Canon lens question

[virginiamama]

Okay, I think I have settled on the Rebel XTi. (I did pick up the book Understanding Exposure - but haven't made it through many of the pages besides just looking at the pictures. - Trying to do my homework first before making the big purchase.) The lens that comes in the kit I was considering is a 18-55mm lens. I have heard that in lowlight situations the XTi (and/or its lens) doesn't perform so well. I have read online about a 50mm 1.8 lens and that it was good for indoor and/or lowlight situations and really good for the price. I am ASSuming that since there is a specific mm that it is a "fixed zoom"??? Is that correct? What would be a good use for that lens? Could anyone else make any other lens suggestions? I'm trying to decide if I should get the kit or if I should buy body only and get lens(es) that suit my needs better. (In case it helps - I have two active DSs, take lots of vacation pics, beach pics, some landscape pics and some indoor pics.) TIA!!!

 

[Furgus]

Not a Canon user, but I do have the Nikon version of the 50mm f/1.8. It is what they call a prime lens, you want to zoom in or out, move you feet It is a great lens. Do you kids participate in sports? If so I would suggest a longer zoom lens, maybe like a 70-300. Congrats on your future purchase and welcome to Dslr land

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I am ASSuming that since there is a specific mm that it is a "fixed zoom"???

You are correct. The focal length (50mm) tells you what the field of view for the lens is. The longer the focal length, the narrower the field of view. Narrowing the field of view is the same thing as magnifying the image.

So the 18-55mm lens can go from being pretty wide to slightly magnified. With the 50mm, you need to either move towards or away from your subject to adjust its size in the image.

The downside to lenses where you can adjust the magnification (called zoom lenses) is that they let in less light at their maximum aperture setting. That means that they aren't as capable in low light situations. Non-zooming lenses (usually called prime lenses) can let in more light. They are usually better optically (sharper, better color, better contrast) as well.

In the old days, zooms were pretty bad and serious shooters used all primes. Those days are long gone and most people use zooms for most of their shooting. The 50mm prime lenses are simple to make well, so almost everyone buys a cheap one for really low light situations. Longer or shorter primes can also be useful, but they cost more.

People also stick with zooms because it's easier to carry one or two lenses that cover a lot of range rather than a large number of lenses with no zoom capability. In fact, the latest trend appears to be towards super-zooms. These cover a range like 18-135 or even 18-200. Like the zooms of old, there is a significant decrease in image quality, but a big gain in convenience. One defense I've heard from many super-zoom fans is that even the worst lens on your camera shoots better than the best lens in your bag. In situations where you don't have time to change lenses, having a super-zoom can get you shots that you would otherwise miss.

 

[ukcatfan]

I do not have a Canon, but your questions apply to all DSLRs. The fixed focal length lens is also known as a prime lens. Generally, primes have a better optical quality and a wider aperture which allows for better low light capabilities and more control of DOF. The zooms have to sacrifice some quality and aperture range to accomodate for the zooming. That said, there are some extremely nice zooms out there, but with quality comes price. Unfortunately, the Canon kit lens is not very highly respected. They do not want to offer you too much with it, or you would not want to buy other lenses from them. I do not know everything offered in the Canon line, but you might want to look for something with a little more reach than the 18-55mm or something with that range but higher quality and a longer focal length lens to go with it. You need to decide what range you want and then buy one lens that covers it or multiple lenses that cover it. Keep in mind that the more zoom a lens has, the more likely that it will suffer due to that. I have an 18-55mm and an 80-210mm for my camera. I leave a little gap, but I have yet to notice a time where I could not either back up or go forward a little to accomodate it. You would not want to leave too much of a gap though.

The 50mm prime you mention is probably the most common one across all brands. They are generally very sharp lenses. There are times when it is not wide enough, but it makes a nice walkaround lens as long as you are willing to make a lens switch when needed.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

I have heard that in lowlight situations the XTi (and/or its lens) doesn't perform so well.

It's really the lens, not the camera - the camera should perform as well as any other entry-level DSLR, that is to say excellently. (Lookit me defending a Canon! )

I have read online about a 50mm 1.8 lens and that it was good for indoor and/or lowlight situations and really good for the price. I am ASSuming that since there is a specific mm that it is a "fixed zoom"??? Is that correct?

Close... it's a "prime" lens. The use of the term "fixed zoom" is not really accurate as there's no zoom whatsoever. Prime lenses generally work better in low light (hence the lower F- number), they are also smaller, lighter, and have better image quality than zoom lenses. The only downsides are that they're not zooms.

I used my 50mm for almost half my WDW trips on my last visit, and use it a lot other times. It's probably not ideal for full-body shots of the kids indoors, but it's terrific for face shots, and for outdoor non-landscape photos.

 

[photo_chick]

I just got my 50mm f/1.8 lens last week for my Rebel XT. I love that thing. I have 2 kids (6 and 4) and with it I can get inside shots that I never would have been able to without a flash using my 18-55 lens. Don't get me wrong, the 18-55 lens is great and I think it or a similar lens is a good idea too, but I just so wish I had bought the 50mm lens sooner (like ten years ago for my Rebel G). So many birthdays and family gatherings could have much better pictures for scrapping if I had bought that lens sooner. That wider aperture really opens up some doors for low light shots, it is also great for portraits where you want a shallow depth of field. For what is costs I would tell anyone not to hesitate in getting it.

If it were me shopping, I would go for the kit and buy the 50mm lens also. It is only another $70 and then you would have both!

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon's 18-55 is not that bad, actually it's pretty good for the price. As a decent all-around lens I can't think of anything that is even close to that price range.
But it is not a good low-light lens, the 50mm f/1.8 admits at least 4 times as much light as the 18-55, even more when the zoom is not at it's widest.
If you could only get one I would go with the zoom, but the 50 is inexpensive and when it gets dark you will wish you had one!

 

[jann1033]

the 18-55 is ok although i haven't used it tons...when i got my rebel xt there were a lot on ebay used and i got a "like new" one for $60... the 50mm is fine ( i keep meaning to check my focus on it since i seem to focus odd with it but not with my 100mm)& i love my 70-200 f4 (and it's only about $550. ok maybe not really an "only" but imo worth it)

 

[EpcotKilterFan]

I have to thank you all for the replys! I have read various books and talked with people about lenses and what the "numbers" mean and I have to say I think I finally get it!

So now I am convinced that I need the telephoto and maybe later get the 50mm.

Thanks!!!!

Debbie