Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 3, 2005, 10:35 AM   #1
Member
 
vjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 39
Default

I plan to buy a Rebel XT or 20D in the next couple weeks. This will be my first SLR, so I have 0 lenses. Are the lens kits worthwhile, or should I not bother?
vjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 3, 2005, 11:08 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

its a good start, and is quite sharp for the money (only an extra 100USD).. so my advice would be to get the kit.. use this for a few months while you are getting to know your camera.. then you will have a better idea of what lenses you will need for the specific types of photographs you take..

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2005, 3:19 PM   #3
Member
 
vjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 39
Default

That sounds reasonable and will give me a chance to start learning the camera while I am researching other lenses. Thanks.
vjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2005, 4:40 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

The lens kit is a Very good starter lens. You may be a little annoyed about the low aperture when in low light... but it's great overall for how much it is...

FYI, in my experience with it so far, the best pictures are from 35mm-55mm.



Just shrunk the image with photoshop, no manipulation or anything like that.
Attached Images
 
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2005, 6:30 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi,

I use the Kit lens a lot. Here is a sport shot. It is been cropped to upload. TheSki Jumpers are traveling at about 60MPH. Plus I am up close and personal at 20' from the jumper. I was a marker at this event.

bluwing
Attached Images
 
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 6:03 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Hi VJack

Another train of thought, if you can afford to, would be to save the money on the kit lens and put it towards the EF-S 17-85 IS or a 17-40 f4L. I know its not particularly cheep. (Both about 500 uk pounds, probably much less in America though.) But you might appreciate this in the long run. You are after all buying an expensive camera. Some might argue, the lens is more important ... like me :-)

Just another way to go on this.

Or another even braver alternative would be to make you first lens a fast prime. This will help your framing and positional sense at this time. It can actually be a lot of fun too. EF 50 f1.4 USM, is a great little lens. It will allow you the ability to shoot in low light.Natural looking portrait in doors also. You could even hold this lens reversed on the camera mount and have a do it yourself macro. It works very well.

However I think its natural for peopleto feel the need for azoom when starting out today due to the zoominclusion to some extent in all pro-summer cameras.

LB
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 10:01 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

yep, if you can afford it, the 17-85 kit would be superior to the 18-55 kit in every respect..

if you can't..

.. get the kit lens as its only 100USD more and then pick up the not quite as good as the 50mm 1.4 but stilll good 50mm 1.8 as well (can be found for approximately 75USD).. bringing your grand total to a mere 175USD..


some of the best images i have shot were done on a cheap seriesI 50mm 1.8.. which i prefer BTW over the series II version..

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2005, 11:06 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2
Default


Maybe I got a dud 17-85 or have a ringer 18-55, but in my tests the 17-85 was significantly softer at anything less than f8 before catching up.

Nice concept, and would love to have that exact lens with sharper glass, but it's quite the compromise, which is somewhat expected for a 5X wideangle zoom.

See: http://www.pottier.com/nic/lens2

-Nic
nicpottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2005, 12:03 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52
Default

Obviously, different users - different results. I purchased the 18-55 kit and found it very soft. Sold the 18-55 and got the 17-85 which is razor sharp. The IS is also a big plus. In the kit, the 17-85 is about $100 less than buying it alone. If you're not happy with it, you could probably resell it on _bay for a profit. The 18-55 on the other hand is plentiful on the resale market for $50-$80. You probably can't loose either way, but I believe the 17-85 is a much better lens with much better reach and IS for a little more money (as far a lenses go).
Humrme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2005, 3:50 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 155
Default

First, save money by getting the RXT rather than the 20D. I have both, and my opinion is that the 20D has too little to offer for the $500 difference in price--especially for a novice. The 17-85mm has image stabilization. It is also the 35mm equivalent of 27-136mm, a very useful zoom range. You could later--please, wait one year--add a superwide, like the 10-22mmand/or a telephoto zoom, like the 70-200 or100-400, depending on what kind of pictures you end up taking, and you have a 3-lens set for just about all purposes.

Be wary of suggestions to get a 50mm as your only lens. On a 20D or RXT, that is a short telephoto lens, and while some professionals use a fast short telephoto as their "normal" lens, they are usually not taking pictures of the kids' birthday parties or first Monopoly games or other close-condition shots. You need 17 or 18mm at the wide end of your zoom on your 20D or RXT for indoor or close quarters outdoor shots.

If you were going to go back to basics with your new cam, the 1.6x equivalent of the old "normal" lens would be in the 31-35mm range, like the Canon 35mm F/2 or the new Sigma 30mm F1.4 (Canon has a 35mm F1.4, but it is over $1,000).

Economical choice: RXT and 18-55mm, or for $400 or so more, the RXT and 17-85mmIS will be your best all-around starter set.
wburychka is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:05 PM.