The DSLR Thread

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

@ Amit : The 70-200 f 2.8 IS II sells for under 2500$ in amazon and BH as of today.

I was talking of Airport duty free shop which was cheaper then Amazon 3 months back. May be Amazon and B&H still have stock.
After your post I saw on Amazon that Canon 50mm F1.8 which was around 86$ earlier is now 129$ so may be others will also climb up.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by robimahanta

Exactly my point, just for holiday pictures without any interest in photography..one is better off with an advanced compact. Say a Canon powershot S90 / S95

Why do you say that a person using the 18-55 kit lens has no interest in photography? Take our own Sam Aka Yeti for example. He used the D40 and I think the kit lens only. Do you say he is not interested photography? I don't think so.

And I don't know any compact which would match an entry level DSLR with 18-55 (except the zoom) in performance like focusing speed, low-light performance etc.

Also, if 18-55 was so bad as some claim it to be, don't you think the likes of canon & nikon would have stopped manufacturing these long back?

[silverblue]

The general rule of thumb is to stick with one multipurpose lens. The 18-55 is the cheapest option here. Once you have a multipurpose lens, you can start experimenting with prime lenses, macros, telephoto zoom lens etc.

Photography is an expensive hobby. You don't want to be stuck with an expensive kit after realizing that photography isn't exactly your passion.

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by thelightening

Guys !! I was very interested to buy genuinely used Canon 50mm F1.8 and Canon 55-250mm IS lenses.

What is a 'genuinely used' lens?

Ebay is a good source imho. Got my Nikkor 50mm from there for 3,600. It is a 1996 model. It is used but very good. A lot of patience is required though.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

I have used both the 18-55 and the 50mm. Even at F1.8, the 50mm will beat the 18-55. Its much sharper at F2.8, but even at F1.8 its no slouch. If you are getting blurry pictures, your body/lens combo could be back or front focusing.
Moreover, on many modern bodies with cross type sensor, the 50mm 1.8 will focus much faster

Unfortunately, The two new copies of the lens I bought were not so sharp wide open. Hence my conclusion. I don't have the body or the lens now anyways. I used it with a 350D body long time back. I did get some amazing shots out of it at 2.5 and higher though.

[vina]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Why do you say that a person using the 18-55 kit lens has no interest in photography? Take our own Sam Aka Yeti for example. He used the D40 and I think the kit lens only. Do you say he is not interested photography? I don't think so.

And I don't know any compact which would match an entry level DSLR with 18-55 (except the zoom) in performance like focusing speed, low-light performance etc.

Also, if 18-55 was so bad as some claim it to be, don't you think the likes of canon & nikon would have stopped manufacturing these long back?

Jaguar, he may have used some unnecessarily harsh words, but let me explain to you the point he (and earlier I) was making:

The 18-55 is not a bad lens, but it is not the best either. 50/1.8 has been known to be an excellent lens for over a decade now - when it first came out people were surprised with its performance. On a digital body it becomes a long lens and that limits its application for landscapes, but quality wise I can guarantee you this one will beat 18-55 hands down with comfortable margins in any test you want to perform.

For slightly more price you can get a better lens with a cheaper (less features, but same sensor quality) body. Or same body +50mm (if it works for you) OR cheaper body +50/1.8 for normal use and + another prime for landscapes is a good idea (landscapes do not move, so there is plenty of time to change lens. And if that is too much inconvenience, then why SLR?)

OR for less overall price you can get far better lenses with excellent bodies - only it wont be SLR (which wouldn't matter if you own exactly one lens)


If you compare the entry level SLR with entry level point/shoot then I agree the latter will be bad. However entry level SLR must be compared with top of the line point/shoot (price wise the latter will still be cheaper).



On whether 18-55 is so bad - first it isn't bad, second a vast number of people buy SLR to look cool (at least that was the case till 2004 when I was still activy) - you can ask around how many actually have more than one lens in their system, how many know about filters, how many use a hood on their long lenses, and how many know what is a tripod. Now for these people Canon/Niko have to add plenty of features (e.g. "night mode" and "portrait mode" on SLR ) and have to reduce the cost - hence the cheaper lens.

@Yeti may not be one of those guys (I don't know him, may be he is may be he is not - doesn't matter anyway because the argument is not that everyone buying 18-55 just wants to look cool, the argument is that most guys buying SLR with stock lens and nothing else actually have no idea about SLR), but a vast number of such guys exist - and a big fraction of Canon/Nikon's market is that.



Also I firmly believe that it is their money - some get pleasure from using the equipment, the other from showing off, most from something in between. So there is not point criticizing acerbically even if somebody is using a totally crappy lens, leave alone 18-55, with a top of the line body - if it gives him pleasure then why not?

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

Unfortunately, The two new copies of the lens I bought were not so sharp wide open. Hence my conclusion. I don't have the body or the lens now anyways. I used it with a 350D body long time back. I did get some amazing shots out of it at 2.5 and higher though.

Navin, most lenses are not at their best wide open. If 18-55 is then it'll be a great lens.

Also most zooms are slower than primes - more elements to absorb light - and also generate more distortion (both vignetting and chromatic).


By the way, I'm totally out of touch, so another question:

In the old days with film the resolution was a challenge so composition required that nothing but the intended scene be captured (so you don't lose resolution later via cropping). These days the resolutions are humongous, and you can afford to lose some of the resolution - why do you need very large range of magnification then?

[amitk26]

Well here is my take on 50mm F1.8 vs 18-55 IS lens issue ( Kit is too generic a word, 24-105 L USM is also kit for some body).

First of all they are different tools for different purpose you can not really compare a hacksaw with Swiss knife though Swiss knife can saw but cant do as good as hacksaw when it comes to cutting, but at the same time saw can not uncork bottles or cut cloth .

The 50mm F1.8 is based on tried and tested Gaussian design pioneered by Zeiss in 40s there were a lot of excellent 50mm lenses like Takumar and various russian lenses inspired by Zeiss and technological advancement was in area of CA and flare control by multicoating in 70s after that only big change that happened is addition of AF motor in 90s , So there is no really bad 50mm prime today.

It was lot harder to make a zoom lens and there was a percepion that zoom lenses are bad, but if you compare MTF charts then you can easily see that 18-55 lens has improved a lot in last decade and there is improvement in optics between Canon 18-55 and 18-55 IS itself.
There is very little you gain over 18-55 IS in terms of resolution if you move to 15-85 IS USM ( the gains are in area of wide angle , wider zoom and faster focusing)

So it would be wrong to use words like kit lenses are junk / crap but at the same time 50mm F1.8 is the cheapest fast prime one can afford.
A wide aperture is lot helpful in subject isolation for artistic shots.

So a 50mm F1.8 prime is lot more useful when it comes to learning photography.. however for general purpose photography like taking vacation pictures it is not suitable whatever one says.

[vina]

Originally Posted by amitk26

...
So it would be wrong to use words like kit lenses are junk / crap but at the same time 50mm F1.8 is the cheapest fast prime one can afford.
A wide aperture is lot helpful in subject isolation for artistic shots.

So a 50mm F1.8 prime is lot more useful when it comes to learning photography.. however for general purpose photography like taking vacation pictures it is not suitable whatever one says.

agreed fully.

Though if someone uses a small-sensor camera, 50/1.8 may not be the way to go, a 35 may be better (and more expensive)

[HellwratH]

Wow, one night and so many replies on this. Interesting thoughts. I have nothing against 18-55, it taught me a lot and I am grateful to it. But once I got the 50mm, I have never used 18-55mm again and eventually ended up selling it. When I required UWA, I used a friend's 11-16 which was much better than the 18-55. Ofcourse, you can't compare both.

I have been an avid follower of this site and this thread in particular (I still remember when Tanveer bought the 350D over Sony R1). Even when I was contemplating getting a Pentax camera for it's ability to be able to support legacy lenses, I came here first. The only problem that I had with the entire discussion was how 50mm lens was termed "You look cool if you use it and it has no value other than that" tone. And how 18-55 was more uncool but useful. This sends out a wrong message to the newcomers who are getting into photography and are looking for answers. I guess highlighting a lens' +ves and -ves should be the objective than trying to term a lens to be cool or useful. It's my opinion, others may agree or disagree.

And yes, I find 50mm too wide sometimes for landscape photography . And there's a reason why 70-200 lens is famous for landscape photography.

[vina]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

... The only problem that I had with the entire discussion was how 50mm lens was termed "You look cool if you use it and it has no value other than that" tone. And how 18-55 was more uncool but useful.

I thought it was the other way round. I used to have a 50 and a huge 28-135 zoom - and people were more impressed with the latter even though the former almost always produced better results.

Originally Posted by HellwratH

And yes, I find 50mm too wide sometimes for landscape photography . And there's a reason why 70-200 lens is famous for landscape photography.

I guess joke is on me

[HellwratH]

Originally Posted by vina

I thought it was the other way round. I used to have a 50 and a huge 28-135 zoom - and people were more impressed with the latter even though the former almost always produced better results.

Na, I am just refering to a post that was made earlier and which started all of this discussion .

Originally Posted by vina

I guess joke is on me

And nope, the joke is not on anyone . Just want to emphasize the fact that landscape means different things and different perspectives. Yes, if you're looking for Ultra wide look an UWA lens will suffice, but if you're looking at a different perspective, a different lens may help. And, honestly 50mm is wide for me at times or may be I am just used to that lens a lot. When I got the 20mm for my EVIL camera (2x crop factor, EFL=40mm), I had a tough time shooting landscapes because I was so used to EFL of 80mm on my Canon. The tele-photo lens will help get the "compression" effect that can be handy at times. And here I am talking about no-cropping rule, if you're going to crop then a wide angle lens should suffice all the needs.

EDIT: Here's the link on how telephotos can be useful for landscape photography: http://www.digital-photography-schoo...pe-photography

[robimahanta]

Wow! just a simple suggestion of getting a 50mm with a new DSLR body sparked such a big reaction.Some reactions like "why is canon/nikon even manufacturing..50mm will make you look cool etc." are unwarranted. I just said what I personally felt and I am sorry if I was being harsh.
I never said that the 18-55 is a bad lens rather wanted to emphasize that there are better options available. But regarding the 50mm though there are other options available like f1.4, f1.2 etc they are not that much better than the f1.8 especially if you look at it from a value for money perspective.
Just wanted to help people build a better DSLR kit from scratch while saving some money in the process.
Don't feel like discussing this any further. Hope to see some great pictures from all you guys and share ideas instead.
Cheers!

[kunalsb]

1. I am the greenest member to join this community. Me & my wife are budding photographers & have recently bought a Nikon D3000 (I know an older model but I feel its a good camera for beginners like us).
2. Got the camera for Rs.22500/- with 18-55 VR kit lens (Freebies- DSLR bag + 4GB SD card). Planning to buy a 55-300 Nikon lens in near future.

[rajb3125]

With all this talk or 50mm being too long for portraits(indoor) and landscapes. I must be doing something wrong, shooting portraits indoor at 200mm and shooting landscapes at 200mm.

[throttleking]

Originally Posted by hiren.mistry

Congrats throttleking, even I picked up the Nikon 5100D over the weekend. Set me back 35K for it. Scratch guard and UV filter were the freebies from the dealer.

Me too sticking mostly with Auto, Portrait modes as now. Its going to be good learning for the next few months.

Cheers

Congrates man!!! It means I got a expenssive deal, could have saved at least 5k. Anyways, deal is done so dont want repent it.