What lens should I get

[VincentVL. 0]

tl;dr: read bold

I'm thinking of buying the Canon Eos400d DSLR camera for Point&Shoot purposes as well as learning the basics of photography.

I've been told (read on the internest blabla) that the standard 18/55mm lens that can be purchased along with the body is crap and that I'm better off buying only the body and a seperate lens.

Seeing as I'm buying this camera to learn the basics, I don't really know a thing about lenses. I need a lens that can do everything the standard lens can do (so I want it to be able to P&S objects 1:1) but I also would like it to zoom a little.

My questions:
- should I just get the standard lens already
- if the standard is a waste of money, what lens should I get. And I'm asking after both the specs (28/200 etc) and the make (canon, sigma etc)

I can't shell out a lot of money on the lens btw. So no 800$ lenses...

(Oh and last but not least, seeing as the dollar is so low, do any of you gorgeous people know a decent online lens store? Or am I being a fool ordering a lens on the net?)

[grayhghost 0]

canon 20mm f/2.8
canon 35mm f/2
canon 50mm f/1.4

from:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

[dragon2 0]

I'd get the lens, it's cheap and lightweight and when you jump it you can find out if the 18mm setting suits you or if it's not wide enough, then you can save up for a 15 or 14mm lens and use the 18-55 on the grounds...

BTW the good lenses for jumping generally do not zoom, fixed lenses are generally better and faster.

One lens you might consider though is the sigma 10-20mm. it's not fast though (f/4) and it's heavier and bigger than the 18-55. A higher quality 14 or 15mm f/2.8 lens would cost you more...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[VincentVL. 0]

Bedankt,

The thing is, I would only use it on the ground initially. And I just want a multipurpose lens so I don't have to switch lenses. That's why i was considering buying a decent lens that can P&S and zoom as well.

[VictorSuvorov 0]

one of this is pictures is shot with a cheap peace of plastic, the other with the top of the line lense. can you see the difference that justifies $800 and an extra pound of weight increase?
http://www.aerialdelivery.net/images/index%20page%20imgs/IMG_0928-2.JPG

http://www.aerialdelivery.net/IMG_5177.JPG

[VincentVL. 0]

First picture looks better so I'm guessing that's also the cheap piece of plastic.

[Icon134 0]

For learning the basics of photography the kit lens is probably sufficient. Part of my reasoning is that "good glass" is expensive and you can learn about how the camera works/develop an understanding of composition, etc, using the kit lens then when you know what you like doing spend some money to go out and buy something nice.

For example last winter I purchased a Tamaron 90mm macro lens because I had an interest in learning how to do macro and it is a good lens for Macrophotography.

if you want to read reviews of some lenses then you might check out something like http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

And if you want to buy online (someone already suggested it) B&H is a very good place to buy.

of course you can get great fixed lenses as suggested in a previous post (I learned my photographic basics using a SLR that was manufactured in the late 1960s and screw mount fixed focal length lenses... I also have a few fixed focal length lenses and have little problem zooming with my feet if that is possible.)

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[dragon2 0]

Multipurpose lense ("vakantielens") = bad lens. Better get used to carrying at least 2 lenses, more zoom = less quality. That means, slow autofocus, slow lens (f3.5-f5.6 is typical), loads of distortion in lower and upper end of lens and when shooting close to the fastest speed.

so, I would strongly advise against any 28-200 or worse 18-300 mm type lenses. Better get at least 2 lenses to cover much zoom range. I personally like my sigma 28-105 f2.8-f4 quite a lot for ground shots of canopies landing, and it's a cheapo lens too (2nd hand for <100 EUR).

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[pilotdave 0]

The kit 18-55 lens will be just fine.

Yes, you can spend as much money as you want to get better lenses, but you can get GREAT pictures with the kit lens. It'll blow you away compared to any pictures you get with a cheap point and shoot camera.

Get a better/different lens later when you can figure out what you don't like about the kit lens.

Dave

[The111 0]

Quote

one of this is pictures is shot with a cheap peace of plastic, the other with the top of the line lense. can you see the difference that justifies $800 and an extra pound of weight increase?
http://www.aerialdelivery.net/images/index%20page%20imgs/IMG_0928-2.JPG

http://www.aerialdelivery.net/IMG_5177.JPG

Ok, this is a fun game, I can play too.

Lens #1
Lens #2

One lens is Canon 18-55mm cheap plastic ($90?), other is Canon 10-22mm ($700). The one taken with the cheap lens, btw, will be on the cover of an international physics textbook coming out in February, and the check from the publishing company more than paid for the camera and cheap plastic lens used for the shot.

Quote

$800 and an extra pound of weight increase?

While I think your post is thought provoking, the difference is more like $600 and half a pound (in my case). Even the heaviest lenses aren't going to be more than a pound total (most I have shopped are 13-16oz), certainly not a full pound increase.

And in general, a nicer lens will take nicer pics, but it is still possible to take very nice pics with only an "ok" lens.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

While I think your post is thought provoking, the difference is more like $600 and half a pound (in my case). Even the heaviest lenses aren't going to be more than a pound total (most I have shopped are 13-16oz), certainly not a full pound increase.

Obviously depends on the lens. The 24-105mm f/4 IS is a popular lens for general photography, and is at least $1000 (not sure of the exact price) more and at least a pound heavier than the 18-55.

For the OP - I would spend the extra money and get the 17-85 lens with the camera - it's a better lens than the 18-55 and has image stabilization, as well, which helps you when your shutter speed is low (helps with camera shake, not subject movement).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shunkka 0]

hy
as i said before from my point of view it NOT REASON to buy anything else than the normak kit (18-55 lens) as a BEGINER..
the extra money u can spend on a photography course or if you want to jump stills u can spend on a camera flying course
ofcourse better lens means better quality but in the begining you`ll be more than happy with the kit lens

if you start to jump it i think (maybe the good aerial photographers here think different) a fixed lens (fast) is the best choice

-------------------------
"jump, have fun, pull"