a wider shot but I love having a zoom capability w/out changing lenses.

ugh! Did you have to tell me about the 18-200mm? Now I'm further torn :rotfl:

plus it's currently $700:headache:

[RadioNate]

I have to ask you both the same question.

What are you shooting and what conditions are you shooting under. Without that information, no one can recommend anything to you.

As for the 18-200 with superzooms such as this, you will always have degredation at both ends of the spectrum, only you can decide if that is worth it to you for the convienience.

well I am a super casual user. I generally take pics of my kids, family and friends. I have no aspirations to be a pro. There are many days I like my old S2IS better than the dSLR and frequently use my crummy pocket P&S.

The only reason I went dSLR was for the faster shutter speeds. Even my S2IS couldn't keep up with my kids ... especially during sports.

I like the all in one of the 28-135 but it doesn't do well in low light and I find myself wanting a wider angle a lot around the house. I have a 70-200 I use for soccer games.

I don't think L glass will be in the budget.

[greens_in_WA]

I have to ask you both the same question.

What are you shooting and what conditions are you shooting under. Without that information, no one can recommend anything to you.

As for the 18-200 with superzooms such as this, you will always have degredation at both ends of the spectrum, only you can decide if that is worth it to you for the convienience.

Good point about the degridation, that and the price might tip me over the edge for going the 2 lens route.

Currently, it would be for vacation shots (89 days to WDW, but who's counting) and shots of the kids (dd7 & ds3). Going to be doing roadtrips to Grand Canyon and Yellowstone in the upcoming summers. I love taking landscape shots and other "artsy fartsy" type shots, but don't always get the time to do it.

My current SLR is a Minolta X700 with a 35-70mm and 70-210mm lenses, so I'm used to going with 2 lenses when I take it. I have a great camera bag, a Lowepro waist pack, that I use so carrying the extra lens is not a big deal, but trying to keep the number of items being carried is always a good thing.

[giantstu]

When travelling to Disney i take my EOS400 (XTI) and 18-200IS and my 50mm f1.8.
It is all i have needed, the EOS 1Dmk3 stays at home and i can't justify carrying my L series lenses( feel the weight of the 100-400)

I have never needed anymore and its too much to carry from the UK.

[Master Mason]

well I am a super casual user. I generally take pics of my kids, family and friends. I have no aspirations to be a pro. There are many days I like my old S2IS better than the dSLR and frequently use my crummy pocket P&S.

The only reason I went dSLR was for the faster shutter speeds. Even my S2IS couldn't keep up with my kids ... especially during sports.

I like the all in one of the 28-135 but it doesn't do well in low light and I find myself wanting a wider angle a lot around the house. I have a 70-200 I use for soccer games.

I don't think L glass will be in the budget.

If you shooting on bright sunny days all of the lenses being discussed will perform fine 18-55 IS 55-200 IS 28-135 IS and the 18-200 IS. The super zoom will have some degridation at both ends as previously mentioned. However, as soon as you get into less than stellar lighting all of them will start to suffer for not having very big apeture.

The IS will help for stationary items, but moving targets such as kids and sports the IS will not help freeze the action.

If sports are a big thing for you, and L glass isn't in the budget, I would look at third party fast glass. The sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 as well as the Tammarad (sp) 28-75 f/2.8 all get good reviews.

[Master Mason]

When travelling to Disney i take my EOS400 (XTI) and 18-200IS and my 50mm f1.8.
It is all i have needed, the EOS 1Dmk3 stays at home and i can't justify carrying my L series lenses( feel the weight of the 100-400)

I have never needed anymore and its too much to carry from the UK.

I carry 2 L's all the time, they are almost the only 2 lenses I use. I figure I spent a small fortune for them so I could take good pictures, I want to then be able to use them to take said pictues.

[RadioNate]

If you shooting on bright sunny days all of the lenses being discussed will perform fine 18-55 IS 55-200 IS 28-135 IS and the 18-200 IS. The super zoom will have some degridation at both ends as previously mentioned. However, as soon as you get into less than stellar lighting all of them will start to suffer for not having very big apeture.

The IS will help for stationary items, but moving targets such as kids and sports the IS will not help freeze the action.

If sports are a big thing for you, and L glass isn't in the budget, I would look at third party fast glass. The sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 as well as the Tammarad (sp) 28-75 f/2.8 all get good reviews.

what about lower light or indoor shots. I do shoot quite a bit indoor. Birthday parties, holidays, etc.

I have the 28-135 is but really was wondering if people had used the 18-200 and if it preforms better, equal or worse.

[mabas9395]

If you do a lot of indoor shots, you may want to think about getting an external flash. Something like the 430ex will do a lot more to improve the quality of your shots more than the subtle differences between consumer grade lenses. Just my two cents.

[pjacobi]

The only reason I went dSLR was for the faster shutter speeds.

I've seen you make this comment twice, but am puzzled.

Even my P/S camera is capable of 1/1250 second exposure. My dSLR is a little faster at 1/8000 second. Even my old film SLR topped out at 1/1000 second which is fast enough to stop most sports action.

If you need a particular shutter speed, shoot in Tv mode. I can even do this on my P/S camera!

A dSLR does allows you to shoot with at higher ISO and/or wider apertures, enabling a correct exposure at a with a higher shutter speed. Is this what you mean?

Instead of more equipment, I suggest learning more and practicing with the equipment that you are ready have.

Did you hear about the chef who went out and bought all new pots and pans? He was disappointed when the soup didn't taste any better!


-Paul

[boBQuincy]

To help clear the bad name of Canon's kit lens I offer two images taken with this "horrible" lens:
http://www.suzieandbob.com/misc/stream_0047.jpg
http://www.suzieandbob.com/misc/cando_0139.jpg

The reflection image is actually quite sharp and at 100% I can see the ripples in the water. The aqueduct image has a lens flare in it but to be fair I was shooting with the sun just out of the frame and used a really cheap polarizer (the only one I had in that size). I also used a lens hood but it is so short I doubt it helps much.

Imho the lens is not bad although when we come back to skill vs equipment there is no way the kit lens will ever be as sharp as the L's I usually carry.

[Groucho]

To help clear the bad name of Canon's kit lens I offer two images taken with this "horrible" lens:
Hmm... nobody's called it horrible in this thread. And nobody's questioned that it can do well in bright light.

[boBQuincy]

Canon's kit lens has been called a lot of things, but none of them good. ;)
The first (non-IS) version was pretty bad actually, even though it could do ok at medium apertures. The new one still feels really cheap but as I say: anyone can spend money and make something good, but a real feeling of cheapness, well that's something money just can't buy. ;)

[RadioNate]

I've seen you make this comment twice, but am puzzled.

Even my P/S camera is capable of 1/1250 second exposure. My dSLR is a little faster at 1/8000 second. Even my old film SLR topped out at 1/1000 second which is fast enough to stop most sports action.

If you need a particular shutter speed, shoot in Tv mode. I can even do this on my P/S camera!

A dSLR does allows you to shoot with at higher ISO and/or wider apertures, enabling a correct exposure at a with a higher shutter speed. Is this what you mean?

Instead of more equipment, I suggest learning more and practicing with the equipment that you are ready have.

Did you hear about the chef who went out and bought all new pots and pans? He was disappointed when the soup didn't taste any better!


-Paul

this is where my eyes glass over and roll back into my head.

Here is what I know.

When using my S2IS to shoot my DS's soccer games I frequently got very blurry photos. When I reached out to this board and others I was told that was because my shutter speeds were too low.

I was advised to buy a dSLR, I did. Photos are fine.

So take that for what it is worth.

I do understand the basic rules of photography. But I have a crappy eye. I'm not an artist, I just want photos of my friends and family that are the right color and in focus.

All I really wanted to know was if the newer 18-200 IS was a better quality (better build, better glass, improved IS) lens than the old 28-135 IS and if anyone here had used it. I just wondered how it preformed at the ends because that is where lenses with big ranges have problems.

[Groucho]

When using my S2IS to shoot my DS's soccer games I frequently got very blurry photos. When I reached out to this board and others I was told that was because my shutter speeds were too low.

I was advised to buy a dSLR, I did. Photos are fine.

So take that for what it is worth.
Well, it's either the larger aperture or the higher ISO that is allowing you to use higher shutter speeds... it's not that the PnS isn't capable of reasonably high shutter speeds, it's that the poor ISO performance and small aperture force it to use slow speeds. Kind of a cause vs symptom kind of thing. Hence the confusion. :)

[DizzyV6P]

All I really wanted to know was if the newer 18-200 IS was a better quality (better build, better glass, improved IS) lens than the old 28-135 IS and if anyone here had used it. I just wondered how it preformed at the ends because that is where lenses with big ranges have problems.

This link will answer your questions on the 18-200 IS

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=578814&highlight=18-200

There's the Dpreview just released.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/