Buying first DSLR. To kit lens or not to kit lens? That is the question

Forums › Digital Imaging › Buying first DSLR. To kit lens or not to kit lens? That is the question

1 | 2 | 3

1926 posts

Uber Geek

#670916 11-Aug-2012 09:35

This will be short. I haven't read any other posts...

I travelled around South America a few years back and took a 18-200 stabilised lens and a 10-20 wide angle. I think I took the 18-200 off twice in two months.

I'm picky about image quality but in all seriousness, the ability of the IS/OS/VR lenses is well above average for anyone who just wants a lens to work first shot.

I'd get the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 and forget about anything else until you get back.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#670929 11-Aug-2012 10:03

DonGould:
At 600D level, I wouldn't say that kit lenses are poor, just 'not as good'. I think it would be a little unfair to suggest that you can't get some decent shots, because you can. I think that was Neil's point.

I do agree with you about the 15-85mm option. If you're wanting wide angle, I would even look at 'something' to 55. My experience is that the dynamics of a wide lens are very different to a telephoto, so stick to each job and do it will.

he says he is shooting lots of landscape. 15mm vs 18mm - going from 18mm to 15mm may not look like much but you are getting TWENTY PERCENT more width

Talkiet:
There's a lot of misleading information here I'm afraid.

The current kit lenses are reasonable, they are much better than the first and second generation kit lenses.

Optimum quality is NOT the 15-85... Without going L lens it's probably the 17-55 F2.8 EFs

Saying the L lenses don't give as good quality because of the crop sensor is I am afraid, total garbage.

I've been through 10-11 Canon camera bodies, and probably 20 different lenses. I don't just buy and sell them, I use them hard. Check out http://nzsnaps.com to get an idea of the stuff I produce. I love gear and I work really hard at making sure I get the best out of my equipment but great equipment is NOT the answer all of the time.

Cheers - N

have you seen how much the 17-55 costs? i used optimum meaning quality vs price ... the reviews for the 17-55 shows that the 15-85 is nearly as good.

hence for price vs what you get i would consider the 17-55 way overpriced - you can get an L lens for this piece of plastic

putting an L lens on crop sensor gives you slightly superior sharpness to the best EF-S lenses. putting L lens on full frame camera gives you professional perfect pixels. it's true.

i agree kit lens is ok ... so stick with the kit lens if you're starting out - as i said, if you want to spend a little $$$ get the 15-85 which will suit OP's needs

Asmodeus

1015 posts

Uber Geek

#670954 11-Aug-2012 11:27

Ok thanks guys. Sill a little confused though :)

I'm not buying the camera specifically for this trip, I just figured I'd get it before this trip. I only have a month to practice taking shots and fiddling with the camera before I go. Once I'm back I will slowly start building my kit up. I travel a fair bit and like to take loads of photos when doing so. I need wide and zoom

Are the 18-200 lenses really not so great? If I were to get one for the purposes of this trip, are the Sigma ones OK? The Canon branded one is a few hundred bucks more. Is it 30% superior or is a fair chunk of that extra cost paying for the label?

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 DC for Canon $459

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon $539

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM for Canon $605

Canon EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS $800

Or 18-135 or the two kit lenses or ...???????!!!

insane

3239 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#670963 11-Aug-2012 12:00

Asmodeus:

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 DC for Canon $459

I've lost count of all the Canon and Sigma lenses I've owned, but to start off the stock Canon lens with IS is not a bad option at all, far better than the old 18-55 non IS version. The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 v2 is also not bad either for the price, and surprisingly sharp, although on a cropped sensor is not very wide.

That 18-200 Sigma lens above is rather average, I found it only mildly useful in very good light, otherwise you end up shooting at 1600 ISO so I'd pass on that one. The Canon kit lens 18-200mm with IS is a lot better.

If you don't want to spend too much on glass, then pickup a Canon 50mm F1.8, or the F1.4 if your budget stretches, honestly from all the lenses I've owned the trusty 50 f1.4 has always delivered.

If you're in the market for a Canon 70-200mm F2.8L however, let me know as I've been meaning to sell it :)

Asmodeus

1015 posts

Uber Geek

#670973 11-Aug-2012 12:31

insane:
Asmodeus:

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 DC for Canon $459

I've lost count of all the Canon and Sigma lenses I've owned, but to start off the stock Canon lens with IS is not a bad option at all, far better than the old 18-55 non IS version. The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 v2 is also not bad either for the price, and surprisingly sharp, although on a cropped sensor is not very wide.

That 18-200 Sigma lens above is rather average, I found it only mildly useful in very good light, otherwise you end up shooting at 1600 ISO so I'd pass on that one. The Canon kit lens 18-200mm with IS is a lot better.

If you don't want to spend too much on glass, then pickup a Canon 50mm F1.8, or the F1.4 if your budget stretches, honestly from all the lenses I've owned the trusty 50 f1.4 has always delivered.

If you're in the market for a Canon 70-200mm F2.8L however, let me know as I've been meaning to sell it :)

What about the other Sigma lenses I posted? Same deal?

Would the 50 F1.8 or 1.4 be suitable for what I need on this trip though? I wouldn't have thought so...?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#671012 11-Aug-2012 14:12

the sigma zoom lenses you posted are at least as good as kit lens, if not slightly better, in the range of 18-50mm ... from 80mm upwards it gets very soft (= blur), BUT, if you hate changing lens like me it's great.

the canon has superior image stabilization meaning you can shoot at lower ISO when zooming (if you are not steady when extending your zoom ALL your picx will be blur from hand shaking)

another advantage of the canon is photo processing: the superzooms have really weird distortion (think funny mirrors) at nearly every extension, in addition to other colour/lighting distortions: with canon you can download the latest canon software to auto correct things

non superzooms have all these distortions too but not nearly half as bad, and again, software correction can be applied if needed

i got the sigma because it gives me an extra zoom at the expense of higher ISO needed

if you have no idea what i'm talking about using higher ISO gives you faster shutter speed but higher iso gives grainier pictures

the Canon 600D has pretty good shots even at 1600 ISO so i wouldn't worry too much

all about price and what you need

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#671013 11-Aug-2012 14:14

if you are thinkig of zoom lens i'd go canon 18-200 but you don't gain much more than the kit lens to be honest, with this option

the canon 15-85 is superior to kit: we are talking about sharpness at the centre, sharpness at the corners, sharpness at difference zoom range, etc etc

so summary:

kit x2 lens more or less equal to canon 18-200 but inferior to canon 15-85

in camera if you have no money don't buy the mid range ones - they are at least equal if not inferior (google reviews are your friend) - UNLESS you are like me who don't want to change lenses in which case the superzooms are an option

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#671035 11-Aug-2012 14:47

Asmodeus:
Would the 50 F1.8 or 1.4 be suitable for what I need on this trip though? I wouldn't have thought so...?

no i guess not ... this lens is to do three things

1) shoot at low light because of the large aperture (the only one that applies to f1.8 - it's not good enough to do the other two things)

2) create a photo where only 1% of your shot is in focus, everything else is blur, so that the thing you want to show is brought forward and everything else is not distracting - note if you focus on the wrong thing by accident/poor technique/inferior focus mechanism you are in trouble

3) very sharp lens for relatively low price

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#671048 11-Aug-2012 15:03

joker97: he says he is shooting lots of landscape. 15mm vs 18mm - going from 18mm to 15mm may not look like much but you are getting TWENTY PERCENT more width

Yes I think you've got a very valid point.

The 18 to 55 lens lives on my 400D. We've got a 75 to 300 which we hardly ever use. I agree with who ever commented about changing lenses. We've got one of those stock Canon bags, and by the time I fish about for the lens to change it over, the moment is gone.

I find that I'm often wishing the 18/55 is a bit wider, so I think you're right that the OP should have a look at a 15 option.

He commented about landscape, but you've also got group shots and often can't get back far enough to get everyone in, especially if you're inside.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#671060 11-Aug-2012 15:30

Asmodeus: Ok thanks guys. Sill a little confused though :)

How are you going with that confusion factor?

I've been following the thread, as you know, and I can fully understand why you might be confused...

Here's my take on things so far:

1. Like any engineering question, you question comes with trade offs. What ever you choose, there will be some advantage, and disadvantage. So you need to identify each advantage and rank its importance to you and consider the disadvantages that people have pointed out.

2. This is your first DSLR. Most of us posting here are coming from having used SLR or DSLR cameras for decades, so you need to flesh out which of our comments really apply to you. I think that you'll find the quality jump from what you have been using to the DSLR is going to be so significant that it might make this conversation an bit academic.

3. Some of us have seen the results of a good lens in the hands of a good operator and understand the value. However, you're not yet a good operator.

4. A number of people have pointed out that for the most part, they don't really feel the expense of a professional lens is even that worth while, even though they own professional grade lenses them selves. I think this is an important point to you. I read this to mean that they didn't get/invest in quality lenses until they had gone though the learning process to really appreciate the value.

5. I expressed you should consider the 'regret factor' in under investment. A number of others have suggested that I'm over stating that risk.

6. Put some serious time into learning to use what ever you get. I'm reading lots of "pffft... if you have blar then you can't waaaa" followed by "ya, if you have blar and do naaa, then you can waaa". To me, this translates to "Consider a bunch of things you might want to shoot and then work out how to get a great result with what you have. Come back and ask questions and post examples of what you're doing and we'll help you figure out how to get the best wow from your kits, what ever you buy".

7. Low light and fast moving is hard to shoot no matter what you have. You don't currently have a DSLR, so even with the best kit, it's going to take you some time to figure out what you're doing and do it well on command/demand.

8. Shoot in the right format and then learn to post process your images properly. If you have a wonderful lens, but shoot in low res jpg to get 10,000 images on your 4Gb flash card then you're just wasting your cash.

9. A lens kit will give you versatility. In your hands, the expense of better lenses is not likely to deliver you much extra value. While I don't know that I fully agree with this point, it does seem to be a theme that others have expressed a number of times.

Additionally...

What are you going to do with your snaps when you get home?

We put images on paper and have a graphic arts quality A3 printer (Xerox DC1250 if you're interested).

We do lots of post processing in the computer before we print. My wife likes to shot stuff with a wide lens, up close. I shoot stuff further away on a zoom and we both do a lot of cropping.

So to me, getting as much well focused image on to the CCD is important. Someone pointed out using a wide lens that causes the focus of everything else other than your subject to be diminished. You can do that in the computer with post processing effects.

HTH

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#671061 11-Aug-2012 15:35

joker97: [snip]
have you seen how much the 17-55 costs? i used optimum meaning quality vs price ... the reviews for the 17-55 shows that the 15-85 is nearly as good.

hence for price vs what you get i would consider the 17-55 way overpriced - you can get an L lens for this piece of plastic

They're both excellent lenses. The 17-55 is a 2.8 lens. That's worth a lot. The 17-55 is an L in all but name, and only because (so far) there are no L EFs lenses. It's superb and many people compare it to the 24-70 F2.8L in terms of quality. I've used both and I'd agree.

putting an L lens on crop sensor gives you slightly superior sharpness to the best EF-S lenses. putting L lens on full frame camera gives you professional perfect pixels. it's true.

Don't say this is true. You are so wrong on this it's not funny (except for the new comment that the best EFs lenses are nearly as good - they are). It doesn't matter if you put an L lens on a 1.6 crop body, a 1.3 crop or a full frame, the lens doesn't change quality... What does in fact change is that on a 1.6 crop body, only the central part of the frame is used, and in fact edge sharpness on lenses is always compromised compared to the centre. So in fact, it is accurate to say that the images you get from a 1.6 crop camera will be SHARPER than from a full frame camera as far as the lens contribution goes. I'm not including the strength of the AA filter, the size of the microlenses or the actual sensor megapixels here - just the contribution of the lens. Only the best part of the lens is used on 1.6 crop cameras.

i agree kit lens is ok ... so stick with the kit lens if you're starting out - as i said, if you want to spend a little $$$ get the 15-85 which will suit OP's needs

Yep, the 15-85 is a good lens (as you point out), but is it better than having an 18-55 AND a 55-200? Or is it better than an 18-200? Quality wise, yep - but quality isn't always everything.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#671062 11-Aug-2012 15:44

Asmodeus: Ok thanks guys. Sill a little confused though :)

I'm not buying the camera specifically for this trip, I just figured I'd get it before this trip. I only have a month to practice taking shots and fiddling with the camera before I go. Once I'm back I will slowly start building my kit up. I travel a fair bit and like to take loads of photos when doing so. I need wide and zoom

Are the 18-200 lenses really not so great? If I were to get one for the purposes of this trip, are the Sigma ones OK? The Canon branded one is a few hundred bucks more. Is it 30% superior or is a fair chunk of that extra cost paying for the label?

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 DC for Canon $459

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon $539

Sigma AF 18-200/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM for Canon $605

Canon EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS $800

Or 18-135 or the two kit lenses or ...???????!!!

It's my gut feeling if you can stretch to either of the 2 more expensive 18-200 options, you wouldn't regret it. The quality (as pointed out) at the zoomy end of the range will drop off a little (but it likely to be better than the Canon 55-200 kit lens).

18-200 is a hugely useful range and not having to change lenses is often a BIG BIG plus.

As for the Sigma or Canon... Well I think the Canon would be better... I can't quantify how much better, but I would point out the canon will hold resale value better than the Sigma.

Even if you decide in the future to get fancy lenses, having an 18-200 is always useful if you really just want to take a camera somewhere.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#671073 11-Aug-2012 16:03

Talkiet:
joker97: [snip]
have you seen how much the 17-55 costs? i used optimum meaning quality vs price ... the reviews for the 17-55 shows that the 15-85 is nearly as good.

hence for price vs what you get i would consider the 17-55 way overpriced - you can get an L lens for this piece of plastic

They're both excellent lenses. The 17-55 is a 2.8 lens. That's worth a lot. The 17-55 is an L in all but name, and only because (so far) there are no L EFs lenses. It's superb and many people compare it to the 24-70 F2.8L in terms of quality. I've used both and I'd agree.

putting an L lens on crop sensor gives you slightly superior sharpness to?the best?EF-S lenses. putting L lens on full frame camera gives you professional perfect pixels. it's true.

Don't say this is true. You are so wrong on this it's not funny (except for the new comment that the best EFs lenses are nearly as good - they are). It doesn't matter if you put an L lens on a 1.6 crop body, a 1.3 crop or a full frame, the lens doesn't change quality... What does in fact change is that on a 1.6 crop body, only the central part of the frame is used, and in fact edge sharpness on lenses is always compromised compared to the centre. So in fact, it is accurate to say that the images you get from a 1.6 crop camera will be SHARPER than from a full frame camera as far as the lens contribution goes. I'm not including the strength of the AA filter, the size of the microlenses or the actual sensor megapixels here - just the contribution of the lens. Only the best part of the lens is used on 1.6 crop cameras.

i agree kit lens is ok ... so stick with the kit lens if you're starting out - as i said, if you want to spend a little $$$ get the 15-85 which will suit OP's needs

Yep, the 15-85 is a good lens (as you point out), but is it better than having an 18-55 AND a 55-200? Or is it better than an 18-200? Quality wise, yep - but quality isn't always everything.

Cheers - N

Gosh havent heard this theory before ... Does make sense ... This is cming from someone who has never used an L lens on his ef s canon ...

How do you explain the sharpness chart for an L 70-200 on dpreview.com for ef s body vs on full frame body? The charts suggest on ef s body it's no better than ef s lens?

FYI:

canon kit lens sharpness chart http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/3

my dream lens sharpness chart on EF-S http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/4
and on full frame http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/5

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#671082 11-Aug-2012 16:23

joker97:
Gosh havent heard this theory before ... Does make sense ... This is cming from someone who has never used an L lens on his ef s canon ...

How do you explain the sharpness chart for an L 70-200 on dpreview.com for ef s body vs on full frame body? The charts suggest on ef s body it's no better than ef s lens?

Well, comparing sharpness from images taken on different cameras is unfair. The 7D and 5dII are both excellent, but the 5dII sensor is better.

The EFs tests I found there were taken on a 3rd body (40d). Those tests aren't a measure of just the lens, they are a measure of the lens and body combination.

The Canon MTF charts are much harder to read, but beware when they test EFs lenses, they obviously only measure the smaller image area so at first glance the charts can look misleading.

I'm not saying there aren't good (great even) EFs lenses - there are... But there's simply no reason why any lens (including L lenses) would perform any differently on a 1.6, 1.3 or full frame body. The CAMERA difference however will be measurable.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29763 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#671086 11-Aug-2012 16:26

sorry just edited post while you were posting see above

1 | 2 | 3