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.

 

[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... 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. 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. 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. 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.

 

[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? 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?