Versatility of the 50 mm prime lens...

[BillDrew]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

Eh...I see...But I didn't recalled anyone in here saying that it will be a "Mistake" for me to start with the 50 mm prime lens?

OK...I didn't hear any of you said (Except Rejeency) that I would be better off with the 18 - 55 mm kit lens...Even that, I thought Rejeencyy was aimingat the idea of versatility...(Which I didn't disagreed with) ...

I agree with Rejeency that it would be a mistake for you not to get the kit lens. Not an earth shattering mistake, but one that will cost you money later - you are not likely to see anotherdeal that good on a pretty good lens. The only reason that I can think of not to get the kit lens is if you are planning on spending a largish chunk of money to get a really good, really fastlens covering about the same focal length range. Your comments about budget seems to rule out that possiblilty.

[JimC]

Another factor to consider is that size and weight also enter the equation.

You may not want to lug a larger and heavier lens around all the time, even if you plan on a higher quality zoom lens later.

The kit lenses are very small and light for the focal range they give you and they add very little to the cost of most entry level DSLR kits.

I know budget may be tight. But, we're only talking about a difference of around $100 with most kits to add the basic kit lens (less than 10% of the cost of the kits you're thinking about). So, I'd be inclined to get both a 50mm and a kit lens with my purchase for more flexibility initially.

My most commonly used "walk around" is a Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. Why? Although it's not as small and light as my 18-70mm kit lens, it's relatively small and light for it's focal range and brightness and it covers the focal lengths that I personally use more often (and the focal lengths you use more often may be different).

It starts out a bit wider than some of the popular 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses around and goes a bit longer, and it's widest available aperture is within a stop of most similar f/2.8 zooms at most focal lenghts they'd have in common. It's a smaller and lighter lens than most f/2.8 lenses with a similar range. I use it far more often than I use my brighter zooms that cover it's range, simply because it's smaller and lighter and more convenient.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on lens quality for someone just moving to a DSLR. Your flexibility in framing your subject is probably going to be far more important to get good photos in most conditions.

If you can't position yourself to get the desired subject framing, you may not get the shot at all. So, the difference in quality that you may or may not see at huge viewing sizes while "pixel peeping" (even if you can position yourself so that you have as many pixels representing your subject as you would with a zoom without cropping) is a minor issue in many conditions. ;-)

[JimC]

P.S.

As already mentioned by others earlier in this thread, an inexpensive zoom would also help you to see what focal lengths you tend to use more often, and would give you a better idea of where your lens may be a limiting factor. More often than not (especially outdoors in good light where you can use smaller apertures), lens quality is not the limiting factor in getting good photos. Your skill is.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Thanks again for the additional responses. (JimC, I really appreciate your efforts)

I can agree with everything just said. I think I will try my best to get a versatile zoom lens if I can, and then use it on my dSLR. On the other hand, if I can get a prime lens in the 30 - 35 mm range, I will certainly not let the opportunity slip away.

Regards.

EDIT:

YES, Ican also agree to get a dSLR camera with the kit lens.:|(Especiallywhen there tend to be some pretty good kit lenses around; according to useropinions)