28/2.8 is the perfect starter lens for DRebel, 10D, 20D

[edsarkiss]

i see many posts recommending the 50/1.8 as a good starter lens. i just read one that suggested that someone new to digi-slr's get a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.4 to start a 300D or 10D kit.

i think this is bad advice, since this recommendation is essentially "get a portrait lens and a telephoto". where is normal? where is wide?

i want to start a movement to recommend the 28/2.8 as the "perfect" starter lens for 1.6x DSLRs (300D, Digi Rebel, 10D, 20D).

this is slightly wider than "normal", which is good. it's pretty inexpensive ($160 at B&H), and still very good quality.

for those with a larger budget, the 28/1.8 USM is about $400.

who's with me?

---
gentlemen prefer primes. zooms make a learner lazy.

[Vita Rara]

I bought the 28 f/2.8 for exactly the reason that it has a "normal" field of view.

Personally I think talking about focal length in the context of three different size sensor formats is pointless. What is the field of view you want. That should be the real criteria. So, for me the 28 feels pretty "normal."

Mark

[Kevin M]

On full frame 50mm is considered as 'standard' with a field of view of 40 degrees. The near-equivalent on 1.6 crop is either 28mm at 44 degrees fov or 35mm at 36 degrees.
I have the reasonably priced 28 and find it an ideal walkaround being small, light and sharp. To my eyes, performance is very similar to my 50 f1.8. some comparisons (http://homepage.eircom.net/~bot/paint/lenstest-all4.htm)

[rkoshy]

My comments would be that a prime as a starter lens would be kind of stifling... i.e. if I only have ONE LENS, it shouldn't be a prime since I've given away any sort of flexibility I have. Having said that I think the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is great as a starter/walk-around lens. I think the bigger aperture is great as compared to the kit lens.

So normally you leave it locked at the 28mm (yes it has a lock)... but if you want to zoom, at least you have the option to do it, vs. crying about a lost opportunity for a great shot later...

In addition, I found out yesterday that I can reliably get it to focus to about 1ft in front of me, which is great. For about $360 it's a great value.

Personally, I got a Sigma f/2.8 70-200 first... then my 50mm prime, then recently the Tamron... and now I'm getting a 2x TC. The 2X is my way of reaching out to the 400mm crowd, but since I don't use a 400mm nearly enough, I figured why waste the money.

[edsarkiss]

the "stifiling" is intentional. while a person is learning about exposure and composition, having a single focal length that the person comes to know intimately is invaluable.

i'm sure others will disagree citing the convenience of carrying around a zoom, but watching those who learn photography with just a 50mm (this is back in film days) vs. those who learned with a 28-70 or 28-200, for a reason i don't quite understand yet, the majority of those starting with the prime ended up being better photographers.

i think it comes from our obsession with convenience -- with a many-case (zoom) lens, we don't walk around as much. we tend to just stand in one place and let the lens do the work for us. at the point where the camera is raised to the eye, and your fingers start moving the zoom ring around "loooking" for the composition, it's too late.

my advice is to always start with a Normal lens, then take note of situations where it prevented you from getting a shot. aggregate those notes, and slowly add primes to your arsenal (for a beginner, one per 6-12months). quickly "solving the problem" with a zoom is only going to slow down the learning process.

if i had my way, all DRebels, 10D, and 20D cameras would be shipped locked in Manual mode, with the other modes unlocking only after the user has demonstrated comprehensive understanding of exposure. the histogram would be enabled by default since i feel it is digital's greatest contribution to photography.

i'm kind of a nut when it comes to photography, so i hope this doesn't turn into any kind of flame war. i'm just sharing my (seemingly these days) extreme viewpoint and hopefully inspiring one beginner to start simple and learn photography first, before having a comprehensive kit with big lenses folks oooh and aaah over.

[daveh]

I often use the 35 f1.4 as a "normal" lens. The 28 f2.8 is a good lens and a lot cheaper but somewhat dim for my uses. I use a lens in this range indoors a lot. The 28 f1.8 is OK but the 35 f1.4 is much better. (Though also more expensive.)

However, the 50 f1.8 is a bargain and a really good performer. Some newbies seem to be afraid of the idea of a lens that doesn't zoom so this is an easy recommendation as a "backup" for those cases where there's not enough light. If they're more than a casual snapshooter, they'll probably notice that the cheap little backup lens takes awfully good pictures and gets used more than they expected.

I probably used my 85mm more on my film cameras than any other lens, so starting with a 50 on a 10/20D doesn't seem bad at all.

[Sam North]

this recommendation is essentially "get a portrait lens and a telephoto"

Zoom lenses often allow for more creative possibilities, but I agree that for small format DSLRs such as the 300D, 10D and 20D, it doesn't make sense buying a 50mm as a standard beginner's lens.

I've said elsewhere: "Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but back in the early days of SLRs, a 'normal' lens was considered to be 50-58mm. Recent trends with 35mm have taken that down past 50mm to the 35mm's field-of-view.

"...a 50mm [on the 300D] will effectively be 80mm (how useful is that, generally?) whereas a 35mm lens will become a 56mm, close to the original preference."

gentlemen prefer primes. zooms make a learner lazy
:D
Ok, I know you're a bit tounge-in-cheek here but a zoom in the 24-60mm range on the 300D will definitely extend the beginner's creativity. It provides more options and that in turn will deliver more successful results, utilising the benefits of perspective, depth of field, the subject in situ, or keeping your distance while isolating the subject from its background.

I started out with a 50mm but only because I couldn't afford much else. Ah, those were the days...

But, whatever your preference, let's all just get out there and shoot!

Sam

[rkoshy]

I am not trying to flame here ... but... here are some comments, and I would love to continue this convo via email if others object :-)

i'm sure others will disagree citing the convenience of carrying around a zoom, but watching those who learn photography with just a 50mm (this is back in film days) vs. those who learned with a 28-70 or 28-200, for a reason i don't quite understand yet, the majority of those starting with the prime ended up being better photographers.


I would think that is almost like me going out and saying that the fact that people have VISUAL s/w development tools makes them worse programmers, because I started out with assembly language... :lol:

I think the fact is that when I started out with my dad's SLR a couple of decades ago, the decent zoom's just weren't as accessible, and the fixed lens was just what was available for a reasonable price.

i think it comes from our obsession with convenience -- with a many-case (zoom) lens, we don't walk around as much. we tend to just stand in one place and let the lens do the work for us. at the point where the camera is raised to the eye, and your fingers start moving the zoom ring around "loooking" for the composition, it's too late.

my advice is to always start with a Normal lens, then take note of situations where it prevented you from getting a shot. aggregate those notes, and slowly add primes to your arsenal (for a beginner, one per 6-12months). quickly "solving the problem" with a zoom is only going to slow down the learning process.


I think you can learn just as much by looking at your pictures and seeing what you did right, and what you did wrong. Composition isn't about the zoom, but it does help sometimes when you look through the lens and realize you're a bit too far (or too close).

if i had my way, all DRebels, 10D, and 20D cameras would be shipped locked in Manual mode, with the other modes unlocking only after the user has demonstrated comprehensive understanding of exposure. the histogram would be enabled by default since i feel it is digital's greatest contribution to photography.

i'm kind of a nut when it comes to photography, so i hope this doesn't turn into any kind of flame war. i'm just sharing my (seemingly these days) extreme viewpoint and hopefully inspiring one beginner to start simple and learn photography first, before having a comprehensive kit with big lenses folks oooh and aaah over.

I am as much of a nut when it comes to computers, I'm an electronics engr by training, and have always loved working with circuits (probably since I was 10 or so)... and I have a software company and have been designing large scale communications systems for over a decade...

Lately ( for the past 5 years or so ) I've seen a plethora of programmers who wouldn't know how to write code if you took their "Visual ..." and context-sensitive-help away. Even though I still use emacs, on a sun system when writing code... I have to admin that the "Visual ..." tools tend to make life easier. Hence they can spend less time on semantics, and get more accomplished.

I feel the same way about zoom lenses, automated modes on the cameras, etc... for the purists (no offense intended) among us, the manual modes and primes are great. But for the newbies, is it really worth the frustrations of not having the right composition because you couldn't run backwards and jump over a fence quick enough to get the picture framed right?

[edsarkiss]

rkoshy -- i now understand the "root" of the difference between our philosophies....

you're an emacs on solaris kind of guy
i am a vi on freebsd kind of guy

problem solved ;-)

[rkoshy]

rkoshy -- i now understand the "root" of the difference between our philosophies....

you're an emacs on solaris kind of guy
i am a vi on freebsd kind of guy

problem solved ;-)

Quite true... I tend to use whatever is available to be more "efficient" (can be read as lazy) when possible... :lol: :lol:

edlin / dos anyone? (I wonder if anyone even know what that is )...

[daveh]

edlin / dos anyone?

Used it? yes. Liked it? no!

Although I first learned to program on punch cards so it definitely beat that. Anything with a backspace beat that! :D

[sparker1]

Anyone else go back to 1401 and 705 Autocoder programming?

(Not that it says much about my photography.)

[Boosting1Bar]

If anyone thinks this is good advice, feel free to take a look at my 28 f/1.8 on eBay right now! I agree it's an excellent lens to have in your bag, but for the kind of work I do most often a zoom is more suitable, hence selling this 28!

eBay link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3853042357&ssPage Name=STRK:MESE:IT)

[pradeep1]

When I learned photography on my father's Canon AE-1 Program in the early 80's, I had only two lenses. An excellent FD 50mm 1.4 lens (big honking piece of glass) and a Sigma 28 mm f/2.8 lens. I used those two lenses exclusively for almost 10 years. I actually used the 28mm the most. So yes, I'd vote for picking up a 28mm f/2.8 to complement any prime lens assortment and wouldn't mind recommending it to anyone as a starter lens, especially with a 1.6X dSLR, which would make it almost equivalent to a 50mm prime.

[kevinma]

I'm with edsarkiss all the way on this. A prime "standard" lens is the best way to learn the art of photography viz-a-viz composition; it encourages greater creativity and a good eye. Similar advice would be to use the camera only on Manual at the beginning, and if possible, switch off the light meter. Then, beginners would learn so much more about exposure, depth of field etc. My first camera was a wonderful old east German Praktika with a 50mm lens and no light meter. Experimentation and following the exposure advice on the Kodak film box was invaluable.
Kevin.

[DocFrankenstein]

I've been thinking about the concept a lot: (and dragged other into it too) ;)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50556&highlight=normal+perspective

The thing is it's hard to choose. It boils down to 28 or 35 mm prime:

Canon lineup is this:
35 f/2 for 219$
35 f/1.4 is 1100$
28 f/2.8 for 170$
28 f/1.8 for 400$

Fast lenses are way too expensive. Plus, 28/1.8 doesn't get very good ratings. ( www.photodo.com )

IMO Tamron wins. 28-75 f/2.8 for only 370

If you exercise self discipline and lock it (how does that work btw?) you'll be using it a lot.

[edsarkiss]

i'd choose the 28/2.8 for price/quality/speed/coverage over the others.

28 is a little wider than normal, 35 is a little longer. if i had to choose one, i'd pick wider.
here's my ranking (considering quality, price, speed, size, field of view):
1) 28/2.8 (no USM, slower than the rest, inexpensive, very good optics)
2) 35/2 (good optics, longer than i prefer, fast, great price)
3) 28/1.8 (relatively poor optics, fast, good price)
4) 35/1.4 (fantastic optics, fast, expensive, large)

you all know already how i feel about zooms ;-)

[DocFrankenstein]

Agree 100%
EDIT: except the title. 2.8 f/1.4 would be perfect ;)

[pcasciola]

I'm pretty pro-prime myself, but what does the 28 f/2.8 offer over the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 beside a modest $150 savings? I'm only interested in primes that blow away their zoom counterparts in some way, like better wide open performance and faster, like many of the Canon L-primes.

I do agree the 50mm f/1.8 is a bit long on a 1.6x camera and am looking for a fast prime in between 24 and 30mm. Does the 28mm f/1.8 really have poor optics?

[tim]

F2.8's ok as a starter lens, but I think having F1.8 lets people experiment with extremely shallow depth of field, which is a good thing. 2.8 isn't too bad though.

[edsarkiss]

Does the 28mm f/1.8 really have poor optics?

my judgement of optical performance came from this site...
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml

photodo's "grade" is a good indicator of relative performance.

high 3's are good, low 4's are sweet, mid & high 4's are awesome.

personally, i'd be weary of a low 3. maybe there are other comprehensive reviews out there, but my experience is that photodo is a good benchmark.

[Andy_T]

Hi,

I've asked a very similar question myself which is the best 28 mm alternative in this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48942

Suggestions were Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI and 28/1.8 (but that might be because I asked for a lens to get good bokeh at 28 mm).

Nobody who contributed had experience with both the 1.8 and 2.8 lenses, but general lens logic suggests that the 28/1.8 will give better pictures when stopped down to 2.8 than the 28/2.8 wide open. It also is quite certainly better at 1.8 :lol:

I'll go with the Tamron 28-75 /2.8 XR DI, because I want to have that lens as a walkaround lens on my 20D.

Best regards,
Andy

[defordphoto]

edsarkiss has a very good point here. Back in the (my) day when I was learning "real" photography in the 1970's with my Hanimex-Praktica camera and its lone 50mm f/1.8 lens I was in heaven. Did alot of walking as a human zoom lens. Learned a zillion about proper framing, thirds, etc, etc, etc, with that 50mm.

I do not have the lens in question here, nor will I buy it in the future, however, it would be a good choice for a great starter lens. I will add it to my newbie repertoire. That is valid.

That being said, I think Canon is missing the boat for not developing a 28-135L IS lens. I'd buy that puppy in a heartbeat. That was the first lens I bought after purchasing the D60 and I have no plans to get rid of it in spite of some purists poo-pooing the lens in a big way.

However, an L-version would certainly make my day...

[nosquare2003]

I'm from the same school of edsarkiss though I use a 35/2 for a 1.6x DSLR (now addition of a 1.3x).