Next lens after KIT lens?

I would buy a Tokina 11-16F2.8 and keep your 50F1.8 I loved this combo!!

bubbygator wrote in post #15318665
Ah, you have begun the trip. After you have shot with the 85/1.8 for awhile - you'll love it ... but the experience of shooting in low light will lead you to want a wider lens also. So remember ... the 28/1.8 comes next - with the 28 you'll be able to shoot anything indoors and have everybody in the shot - - - and still have good enough IQ to crop 4-6X to get a single body pic from the same shot.

The 85 arguably has the fastest AF of the Canon line-up. If you set the timing at 1/640 to 1/800, you'll be able to stop action and be in-focus even with kids running around. It's a great lens.

Yea I've heard nothing but really good things about the Canon 85 1.8. It's probably the best lens you can get for the money if portraiture is your thing. I've heard that it focuses even faster than the 85 1.2L.

Sovern wrote in post #15320770
Yea I've heard nothing but really good things about the Canon 85 1.8. It's probably the best lens you can get for the money if portraiture is your thing. I've heard that it focuses even faster than the 85 1.2L.

Before I bought it I read a few reviews and looked at a bunch of photos. I have since read the review on the digital picture and I believe Ken Rockwell. They both seem to LOVE this lens and even sounded as if they may prefer it to the 85mm 1.2L in many aspects. I am pumped now. If anything even close to 1/4 of what the 85mm 1.2L is, it would be a steal.

Yea I agree the lens does sound like a steal. It's going to be my next purchase for sure. The logical next lens after the 85 1.8 would be the 135 2.0 and possibly eventually the 200 2.8 and you should have a large telephoto focal range covered with very fast high quality primes.

Sovern wrote in post #15323011
Yea I agree the lens does sound like a steal. It's going to be my next purchase for sure. The logical next lens after the 85 1.8 would be the 135 2.0 and possibly eventually the 200 2.8 and you should have a large telephoto focal range covered with very fast high quality primes.

Thanks for the info on my next lens.

Btw I have the 450d also. I have noticed that even with all the new oldies out there, many still use the 450d. When I bought it a few years back, I remember it getting really favorable reviews. I can't compare it to anything else but I do love it. I wish it did video but someday I will get one that does video.

joepa150 wrote in post #15332174
Thanks for the info on my next lens.

Btw I have the 450d also. I have noticed that even with all the new oldies out there, many still use the 450d. When I bought it a few years back, I remember it getting really favorable reviews. I can't compare it to anything else but I do love it. I wish it did video but someday I will get one that does video.

I love my 450D. I love how sharp the photos come out in RAW compared to the newer cameras and the fact that the noise difference from iso 100 to 1600 is minimal.

Honestly I think the only logical upgrade would be a 5D series camera.

Sovern wrote in post #15332281
I love my 450D. I love how sharp the photos come out in RAW compared to the newer cameras and the fact that the noise difference from iso 100 to 1600 is minimal.

...

Really, you don't see a significant difference in noise from ISO 100 to 1600? I have a 500D, and I see a significant difference from 800 to 1600 in darker sections of the image. IMO, the jump in noise from 800 to 1600 is about the same as the jump from ISO 100 to 800 (I haven't done any specific tests for that, just my memory of what I've seen). 800 is pretty decent noise-wise, while 1600 gets somewhat obnoxious and 3200 is emergency use only except when I'm stacking a ton of astrophotos with darks and flats to subtract out the noise.

archer1960 wrote in post #15332983
Really, you don't see a significant difference in noise from ISO 100 to 1600? I have a 500D, and I see a significant difference from 800 to 1600 in darker sections of the image. IMO, the jump in noise from 800 to 1600 is about the same as the jump from ISO 100 to 800 (I haven't done any specific tests for that, just my memory of what I've seen). 800 is pretty decent noise-wise, while 1600 gets somewhat obnoxious and 3200 is emergency use only except when I'm stacking a ton of astrophotos with darks and flats to subtract out the noise.

I guess it comes down to a person's definition of "obnoxious" noise!

I use ISO 1600 all the time on a 450D and consider it acceptable but that's just me (and maybe something to do with exposure)

XSi (450D)
ISO 1600
(100-400)

archer1960 wrote in post #15332983
Really, you don't see a significant difference in noise from ISO 100 to 1600? I have a 500D, and I see a significant difference from 800 to 1600 in darker sections of the image. IMO, the jump in noise from 800 to 1600 is about the same as the jump from ISO 100 to 800 (I haven't done any specific tests for that, just my memory of what I've seen). 800 is pretty decent noise-wise, while 1600 gets somewhat obnoxious and 3200 is emergency use only except when I'm stacking a ton of astrophotos with darks and flats to subtract out the noise.

Compared to the newer cameras the high iso of the xsi is perfectly usable (the t4i has a iso setting of 25600 and 7d 12800 both of which are very unusable from what I've seen). The noise difference from iso 100 to iso 1600 on my xsi is minimal when pixel peeped at 100% and no NR done. Viewing them not at 100% and you can't tell the difference.

Here are two examples of shots taken at iso 100 and then iso 1600:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​249454979/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​249455143/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​245532187/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​245525907/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​249455291/

If you had more dark areas in your images, I think you might find the noise a bit more objectionable. I do a lot of astro- and macro- photography, both of which often end up with large dark(er) areas surrounding the subject of interest, and that makes the noise a lot more noticeable. I haven't really tried it much on subjects like yours...

Sigma 17-50mm OS.

PS - I have one for sale on POTN!

85mm 1.8 is a fun one for portraits.

Try 85 1.8 . Can take portrait and good for indoor with space

bubbygator wrote in post #15318665
Ah, you have begun the trip. After you have shot with the 85/1.8 for awhile - you'll love it ... but the experience of shooting in low light will lead you to want a wider lens also. So remember ... the 28/1.8 comes next - with the 28 you'll be able to shoot anything indoors and have everybody in the shot - - - and still have good enough IQ to crop 4-6X to get a single body pic from the same shot.

The 85 arguably has the fastest AF of the Canon line-up. If you set the timing at 1/640 to 1/800, you'll be able to stop action and be in-focus even with kids running around. It's a great lens.

Thanks for the tips I will have to try that. My 3 year old is very hard to photograph since she is constantly moving.