Body only or a bundle??

[Chickysmom]

Should I consider buying a Canon SLR body only or with the lens that comes in the standard bundle 18-55?

Should I save the expense of the lens (around 100.00) and apply it towards a different one....a more all-around starter range?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

body only and get Sigma 18-125 instead.

 

[PaulD]

If you are planning on getting a lens that duplicates the focal length range of the kit lens then there is no point in buying it. The Sigma 18-125 sells for about $280 and the Tamron 18-200 sells for $390. I use Tamron lenses (though not this one) and think they are far superior to the kit lens.

But, if you're budget conscious then go for the kit lens. It's hard to beat the value. It's not an outstanding performer but it's darn good for $100. Even though I now own much nicer glass I still pull this one out for the wide angle stuff.

 

[Chickysmom]

I am very new to the SLR world (still deciding if this is the way for me to go or not) so could someone clarify something for me?

I know the numbers listed on the lens reference the zoom range, I think, so should it be obvious to me that if the kit comes with a 18-55 I would not want another lens where the numbers are same or where they are included in that range?

The whole number thing is overwhelming right now and some lenses list a range that is included in another lens range....

 

[boBQuincy]

Lenses are a compromise of price, quality, range, size, weight, and a host of other factors.

Canon offers the 18-55 in their kit because it meets the needs of most Rebel buyers, for most of their photos, and it is inexpensive. The very common 28-80 was considered the 'standard' zoom for many film cameras and the 18-55 covers the same angle of view on the Rebel as the 28-80 lens did on a 35mm camera. Probably 90+% of oyur photos will be taken in this range.

Even if you have a 18-200 you might still want the 18-55 sometimes for it's smaller size and weight. It is also likely a lens with a greater zoom range will not have equal sharpness and other optical qualities as good as the one with a smaller zoom range.

One of the good things about a SLR is the ability to change lenses to suit the scene. Keep the 18-55 and get a longer lens like a 70-200.
My opinions of course...

boB

 

[handicap18]

If your new to the SLR world, then the numbers on the lenses can be a bit confusing. But you'll get it with time. There are basically 2 sets of numbers. 1 set refers to the focal length, ie: 18-55mm = zoom lens that goes from 18mm up to 55mm. There are also primary lenses meaning they only have 1 focal length, ie: 50mm. In the past zoom lenses were shunned upon by most photographers. They would use a number of primary lenses; typically, 35mm for wide, 50mm for "normal" distance, 85mm for portraits and 105mm or higher for telephoto. As time progressed, the glass on the zoom lenses got better and better. For most amature photographers zoom lenses are the way to go. Typically 2 lenses, 1 wide angle zoom (28-70mm) and 1 telephoto zoom (70-300mm). Along comes the digital SLR. It changes things a bit. The digital sensor is a different size than film. So now there comes into play a crop factor. Each maker is a bit different than the other. Example for Canon the crop factor is 1.6, Nikor is 1.5. This means you take the actual focal length and multiply it by the appropiate makers crop factor. This works out good in the telephoto side, but not so good on the wide angle side. This means that the 50mm lens you may have for your canon is actually seen by the digital sensor as 80mm. (50x1.6=80) So the newest new thing are more wider wide angle zoom lenses. 18-50mm or 18-55mm lenses are now standard 'kit' lenses for the now more affordable dSLR's. These lenses compare to what would have been a 28-70 or 28-80mm 'kit' lens on a film SLR. NOW,,, the newest of the newest new things are what we refer to on this board the "walk around lens". These are the 18-125mm or 18-200mm lenses. This allows the average amature photograher to have the need for only 1 lens. It has a very good wide angle and a very good telephoto reach so a lot less need for switching lenses.

The other numbers are the apertures or f-stops. These are basically the iris of the lens. It opens and closes to let light in (think of the shutter as the eye lid and the f-stops/aperture as the iris). The smaller the number the more light is let in. Also the smaller the number means the more expensive the lens is. If you see a lens that says 70-300mm f/4-6.3 that means the focal length is 70mm up to 300mm and the aperture range is f/4 at the widest at 70mm, but at 300mm the widest it goes is f/6.3. f/6.3 would be considered slow at that length. Which means that in low light situations it might be harder to us auto focus and you'll have to use a slower shutter speed to help let in more light or use a very powerful flash.

I hope this helps, I kind of went on and on and could stop myself. Any more questions just ask. Its all a learning experience. We all learned and are continuing to learn.

I just noticed that its just past 9 and I need to watch The Soprano's.

 

[Chickysmom]

Seems like the Nikon D50 that comes with two lens (18-55 and 55-200) would cover just about everything a beginner would want to shoot. (and at a darn good price!) Is this right? Also, what are the lenses you "pros" walk around on an everyday basis using, like on vacation, in Disney parks etc.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

kit lens tend to be lacking in either optical and/or built quality.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

oh, answering your question, yes, the 2 lenses will cover everything. Don't forget, however, that you'll need to change lens. Something that I refuse to do in an open area. I don't want my sensor filled with dust.

 

[Chickysmom]

so (1) 18-200 lens is the better option...is there a big difference in the Sigma, Canon and Tamron lenses? Prices seem close with the Canon coming in highest. Is that due to it being a better quality or just the name?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Sigma, in Canada, is the cheapest but the noisiest. For Canon, I love its colours (yeah I know, optics supposed to be the same, but they have their own colour characteristics) and they don't have 18-200, not even 18-125. The closest thing to it is 17-85 IS but for clarity and sharpness, Sigma wins hands down (I used to have both, sold my 17-85 IS a week later). I never use Tamron.

You've seen my pics, mostly were taken using the 18-125 (I don't like the 18-200 because of f/6.3 from the 125-200 range, which is practically unuseable for my style of photography, and also for its higher pincushion and barrell distortion -- this is just plain law of optics, the longer the zoom range, the more pincushion and barrel distortion it's going to have (usually at both extreme ends, usually negligible in the middle area around 24 to 100)

 

[boBQuincy]

I generally carry a Canon 24-105 and Canon 70-200. Both are f4 at all focal lengths and are sharp wide open.
Before the 24-105 I used a Canon 24-85 which is very sharp but build quality is not as good.
I change lenses as required (sometimes often) and yes, I do occasionally get a few specks of dust on the sensor but it is rarely a problem.
That is the tradeoff between this and a "one lens fits all" approach. Each method has it's pros and cons, whichever works best for you is the right one!

Btw, most monitors are 1 to 1.3 MP and will not show much in the way of sharpness on a downsized image. It is only when you look at the full size image at 100% that you really see the difference between a good and not so good lens.

I sometimes carry a Canon 55-200, not know for it's great optical quality, but the images look fine when sized for the web. The lack of sharpness, CA, etc. is obvious on a 13x19" print!
Which is why I carry what I do.


boB

 

[handicap18]

The Nikon 18-200 is a better lens than the sigma and tamron. Popular Photography magazine says about this lens "Optically, this lens is the best superzoom we've seen..." They also say "...costs about $300 more than third-party digital-only glass. But are extremely rugged construction, unusually well-controlled distortion, and four extra handholdable speeds worth the extra bucks? That, and more."

If I could afford it I would get it myself. For now I'll do with my Nikon 18-70 and Quantaray 70-300. I'll also be bringing these 2 lenses to Disney with me in a few months. Switching lenses has never been a problem for me. I've always had 2 lenses with my SLR's.

On the Nikon boards, many of the D50 users have the 2 kit lenses and are very happy with them. For your average every day citizen who likes to take pictures they will do perfectly fine.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Btw, most monitors are 1 to 1.3 MP and will not show much in the way of sharpness on a downsized image. It is only when you look at the full size image at 100% that you really see the difference between a good and not so good lens.


boB

True, but it's a true representation of the sizes people will print, which either 4x6 or 5x7 (8x10 max).

 

[blackjackdelta]

I picked up the 30D body, Sigma 17-70 macro, Sigma 70-300 APO DG and a Canon 580EX, this should get me started.

Jack