Canon 300D lense help

[jonathan_d]

i'm looking at getting a 300d and wondering is it worth paying £70 for the 18-55mm lens over the body price?

i'll mainly be using it for band photography, which is often low light without flash, so i was thinking of maybe getting the fixed 50mm F1.8 to start with instead and then getting a zoom later on.

any advice on which would be best?

[Brozyniak]

I think that Canon are releasing another lense for their digital range so you may want to wait and see your options.

http://www.eos-magazine.com/News_49_EF-Sdigilenses.html

[mike.durie]

Hi,

Get the kit lens, it will be of far more use to you than a standard 50mm lense, Firstly a Zoom will alow you to frame your shorts better and secondly Digital SLR's in general have a multiplication factor to add onto regular lenses, dor the cannon about 1.6 so a 50mm is about a 80mm, when compairing to a standard SLR.

[mbuckhurst]

i'm looking at getting a 300d and wondering is it worth paying £70 for the 18-55mm lens over the body price?

i'll mainly be using it for band photography, which is often low light without flash, so i was thinking of maybe getting the fixed 50mm F1.8 to start with instead and then getting a zoom later on.

any advice on which would be best?

I've got both, the 50mm is definitely a better quality lens and of course has a much wider maximum aperture, but the 18-55 is not bad either, the 50mm is going to cost you £50 anyway, so you'd only save £20 and lose the versatility of the zoom, swings and roundabouts really, for the sake of £70 to me it was a no-brainer.

mike

[paulsaz]

for low light work you want the 50mm, its a great lens for the money. How fast is the 18-55? If its more than a couple of stops then I'd get the 50mm lens first. Actually quite suprised people are recomending the zoom, firstly a fixed lens means you will become a better composer of pictures rather than a lazy zoomer and the fact that it comes to 80mm on an 300d makes it the ideal size for portraits, band snaps.

[gothmog]

Because you can't buy the 18-55 seperately (well only second hand off eBay ;).

The cheapest super-wide that's considered better than the 18-55, is the 17-40L which is £500 :)

With the 1.6 crop factor the 18-55mm becomes an essential purchase IMO.

If it was a choice between a 35mm F1.8 and the kit lens it might be a more difficult decision ;)

-- Jon

[mike.durie]

for low light work you want the 50mm, its a great lens for the money. How fast is the 18-55? If its more than a couple of stops then I'd get the 50mm lens first. Actually quite suprised people are recomending the zoom, firstly a fixed lens means you will become a better composer of pictures rather than a lazy zoomer and the fact that it comes to 80mm on an 300d makes it the ideal size for portraits, band snaps.

Agree with most of the above to a point. The Zoom Lense is quite usefull, given it won't be as good quality or as fast as the 50 but it will cover from moderate wide angel up. No anount of good composition will get wound the need for a wide angel for Landscape shots. As you say an 80mm lens is good for portraits etc, but it is not quite an all-rounder and can be quite limiting, depending on the type of shots to be taken.

As said elswhere a variety of lenses are better, to my mind the zoom would replace at least 2 standard lenses.

Mike

[gothmog]

I would also add, you will end up owning both anyway, it's an addiction and the body is just the beginning :D

-- Jon

[RobDickinson]

Theres some image stabalised lenses for the EOS isnt there, mebee worth looking at one of those, tho I guess there more cash.

[aliflack]

get it with the kit lens - if you don't i guarantee within a month you'll have come across so many situations where you needed that wide-angle...

Besides what's wrong with having a zoom that allows you to get great composition without moving? Sometimes it just ain't practical or possible!

Hell the 50mm 1.8 is all of £90, get it for Christmas!

[Crouching Tiger]

OK, So with the 1.6 cropping thingy, the 18-55mm is really a 28.8-88mm and the 50mm is really a 80mm in old money. Is that how it works ?

[paulsaz]

ah well if you cant buy the 18-55 seperatley then get both, but for your band shoots i'd use the 50mm.

[Matholwch]

OK, So with the 1.6 cropping thingy, the 18-55mm is really a 28.8-88mm and the 50mm is really a 80mm in old money. Is that how it works ?
In 35mm terms yes. By the way the 50mm f1.8 can be had from 7dayshop for around £55 + postage.

[DeadKenny]

Even if it's the only way to buy it, a £70 value lens is a £70 value lens, and in this business you really do get what you pay for (and paying that kind of money gets you pants lenses).

Personally I wouldn't bother and go get a far more expensive wide/super-wide zoom (if that's what you're after, and/or get a 35mm prime if you want a FOV of a 50mm on a 35mm film camera).

[Andrew70]

I know all the arguments about the lens quality are valid, but unless you plan to do something special with the pictures afterwards, like get them blown up and printed at A4 size, the kit lens will give adequate results. For viewing on a monitor or for email sized pictures, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between a £70 and a £700 lens.

A.

[DeadKenny]

I know all the arguments about the lens quality are valid, but unless you plan to do something special with the pictures afterwards, like get them blown up and printed at A4 size, the kit lens will give adequate results. For viewing on a monitor or for email sized pictures, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between a £70 and a £700 lens.


To be honest, if that's all you're going to use the camera for you shouldn't really bother with a DSLR at all.

Still, I can guarantee you that on a monitor you will still be able to tell the difference very easily. There are some features of a £700 lens that you just cannot reproduce with a £70 lens (especially in regards to the 'speed' of the lens). i.e. it's more than just the basic optical quality, but the functionality which lets you achieve things you can't with the cheap lens. It's these kinds of things which is why SLR is such an advantage over non-SLR snappers.

Though you don't have to spend £700. Around £300 is what I'd pay for a starter wide zoom.

[aliflack]

well i've had some images blown up to beyond a4 with the kit lens and they look just fine to me! sure an 'L' lens will give better results, but they stand up on their own as it is.

Its not a bad lens by any standards and will come in useful for those without a large collection of glass

[stormywhether]

DK, you sound too much like a perfectionist - are you a pro?

The kit lens is perfectly adequate for the needs of the majority of amateur/intermediate photographers. Fair point, the L lens is quite simply superb and you can definitely notice differences in output - but £70 buys you an awful lot of lens in the 18-55.

[DeadKenny]

DK, you sound too much like a perfectionist - are you a pro?

The kit lens is perfectly adequate for the needs of the majority of amateur/intermediate photographers. Fair point, the L lens is quite simply superb and you can definitely notice differences in output - but £70 buys you an awful lot of lens in the 18-55.

I'm no pro, but I do know £70 for a lens isn't going to get you much. It's a plain fact that you get what you pay for with this business and just about any photo web site will tell you that.

It just seems daft to spend a fortune on a DSLR and then slap on a cheap £70 lens when it's the lens that's the most important part of the camera. For amateurs starting out with DSLR it's likely to be holding them back, and I wouldn't say it's adequate for intermediates.

It's far more than just about 'quality' but about functionality too. These lenses are slow and struggle in low light situations, plus have slow auto-focusing. This can be a limitation and you soon find the lens is only good in certain situations and you end up quickly needing a better lens.

That's why when I got mine (admitidly a Nikon :D), I went for the kit that had the £300 lens, not the one that has the cheap £100 lens ;). The reviews and almost universal comments on forums & from retailers speak for themselves, not to mention the sheer demand for the better quality lens meaning they're impossible to find but the cheap lens is everywhere because no one wants it.

By all means, try the cheap lens, but see if you can borrow a better quality lens at a few hundred £ more and you'll suddenly realise how pants a £70 lens is. Either way, my bet is you'll be selling it quick.

If you're on a budget and just starting out then...

a) You're going to find DSLR a bit of a struggle as nothing is going to be cheap ;), but more seriously...

b) Try a 50mm prime lens instead (or for a bit more in price, a 35mm lens).

No zoom, but miles better quality lens for next to nothing price (the 50mm that is).

If you can afford it though, spend a bit more and save yourself the hassle of having to sell the cheap lens in the short term to exchange for something you really need.


Actually quite suprised people are recomending the zoom

It's the manufacturers doing this. They like to go with a cheap compromise lens that will attract people to their product. People expect zooms these days, but good quality zooms are expensive and not a patch on a prime. It used to be that all SLR cameras came with a 50mm prime as it was dead cheap and has the optimal FOV for everyday use, plus usually a very fast lens and high quality.

This is an interesting article on the subject...

http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten-lens.htm


Also worth pointing out that the much smaller sensor size on the compact digicams allow for smaller faster built-in zoom lenses which can be higher quality than the cheap kit lenses on these DSLRs even if the kit lens costs half the price of a compact digicam. To get an equivalent quality to that compact you need to spend a lot more on an SLR lens.

[Sam]

DK, you sound too much like a perfectionist - are you a pro?

The kit lens is perfectly adequate for the needs of the majority of amateur/intermediate photographers. Fair point, the L lens is quite simply superb and you can definitely notice differences in output - but £70 buys you an awful lot of lens in the 18-55.

I'm with DK on this one. I certainly wouldn't say the lens was adequate for intermediate photographers. I've got a fair collection of standard zoom lenses that have come with various bodies I've bought over the years and optically the 18-55 is one of the poorest. You can see the difference pretty easily between it and a better quality (not necessarily L series) lens. If the budget is that tight and its an either/or situation I'd go for the 50mm. The advantage the 18-55 does have is the wideangle which you have to pay a premium for normally. I only ever use the 18-55 at a push if I need the 18 end and thats only until i can afford either a wideangle prime or zoom.

[stormywhether]

fair enough.

[Crouching Tiger]

You can see the difference pretty easily between it and a better quality lens.Could you show an example Sam or DK ? ;)

[Sam]

Could you show an example Sam or DK ? ;)

I'll try and take a couple of comparison shots at the weekend.

[stormywhether]

I think you'll struggle to show a big difference on the world wide interweb.

Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that time has started going backwards today?

[aliflack]

dk - have you actually tried the 18-55 lens? I'm not clear from your posts if you have or not.

If you haven't got any lenses already I really can't help but think its a great buy - if you go down the prime route you'll need what, 3 lenses or so to cover a decent range? Even then you'll still need a zoom of some description... for the sort of money that entails surely £70 represents good value as it'll allow you to save up for decent lglass rather than rushing and buying whatever you can afford!

I'm speaking from the POV of a complete newbie to the world of slr's mind you! :nuts:

[mbuckhurst]

I'm no pro, but I do know £70 for a lens isn't going to get you much. It's a plain fact that you get what you pay for with this business and just about any photo web site will tell you that.

It just seems daft to spend a fortune on a DSLR and then slap on a cheap £70 lens when it's the lens that's the most important part of the camera. For amateurs starting out with DSLR it's likely to be holding them back, and I wouldn't say it's adequate for intermediates.

It's far more than just about 'quality' but about functionality too. These lenses are slow and struggle in low light situations, plus have slow auto-focusing. This can be a limitation and you soon find the lens is only good in certain situations and you end up quickly needing a better lens.

By all means, try the cheap lens, but see if you can borrow a better quality lens at a few hundred £ more and you'll suddenly realise how pants a £70 lens is. Either way, my bet is you'll be selling it quick.

If you're on a budget and just starting out then...

a) You're going to find DSLR a bit of a struggle as nothing is going to be cheap ;), but more seriously...

b) Try a 50mm prime lens instead (or for a bit more in price, a 35mm lens).

No zoom, but miles better quality lens for next to nothing price (the 50mm that is).

If you can afford it though, spend a bit more and save yourself the hassle of having to sell the cheap lens in the short term to exchange for something you really need.

Also worth pointing out that the much smaller sensor size on the compact digicams allow for smaller faster built-in zoom lenses which can be higher quality than the cheap kit lenses on these DSLRs even if the kit lens costs half the price of a compact digicam. To get an equivalent quality to that compact you need to spend a lot more on an SLR lens.

Interesting comments, however, I've got 3 lenses 18-55mm, 50mm F1.8 and a 55-200mm USM II. In terms of autofocus they all beat my Canon G1 (which incidentally cost me more than the DSLR) compact camera (the 55-200 is lightening fast, but the 50mm is the slowest of them all, picture quality there's no point even attempting to compare they are all superior than the G1.

It's extremely hard to tell the quality difference on my 18" TFT so can't comment that much, the 50mm seems better than the 18-55, but that could simply be down to faster shutter speeds (I've never had my camera above 1/1000s since I brought it home from California until I attached the 50mm) more than optical quality. The 55-200 is marginally the best lens.

Some of the reviews I've read seem to imply the quality control is the problem with the 18-55 lens, meaning the quality is variable between one kit and another, but one thing is for certain, for the price, when I need to use the camera for snapshots (and lets face it, just because you've got a semi-pro camera doesn't suddenly mean all you'll use it for is pro photographs), this lens is perfectly adequate.

mike

[paulsaz]

Just beats me why people spend £500 - £1000 on a camera and then want to spend a pittance on the important bit, the lens. You'd be better spending £100 on an older body, say an eos 33 or 5 and spending the big money on the lenses and a good scanner.

[mbuckhurst]

Just beats me why people spend £500 - £1000 on a camera and then want to spend a pittance on the important bit, the lens. You'd be better spending £100 on an older body, say an eos 33 or 5 and spending the big money on the lenses and a good scanner.

I've yet to see a scanner that can come close to the quality of a digital camera, whether it's scanning the negatives or photos. Not to mention that a digital camera of any sort totally changes the way you take photos. There is no way I'd go back to my film SLR now I have a 300D.

But no-one is suggesting you buy a DSLR and then stop, it's just the 18-55 lens with the 300D is perfectly adequate for a lot of people as a starter lens and certainly will allow you to use the camera and start to play around, at around £70 on top it's not too expensive and allows people the opportunity of entering the DSLR world without spending much more than the cost of the body. Ok so it may be crap (although mine doesn't seem that bad), but since pretty much the only other lens anywhere near the price is a 50mm from 7dayshop which is marginally better, it's at least allows you to start somewhere. I personally would have been gutted if I'd bought a body and then had to wait 10 days to get a lens delivered.

There's way too much pretention in this world over photography, at £700 the Canon is no more than a 4 or 5 megapixel snapshot camera was a couple of years ago, so what if it doesn't have the best lens in the kit, it's still a great camera and if you only use it for snaps, who cares.

I'm lucky I can afford to buy whatever lenses I want, but I've yet to read conclusive reviews that tell me a particular lens is a must have and until I do I'm going to continue to use my 18-55, 50 (which was bought after Sam recommended it) or whatever and be very happy with the results.

mike

[mike.durie]

Hi,

Tend to agree with the above, after all the commenta about the 18-55 being a poor lens I did a little serching on the net, from the reviews I saw it may not be a brilliant lens but it is reasnably capable, as for people refring to it as a £70 lens, can you buy this seperatly? I thought you could only get it as part of the kit, although it costd £70 more for the kit over the body this is unlikly to be the full retail cost of the lense.

Personally when I got my 300D I did not go fot the kit, but that was more to do with avilability. I now have 4 lenses covering macro and 19 - 300mm and regularly print out at A4 but I still wish that I had got hold of the kit. The Zoom was a steal for an extra £70!

Mike

Mike anone had a play with the Eos 20D yet?

[DeadKenny]

but since pretty much the only other lens anywhere near the price is a 50mm from 7dayshop which is marginally better

A 50mm prime should be loads better, not marginally, not least because the aperture goes typically as wide as f/1.4 or f/1.8 (depending on brand/model/etc). This is a rather important factor as with the limited aperture on the zooms (even more expensive zooms), you are limited to particular lighting situations which can restrict a beginner somewhat when you want to be learning about apertures and shutter speeds.

The kit lens I got with my Nikon (18-70DX) is worth £300 (and pushes the kit price up by £200 over the body alone) and even that I find limiting in certain ways and much prefer the super fast 35mm f/2 lens (equivalent FOV of a 50mm on a 35mm film camera). The zoom however has convienience of the zoom range and I like it for that, but it struggles in low light and isn't particularly fast at focusing. Still, it's miles better than the cheap Nikon kit lens (28-80G, aprox £100 value I think, and almost all reviews and advice I've had was to steer well clear of that one).

[wseed]

Never used the 18-55 as I don't have a camera up to taking it but You can buy it here for £99 (http://www.ajpurdy.co.uk/erol.html#49x0&&)

Before any of you rush off to the bargain forum with the Canon 10-22mmf3.5/4.5 EFS for £25 that's just the deposit!

I have a kit lens that came with my EOS30 and while it's nowhere close to some of the flash £££ lenses it will take acceptable pics when stopped down a little. Yes it is pants in low light but with the 300D you can drop your ISO to gain a stop or 2 and I suspect that this focal range will be used by most for landscapes where you'll want to be up at F11-F22 or so anyhow.

If I was buying a new DSLR I'd love to have such a wide lens and for that money you can't even come close.

[mbuckhurst]

A 50mm prime should be loads better, not marginally, not least because the aperture goes typically as wide as f/1.4 or f/1.8 (depending on brand/model/etc). This is a rather important factor as with the limited aperture on the zooms (even more expensive zooms), you are limited to particular lighting situations which can restrict a beginner somewhat when you want to be learning about apertures and shutter speeds.


Just because the aperture can go wider doesn't make it a better quality lens, perhaps makes it a little more versatile, but hell it can't do wide angle so you lose out in the versatility stakes there.

You don't need an f/1.8 lens to learn about shutter speeds or apertures, ok so maybe you can't quite achieve the wide variety of depth of fields, but you can certainly learn about the differences between f/4 and f/22. There are plenty of things you don't learn with an 50mm f/1.8 such as the impact of camera shake on a bigger lens, it's all swings and roundabouts, the fact is in like for like circumstances where both the 18-55 and 50mm can be used, you'll be hard pressed to spot the difference with a photograph taken by either (at least with the 18-55 I've got).

At the end of the day most people are going to be very happy with the results with either lens and isn't that the whole point?

mike

[decosta1228]

So far I have the 300D and 3 lenses

50mm 1.8
18-55
and I just brought a 75-300mm USM II for 50 quid yesterday

So far it's so good and I'm getting the shots I want.

[jonathan_d]

ok thanks for all the replies everyone!

i knew the crop factor makes the 50mm equivelant to an 80mm, but i didn't think it did that with the kit lense because it's got the bit that extends into the camera.

at the moment i've got an olympus digicam with a 40-320mm zoom.
i know i would definitely miss the wide end of that if i had no zoom, so was already looking at getting the 55-200mm as a replacement for that maybe a month or so later, which would probably make a good companion to the 18-55mm.

the difference in price has gone up a bit now. i can get the body with 50mm for £595 or with the 18-55mm for £625 (it was £610 when i originally asked, should have ordered it then and asked the questions later!) but after reading that forgotten lense article i think i might just get the lot. hehehe :)

[guli]

i have a 18-55 for sale if anyone wants one - used once or twice before I upgraded to a 17-40L

Give me a shout

Alex

[stormywhether]

guli - how much did you pay for the 17-40L?

[guli]

£330 or thereabout

Alex

[stormywhether]

christ - where from?!?!? I want!