What Lens for Your DSLR?

[Sam North]

Well, it all depends... But, for what it's worth in the present climate...

Many people believe that optical quality is very important, so they tend to promote a lens that reflects this preference. However, in the context of growing amateurs especially, but not exclusively, the endless argument for high quality optics wilts a bit when you stand back and view prints from typical distances. Add to that the benefits of corrective software techniques and the cashflow restraints many amateurs suffer from, and you'll find that high quality optics become less appealing. I have no doubt that many are throwing a lot of $£ at lenses they will never actually need. Each to their own, of course...
:?
I'm currently considering a Canon L series lens, but not mainly because of its optical quality. It's more significant to me that top lenses are more robust than their cheaper rivals. Image quality from small format DSLRs is an issue on screen, and probably a couple of inches from the print, but not when viewed normally.

Also, if a particular lens has good optics, but has a focal range of 28-75mm, what use is the 28mm end going to be on a 300D, 10D, or a 20D?

Look at all the issues carefully before you leap, and look carefully...

Sam

:roll:

[chops]

What use is 28mm on a 1:6 digital?! Plenty! It works perfectly fine for me, as it does for others as well. When was the last time you ever went out and shot everything at your widest angle?

Optical quality is very important, even for amateurs. Sure, you can spend less on a lens and get ok quality, then invest money of software to correct the flaws of the lens. But here's the problem with that.....

1) You just spent money on an inferior lens.
2) You spent money on photo editing software.
3) You are waisting your life away in front of the computer correcting for the problems you're getting from the inferior lens.
4) You are dramatically degrading the quality of your photo by oversharpening it and trying to adjust the color, and trying to take out any chromatic aberations or distortions that your inferior lens added.
5) And you can forget about correcting for hand shake (movement) because you bought an inferior lens with a slow maximum f-stop and you have to drag the shutter to get ample exposure.

Numbers 3, 4, and 5 above are more than enough reason to spend a little extra on better optics. An uncorrected image taken with great quality glass will always look better than a doctored up "photoshopped" image taken with inferior cheap glass.

Thank you and have a swell day. :roll:

[slin100]

Sam,

This is a forum of enthusiasts. If someone comes looking for a recommendation, people are naturally going recommend the best or near best in class unless given a budget constraint.

Nothwithstanding that tendency, not every recommendation is for L glass. How often is the 85/1.8 recommended over the 85/1.2L? The 28-135 IS, up until recently, used to be frequently mentioned as the best lens to start with. The thrifty 50 is superb. The Tamron 28-75 merits consideration because it's nearly in the class of the 24-70/2.8L at a fraction of the cost. I doubt you have to be a pixel peeper to notice the difference between the 70-200/L and the 75-300.

As to build quality, it's important but I would not place it above optical quality. Unless you are a pro or generally work in harsh environments, that robustness ends up being overkill. A well-cared for non-L lens should last as long as an L lens..

A 28mm lens on a 10D/20D/300D is roughly a normal lens. That makes it very useful. Sure, it would be nice to go wider but that's what lens interchangeability is for. :D

[daveh]

I have no doubt that many are throwing a lot of $£ at lenses they will never actually need. Each to their own, of course...

Not to mention bodies. I've never understood having a fairly expensive SLR body with a cheesy lens mounted on it. There used to be a common saying that the camera is just a box - the lens takes the picture. With digital SLRs it gets a little more complicated because sensor is part of the camera. So I guess now the camera is a really expensive box but the lens still (mostly) takes the picture. ;)

I think a lot of amateurs would be better served (per dollar) by a compact camera than a DSLR with a poor lens but like you said, to each their own. If you want to go with a DSLR and money is an issue, you can start with the 50mm f1.8. That lens has incredible quality/dollar. The FD version of that lens was my only lens for my first couple of years as a film SLR user. The lens plus body (FTb) cost $279 at that time if I remember correctly and the quality was never lacking.

[nosquare2003]

I believe that a good photographer shall have a serious attitude in taking photos. This applies to pro, advanced amateur, or even beginner. Getting the "best affordable" tool is one first step. Using them properly is another step.

Sam, I don't agree your comments for corrective software techniques lead to lesser appealing for high quality optics. Try to stack cheap extenders on a cheap zoom lens. Correct them by software. Will it be the same as the high quality tele lens? I hope so.

I'm totally lost for your point of usefulness of 28mm in 1.6x DSLR :?:

[Steven M. Anthony]

We each approach photography in our own way-whether amateur or professional. Why we are interested in photography plays a role in how we approach things like equipment selection. Also influencing the decision will be whet we like to take photos of. A pro doing table-top shots of various products will probably go for superior quality glass every time as crisp product shots are what clients want.

People doing lots of handheld street shots might stay away from such lenses because of the risk of damage and or the fact that being hand held, the crispness isn't going to show up so much anyway.

Personally (I'm just an amateur who rarely shoots with a tripod or even a monopod), I find ultra-crisp images can lack a certain emotional quality that can work against the intended message in a photo.

One need not produce tack sharp images to convey a mood and a POV.

[Persian-Rice]

Hahaha, I was about to post a rant yesterday but did not have the time.

So ill just add my comments here. I am asked about stuff like this when I am shooting in the streets all the time. I also answer many question on this board.

Well my beef is that almost everyone answers with "buy L". It has hit me that the average photographer and even an amateur has no real need for L glass. If you have the money to throw around then fine, but the average Joe does not have $1500 to throw around. The weird thing is, we forget that we are suggesting L glass to somebody asking us about lenses, somebody who obviously does not even know what lenses are available. Does a person like this need such equipment at this point?

I understand if someone asks for help between narrowing choices down, that is different. I am guilty of this myself, but I have learned to catch myself before I say it nowadays, and well, most of you guys should too.

The biggest thing is that people have become so preoccupied with getting the latest and greatest they have forgotten the real reason they purchased the camera in the first place. I constantly see guys with $3000-$5000 setups taking sub-par photographs that I and many others with a good eye could improve on with a basic disposable. What is the point of taking a picture with a 1D MK II and 24-70 glass when you don't know how to compose an image let alone get a correct exposure.

Cheers

[Andy_T]

Also, if a particular lens has good optics, but has a focal range of 28-75mm, what use is the 28mm end going to be on a 300D, 10D, or a 20D?

... a very good addition to your 18-55 kit lens on the 300D and 20D, and to the 17-40/4.0 L on your 10D (ok, that one is more pricey :roll: ).

The Tamron will give you great 'normal lens' coverage you don't have to spend 1200$ for...

What is the point of taking a picture with a 1D MK II and 24-70 glass when you don't know how to compose an image let alone get a correct exposure.

That issue has been discussed before. It will be a photo just as crappy as a photo you take with your A75 if you don't know how to compose a good photograph.
But ...
... it will be a tack sharp and correctly exposed crappy photo, and you'll get 8.5 of them per second :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[DocFrankenstein]

I usually recommend L glass because:

I assume that you don't spend 1500$ on a digital body unless you are:

1) Interested in photography
2) Want to learn about it
3) Plan on doing it for some time

Some exceptions occur. Sometimes there are rich people who don't care about photography and just want a toy to play with. Excellent. L lenses make a better toy then consumer lenses, and if they can spend crazy $$ on a body and not care about aperture&shutter speed, then they might just as well spend as much on lenses. :lol:

With the 1st assumption, people should get the best glass cause that's the only thing that lasts. Bodies change, but there won't be a reason (I think) for EF lenses to change in the next 10-20 years.

For those who don't have the $$$... they won't buy L no matter what I say. For those who will buy L, will either get a valuable tool or an expensive toy. In either case they'll enjoy it.

[Sam North]

Hello Chops

“When was the last time you ever went out and shot everything at your widest angle?”

That’s not the point. My context is this: Why have a standard zoom lens on my camera that can’t go even a little bit wide? The 28mm end of a zoom lens is totally wasted on consumer DSLRs. Doesn’t make sense to me. If I had one I would have to change lenses to get a wider shot, and that’s precisely why I didn’t buy one.

“1) You just spent money on an inferior lens.”

Inferior to what? A lens I can’t afford? There are lenses out there that perform well for a lot less than pro lenses, so even though they’re “inferior”, they get the job done and the prints look great.

“2) You spent money on photo editing software.”

This is really silly. If I have a creative DSLR I have software anyway. In fact I’ve been using image-editing software since 1991 when my old Minolta cameras were falling apart.

“3) You are waisting your life away in front of the computer correcting for the problems you're getting from the inferior lens.”

This is a gross exaggeration and will dismay budding amateurs reading it. Workflow for the discerning average amateur is unlikely to approach anything like that of a working pro. The problems created by ‘inferior’ lenses have yet to cause me any worries. A lot of amateurs love photography, but just can’t stretch to pro zooms and primes. And they need to know they certainly will not waste their lives at their computers because their lenses aren't expensive.

“4) You are dramatically degrading the quality of your photo by oversharpening it and trying to adjust the color, and trying to take out any chromatic aberations or distortions that your inferior lens added.”

Dramatically? Hmmm, not really, Chops. I shoot JPEGs mostly, at a reduced in-camera sharpening setting. On-screen I sharpen minimally, ideally for digital print sizes within the pixel range. If the prints are to be bigger, I can interpolate then sharpen sensibly so that the finished print is largely free of artefacts associated with over-zealous sharpening, something I was indeed guilty of when I first got my 300D. Chromatic aberrations are removed quite quickly, usually in obvious high contrast sections of the image. And it’s worth pointing out that I’m not always sure if it’s the lenses or the small DSLR sensor that’s to blame! With sharpening there always comes a point of diminishing returns but, put simply, I never need to over-sharpen any image.

“5) And you can forget about correcting for hand shake (movement) because you bought an inferior lens with a slow maximum f-stop and you have to drag the shutter to get ample exposure.”

With respect, this is silly too. Take the Sigma 24-60mm f2.8, for example. A lot cheaper than the pro Canon standard zoom and plenty fast enough. In fact, this lens would cover a lot of what the new amateur DSLR photographer will want to shoot and deliver reasonable results. If a DSLR photographer can’t afford a lens like this then he will have to compromise by changing the ISO setting. It’s certainly not as hopeless as you suggest.

Thank you and have a swell day. :roll:

Sam

I usually recommend L glass because:

I assume that you don't spend 1500$ on a digital body unless you are:

1) Interested in photography
2) Want to learn about it
3) Plan on doing it for some time

Thanks to the electronics, DSLRs have, to date, inflated prices compared to similarly specified film SLRs. You can be all three of the above and spend a lot less for better (EOS 3 for example). I mention this in passing because I've come to the conclusion we may have ditched film a little too soon: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45585

Also, I'm all three of the above with a passion, but don't see the need to get top lenses to succeed in what I do. I assume I wasn't asked to speak at a local club because I use pro equipment.

:wink:

PS

Just this morning I was thinking about the unnecessary concern and expense that can go into lens selection, and with this thread in mind, I had to smile when I came across an image by Richard Turpin in the excellent book, Enchanted Ireland. I’ve reproduced a small section below to show what can make it through to a quality publication. The bottom line is, we should sweat more about the content of our images than we do about the quality of the equipment we use. The sooner many of us wake up to this, the better.

http://www.theimageplane.net/bookfrge.jpg

Discerning amateurs take note: it’s very unlikely that Mr Turpin, an accomplished architectural and landscape photographer, has a bag full of ‘inferior’ lenses, and images for this book were shot in the 90s, so it’s safe to say that no DSLRs were involved.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I usually recommend L glass because:

I assume that you don't spend 1500$ on a digital body unless you are:

1) Interested in photography
2) Want to learn about it
3) Plan on doing it for some time

Some exceptions occur. Sometimes there are rich people who don't care about photography and just want a toy to play with. Excellent. L lenses make a better toy then consumer lenses, and if they can spend crazy $$ on a body and not care about aperture&shutter speed, then they might just as well spend as much on lenses. :lol:

With the 1st assumption, people should get the best glass cause that's the only thing that lasts. Bodies change, but there won't be a reason (I think) for EF lenses to change in the next 10-20 years.

For those who don't have the $$$... they won't buy L no matter what I say. For those who will buy L, will either get a valuable tool or an expensive toy. In either case they'll enjoy it.

But Doc, your assumptions don't lead to a conclusion of buying L glass because you can do/be all 3 things without L glass. I've been shooting for 30 years, learned a ton over those years and am still learning, and plan to continue with photography until I go blind. I'm not a pro photog, but I've sold 50 or so prints over the last 5 years. And all this with no lens that cost more than $400. And I've never heard one of my potential customers complain that the images aren't sharp enough! In fact I know a guy who does the local art fair circuit and he said he can spot a photog looking at his stuff all the time--because they are the only ones that get nose-to-glass looking at how sharp (or not) his woork is.

[Sam North]

In fact I know a guy who does the local art fair circuit and he said he can spot a photog looking at his stuff all the time--because they are the only ones that get nose-to-glass looking at how sharp (or not) his work is.

Excellent!
:D

FWIW, to encourage new amateurs, here's a link to my personal take on the whole top gear thing: Cost-effective Photography (http://www.theimageplane.net/tip2_020.htm)

[Persian-Rice]

Doc, nowadays a dSLR can be had for under $700 Cdn.
Besides, as I explained in my other post, a salesman can be very persuasive to the untrained or naive person. This is specifically in regards to my little problem at Henry's and how some guy was busy selling some couple a $600 P&S when they wanted something temporary while they went on vacation.

Unfortunately people will buy things because they are told it's the way to go. Even if that is not the case, we both know we get people on a regular basis over here who come and don't even know if they can get lenses for their SLR. The problem is the first thing they often hear is my stupid red around the ring comment, the clean version hahahahaha.

[DocFrankenstein]

You're starting to make me really insecure! :D It's personal. I have this pro gear and I didn't make a lot of nice pics yet. And I am starting to doubt that I am able to! Me suggesting others to buy L glass may be a sunconscious excuse for not producing cool work. ;)

I may not need it at all. I have only made 8 bucks with my 3000CDN camera setup... :oops: and the famous photogs shot with 50mm prime and still produced nice pics.

If you are looking at it from artistic side, like studio photography and disregard sharpness of the image, lenses, abilities of SLRs to create extremely narrow DOF... Then you don't need anything advanced to create photos. But how simple are you willing to go?

Persian Rice - you have a bunch of L lenses, don't you? :lol:
Do you really need that? Could you prioduce something similar with consumer lenses? yes! Given 3x more time, cause you'd have less keepers...

Do you really need that 10/20D body? no
You can use the rebel.

Do you need the rebel? No you can get G6 or Pro1. Can it create beautiful pics? Yes. If you put the right person there...

But do we really need all the features of G6 to make a pic? Do we need a hot shoe? Manual focus? Do we absollutely need zoom? No.

But wait... we don't even need... if you think about it... aperture and shutter speed control. If we frame everything right, we're gonna have a perfect picture!

Now we have arrived to the point of a disposable camera. Do we really NEED anything more complicated that that to make a cool picture? No we don't! But how many of you have shot a wedding with a disposable?

[DocFrankenstein]

You're starting to make me really insecure! :D It's personal. I have this pro gear and I didn't make a lot of nice pics yet. And I am starting to doubt that I am able to! Me suggesting others to buy L glass may be a sunconscious excuse for not producing cool work. ;)

I may not need it at all. I have only made 8 bucks with my 3000CDN camera setup... :oops: and the famous photogs shot with 50mm prime and still produced nice pics.

If you are looking at it from artistic side, like studio photography and disregard sharpness of the image, lenses, abilities of SLRs to create extremely narrow DOF... Then you don't need anything advanced to create photos. But how simple are you willing to go?

Persian Rice - you have a bunch of L lenses, don't you? :lol:
Do you really need that? Could you prioduce something similar with consumer lenses? yes! Given 3x more time, cause you'd have less keepers...

Do you really need that 10/20D body? no
You can use the rebel.

Do you need the rebel? No you can get G6 or Pro1. Can it create beautiful pics? Yes. If you put the right person there...

But do we really need all the features of G6 to make a pic? Do we need a hot shoe? Manual focus? Do we absollutely need zoom? No.

But wait... we don't even need... if you think about it... aperture and shutter speed control. If we frame everything right, we're gonna have a perfect picture!

Now we have arrived to the point of a disposable camera. Do we really NEED anything more complicated that that to make a cool picture? No we don't! But how many of you have shot a wedding with a disposable?

[MarkH]

Best lens for your D-SLR? It depends!

a. what do you shoot?
b. what are your requirements?
c. what is your budget?

Is L the best? It depends on your answer to a, b and especially c.

For a serious photo journalist or sports photographer the best equipment would include a 1DMkII, 70-200 f2.8 L IS and 24-70 f2.8L.
For mum to take pics of the kids then the best equipment might be a 20D and a 28-135 IS, it all depends on the budget and expected use.

Of course the L lenses are often sharper, but they are also often dearer, larger and heavier. For some people the best camera and lens is the Canon A95, no D-SLR + L lens can compete on size, weight and price to that!

[Steven M. Anthony]

Doc: Clearly you can reduce any topic to absurdity. But I'm not sure what the point of doing so is...

[Persian-Rice]

Doc yes I do, but the difference is that I am going pro and depend on my equipment to help me advance in my field while putting a roof over my head.
You can use that argument toward almost every other thing that is used to make our lives easier. Does a Ferrari get you from point A to point B? yes but so does a Lada.

My argument is that if you need to take out a giant loan to buy a Ferrari and drive in a city that has 40km/h speed limits there is no point. If you are a guy who races at a track or have money to throw away, then go ahead and buy the damn thing.

Basically, I think L lenses are great, and I am not saying you need training wheels before you ride a bike, but excuse my language, if a person does not know their hand from their ass when it comes to photography, then why do they need an L lens? What purpose does an L lens serve in that case? Because as you said it, it wont make your photograph any better, at least in terms of the artistic value.

I think an L lens is best for someone who has already reached the limits of what their equipment can produce and are looking for more. If someone like IndyJeff asked what lens to buy, I would say L, because I know he has the experience and needs something like that. However, for a person who just purchased their first SLR, L is absolutely unnecessary. Maybe go L a few years down the road.

[DocFrankenstein]

Doc: Clearly you can reduce any topic to absurdity. But I'm not sure what the point of doing so is...
That L is better? Nasty habit... I'll try to get rid of it.

2Persian-Rice: As an optimist I assume that a person will outgrow their equipment eventually. Why, if budget allows, why not?

I dunno... silly debate. Sorry if I offended anyone.

[Adam Hicks]

I learned something a little while ago when I started playing piano / keyboards. I saved up for a long time for a Kurzweil K2000S sampler with thousands of sounds. I could make it do all kinds of whiz bang things. Lightning sounds, Michael Jackson samples, you name it. But then there was always the guy with the $50 garage sale piano that could play circles around me.

the equipment certainly does not make the art. I have some decent stuff I think, especially for my experience level, but I agree with some of the others that a good photographer with a 2.1 Mpixel Digital Elph could make more meaningful, better composed images than many of us with our fancy DSLRs.

All that being said, Long live the 'L' Lens! (if you know how to use it!)

[Steven M. Anthony]

Sure, L is better, Doc. But one doesn't need the best lenses to take great photos.

[ScottE]

Sure, L is better, Doc. But one doesn't need the best lenses to take great photos.

Are you trying to say it is more important to take good pictures than it is to show off expensive equipment? That is not very elitist.

Most modern lenses are perfectly capable of taking very good pictures. You just don't see the old Coke bottle lenses that used to be flogged. Most people can improve their photos more by learning to use a tripod and remote release and developing their skills of composition than they can by investing more money in more exensive lenses.

I have seen 16 x20 prints taken with a consumer grade lens such as the 28-135 IS that are much better than prints made using L lenses by someone who does not have sufficient technical and artistic skills.

L (or EX, SP or ATX) glass is capable of resolving finer detail if you are technically competent, but it is of no help if you can't hold the camera steady or compose a good picture.

(That should read usually resolve finer detail. At 40 mm my 17-40 L is not as sharp as my 28-135 non-L, shooting both from a tripod using cable release and mirror lock-up)

[nosquare2003]

It is not easy to recommend equipments to somebody I (we) don't know. Do forum members just tell them to buy the most expensive items without knowing their subjects, budget...? Do you find ridiculous replies to equipments recommendation here. I don't find many (without other comments).

Is it good enough?

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm starting to feel like that retard who argues too much on the net. :lol:

[nosquare2003]

I'm starting to feel like that retard who argues too much on the net. :lol:

Me? :P :P

I'm a bit tired of arguing anyway. We come from different background. We know different users. We think in different angles. That's why we have different comments and arguments here. Sometimes, comments are really constructive. However, I (we) cannot provide comments that cover all the situations. This leads to generalisation and may confuse others.

Some more words from me regarding this topic. Lens and other equipments are tools. They help for me to achieve some goals. What goals? What stories do I want to make with the photos? How do I achieve them with my tools? Are my present tools sufficient or will there be a better affordable tools (may mean additional techniques)?

I'm always learning...

Steven, I agree with you that one need not produce tack sharp images to convey a mood and a POV. A good advice. But do we always take "blurry" (sorry for my lousy English) potos to show moods? Do we sometimes need some crisp subject/background in a "blurry" photo? Just a thought.

ScottE, a tripod really helps in sharpness. And a good (usually more expensive) tripod helps more.

Ok...I will read more, write less...

[Steven M. Anthony]

no^2: Of course-sometimes tack sharp IS what the scene calls for (like product shots). But I would venture to guess that unless a client requires razor sharp images, razor sharp is not necessary to convey any mood one could realistically want to convey--i.e., non-L glass from a decent lens maker is going to get across that mood at normal viewing distances.

[nosquare2003]

no^2: Of course-sometimes tack sharp IS what the scene calls for (like product shots). But I would venture to guess that unless a client requires razor sharp images, razor sharp is not necessary to convey any mood one could realistically want to convey--i.e., non-L glass from a decent lens maker is going to get across that mood at normal viewing distances.

I regard "blurry" photos, partly "blurry" photos and razor sharp photos are different expression. It is not necessary to limit ourselves to sharp photos. Similarly, it is not necessary to limit ourselves to "blurry" photos. A good lens can provide us flexibility -- why not?

BTW, I don't even speak of L, do I?

[Steven M. Anthony]

no^2: I think we agree. I mention "L" glass as it was a theme of the thread--I realize you didn't mention it.

[Jon]

“When was the last time you ever went out and shot everything at your widest angle?”

That’s not the point. My context is this: Why have a standard zoom lens on my camera that can’t go even a little bit wide? The 28mm end of a zoom lens is totally wasted on consumer DSLRs. Doesn’t make sense to me. If I had one I would have to change lenses to get a wider shot, and that’s precisely why I didn’t buy one.

[

. . . so if a lens doesn't cover all your picture-taking needs, it's unworthy? Did you consider the Canon 24-70 L? Does that reach down far enough? Are you prepared to change lenses when you need something longer than 75 mm? Shorter than 20 mm? Where do you draw the line? And if you want a "do-everything", what compromises (lens speed, chromatic/spherical aberration, size, weight, price, . . .) are you prepared to make in this quest? And, as there are significantly more film SLRs out there than digitals, the manufacturers will continue to design lenses that meet those photographer's needs.

The right lens(es) is the combination, however reached, that meets your individual needs. Judging others' selections because they are/aren't L or have/don't have a particular focal length included completely misses that individuality is a governing factor in all photography, from family snapshots to Fine Art.

[Sam North]

As I hinted at in the first post, I'm currently considering the 24-70mm L, a long term purchase mainly for quite rugged outdoor/mountain work, in all sorts of weathers. I can't get my hands on one to look at, but I'm led to belive that it's very well made. Anybody here use one?

Yes, I expect to change lenses, usually to a longer zoom, but, in context here, I wouldn't waste money on a lens that doesn't actually go wide(ish), regardless of optical quality. 24mm gets me 38.4, close to the a 35mm, which I'm well used to out in the landscape. (Mind you, I'm a good bit happier shooting film for landscapes.)

The right lens(es) is the combination, however reached, that meets your individual needs. Judging others' selections because they are/aren't L or have/don't have a particular focal length included completely misses that individuality is a governing factor in all photography, from family snapshots to Fine Art.

You're quite right, Jon, but I still don't understand why anyone would buy lens with a 28mm wide end that will only deliver 45mm. For those who want a standard zoom, you need to go a bit wider than 28mm to really benefit on a consumer DSLR. Then, if you need longer, another zoom would be ideal. If you want wider, get a wider zoom. 38-112 is very useful, gets me wide enough and lets me reach well into the scene.

I don't mean to sound like I'm pontificating, but it just doesn't make sense.

As for the choice of an L lens, mainly in the context of dedicated amateurs, I've explained the key issues already, above and on my site (Cost-Effective Photography). Some do need one, most don't.

I'm off to take some photos!

Sam

The bottom line is, we should sweat more about the content of our images than we do about the quality of the equipment we use. The sooner many of us wake up to this, the better.

[ranjanpa]

Pardon me for being so naive. I am seriously considering buying the DRebel. Why does everybody suggest buying the 50mm f1.8 as the first cheap lens when the camera already comes with a 18-55mm lens. Do educate.

Tx.Ran

[Mogwyth]

Pardon me for being so naive. I am seriously considering buying the DRebel. Why does everybody suggest buying the 50mm f1.8 as the first cheap lens when the camera already comes with a 18-55mm lens. Do educate.

Tx.Ran Because it's much faster, great for low light shots and very sharp, for the money it's an excellent introduction to quailty glass without breaking the bank :D.

[ranjanpa]

Thanx Mog, What is the fstop of the 18-55 mm lens which comes with the cam.is the f1.4 better or 1.8.


Cheers

[ranjanpa]

The specs for the 50mmlens mentions that the filter size is 52 mm. So do I need to buy a step up/down ring in order to attach it to the Drebel. What is the lens dia of the Drebel.

Thanx again.ran

[Mogwyth]

The kit lens goes down to f/3.5 @ 28mm and f/5.6 @ 55mm, so at 50 mm it's about 4 stops slower than the 50mm f/1.8. NB small number more light in faster shutter speed.

The filter size has nothing to do with attaching the lens to the camera, that is the other end of the lens for attaching filters etc. The rebel has a standard EF mount, all current and past canon EF & EFS lenses will fit it, as will all new third party EF lenses. There is aquestion mark over older third party EF lens in particular Sigma.

[ranjanpa]

Dear Mog,

Thanx a ton.I am planning to buy the CANON EF 28-135 F3.5-5.6 USM IMAGE STABILIZER LENS and i have learnt from this forum that i can use the 50mm for low light/indoor photos. Is my understanding correct. I plan to take a lot of indoor, low light, church indoor sort of stuff. Is this fine. Tx.

[cactusclay]

The first lens is perplexing, but pretty easy to narrow down if you think about what you actually use it for instead of what you dream you might use it for. It seems to me that most photographers fall into three catagories wide, short tele and the longer ones. Personally, I fell into the wide catagory for the past twenty years or so, so even though I always seemed to have a good zoom in the 70-200 range, I rarely ever used it. I shot landscapes with 4x5, 6x7 and 35 mm and I always gravitated to the 28-35 mm equivilent, because I was most comfortable with that focal lenght. My advise would be to get the lens that you used the most in the past and if a time comes that you feel you really need a different focal lenght, then get it. Buying cheap glass usually leads to buyers remorse and a constant wishing for something better. Get something decent to begin with and don't worry be happy.
Good luck.

[robertwgross]

The specs for the 50mmlens mentions that the filter size is 52 mm. So do I need to buy a step up/down ring in order to attach it to the Drebel. What is the lens dia of the Drebel.

Don't confuse the focal length of a lens with the filter size of the lens. All Canon EF lenses will fit that camera, as well as the few EF-S lenses. So, on the "camera end", things will fit.

On the front end of the lens, you can screw a filter on or off, and there are several different standard sizes for filters. If we are talking about the standard EF-S 18-55 lens, then its filter size is 58mm. You are NOT going to put a 52mm filter onto a 58mm lens. Well, you can, but you would not want to. The filter for such a lens should be 58mm. Or, you could use a larger filter, e.g. 67mm, but then you would have to get some ring adapters.

---Bob Gross---

[Medic1]

I guess I will add my 2 cents worth into the mix......

I am new to the world of (D)SLR photography....like I mean very new. I just bought my 300D 2 months ago, and before that only owned medium quality point and shoots. I personally appreciate being directed towards waiting for the money to buy a high quality lens....true as it may be that I will not notice the quality now, I may notice it when I upgrade my camera body or when I get to the point where I may want to try my hand at a more advanced (than beginner/amature) technique.

I also believe that being given a lower cost option works for alot of people. I myself am a perfectionist, and I look for top quality. Then again, I can afford to buy high quality...others cannot. I believe the adage that even a great lens won't correct a person who cannot compose a shot at the camera and not in photoshop. So, in that respect if someone cannot afford an expensive lens, that a cheaper alternative is nice to hear so you can get started on the road to learning photography and all the finer points that come with it.

All opinions are nice to hear....for those like me who like to go big so I don't have to upgrade later, I love to hear what the "best" lenses are in the highest price range I can afford. For those who do not money to drop on a high end lens, the options are great.

EVERYONE keep your opinions coming....they are all nice to hear, see/read.

Just one newbies opinion!!

[booggerg]

Somethings simply can't be measured by its practicality. I perfer the touch n' feel of a highend lens and the superior image quality can't hurt ;)

If you can budget for an L, then go ahead and do it!

[robertwgross]

... in that respect if someone cannot afford an expensive lens, that a cheaper alternative is nice to hear so you can get started on the road to learning photography and all the finer points that come with it.

That is why Canon marketed the Digital Rebel (which is arguably a serious beginner's DSLR) with the kit lens, the EF-S 18-55 one. That lens is good for getting started in the serious beginner world. It is not particularly great at anything. It just does general purpose work. It won't compare to a thousand dollar lens, and it is not intended to. It would take a serious beginner some time to be able to take full advantage of a thousand dollar lens, anyway. The kit lens is EF-S, not EF. That means that you can't take it off and put it on your older Canon film camera. Now, with the prices and rebates, Canon is not going to make huge megabucks of profit on the Digital Rebel or the kit lens. Canon is in the primary business of selling more serious lenses for $300 to maybe $1500. That kit lens is just the taste of the candy for the new kid. Then the new kid will come back for more lens, and more quality.

If you don't fall into the standard serious beginner category, then the EF 28-135 IS might be a good general purpose lens choice. But you need to guess about what kind of photography you intend to do to pick lenses beyond that.

---Bob Gross---

[Medic1]

I agree.....when I first started getting more seriously interested in photography I wasn't really sure that the "hobby" would hold my attention, so I didn't want to spend a whole chunk of money on a DSLR only to have it sit idle. I have gone from the manual for the 300D to the magic lantern guide to the 300D to buing a textbook on digital photography......if I had of known how addicted I would become to taking good pictures then I would have sprung for at least the 20D......

I think for those like me who have become seriously addicted to photography that getting the high end lens is a good choice

[cc10d]

Thanx a ton.I am planning to buy the CANON EF 28-135 F3.5-5.6 USM IMAGE STABILIZER LENS and i have learnt from this forum that i can use the 50mm for low light/indoor photos. Is my understanding correct. I plan to take a lot of indoor, low light, church indoor sort of stuff. Is this fine. Tx.

I thinkk you are making a very good choice. It gives you a good all around lens, one of the best non-L zooms, and a sharp lens thaat will operate in lower light situations. Good Job. ENJOY!!!