[amitk26]

For those who want a walk-around lens but can not spare money for Canon 15-85 ( latest price is 975$ up from 630$ before tsunami). Have a look at Sigma 17-70 OS it is a good lens.

One of the Canon lens factory was in Fukushima so you know why the specialized lenses are shooting up in price. The Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM is now 2700$ up from 2400$ few months back

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Go to your local camera market. You will find lens caps for 50-60rs each. Much cheaper than the 3-4$ on ebay.com

Tanveer you live in Delhi at other places specially Bangalore a 58mm lens cap ( soniya made) costs cool 300Rs + fuel ( I purchased one) Delhi has lots of small scale industry and market so cheap compared to cities in south for small things.

So buying from Indian e-bay ( ebay.in) at 200Rs makes more sense.

http://cgi.ebay.in/center-pinch-lens...item2eb501ba87

[throttleking]

ohhhh... Looking at some of the posts I feel got a expensive deal this weekend. Anyway, this is what happens in electronic market.

I finally got my self Nikon D5100 with 18-55mm VR kit lens which includes Nikon DSL bag and scratch guard for the display. Total cost 38500/- and also bought Nikor 55-300mm VR lense for 19500/- with all this he also gave me one UV filter free worth 500. Total bill 58000, exchange of my old Nikon P80 5500/-

Shooting on auto mode, need lessons for my new DSLR.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by amitk26

For those who want a walkaround lens but can not spare moeny for Canon 15-85 ( latest price is 975$ up One of the Canon lens factory was in Fukushima so you know whey the specialized lenses are shooting up in price. The Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM is now 2700$ up from 2400$ few months back

Even my Tamron 10-24 has short up in price. I think I should revise my price quote upwards!

Tanveer you live in Delhi at other places specially Bangalore a 58mm lens cap ( soniya made) costs cool 300Rs + fuel ( I purchased one) Delhi has lots of small scale industry and market so cheap compared to cities in south for small things.

So buying from Indian e-bay ( ebay.in) at 200Rs makes more sense.

eBay India: center pinch lens front cap 58mm for Canon INDIAN (item 200605284999 end time 16-May-2011 12:55:46 IST)

Well buy the cheapest you can find. 200rs is still better than the 1000+ authorized retailers charge.
As for local delhi market, well chandni chowk does have a lot of places where you can get such accessories for cheap.

[vina]

Originally Posted by akp

That is precisely the point he is making:

Well, I haven't been shooting much for years now. But if I remember correctly back in '03 (at the beginning of film to digital) bokeh wasn't blurring - bokeh was bad blurring of a point light source (polygonal shapes, rings, any other hard-edged geometries) and lenses used to be characterized for this.

bokeh was usually compared between lenses with same focal length and f-stop on the same scence.


hence I got confused - sorry about that.

[navin_bhp]

I think its harsh to suggest a prime lens to someone who is new to photography. It takes a good one year for a person to nail down what he likes to shoot the most. It's good to start with a 18-135 range lens. The 75-300 comes in later when a longer range is required. When money is not a problem even a 18-270 or 28-300 is recommended. It's mostly within this range for a beginner. Even if someone has the money to spend on L's I would suggest to start with the Kits and basic lenses. After understanding the limitations of these lenses and finding out what focal lengths you use most then its good to buy specific lenses. Be it a prime, macro or telephoto.

It is atleast acceptable to a certain extent if someone is jumping from a prosumer zoom. He might have understood his needs well and would have developed certain amount of composing skills which will help him get good pics out of a prime.

If the 18-55mm kit lens and the 50mm f1.8 prime are in the same price range have you thought why the manufacturer did not include the prime as a kit lens?

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

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

I think its harsh to suggest a prime lens to someone who is new to photography. It takes a good one year for a person to nail down what he likes to shoot the most. It's good to start with a 18-135 range lens. The 75-300 comes in later when a longer range is required. When money is not a problem even a 18-270 or 28-300 is recommended. It's mostly within this range for a beginner. Even if someone has the money to spend on L's I would suggest to start with the Kits and basic lenses. After understanding the limitations of these lenses and finding out what focal lengths you use most then its good to buy specific lenses. Be it a prime, macro or telephoto.

It is atleast acceptable to a certain extent if someone is jumping from a prosumer zoom. He might have understood his needs well and would have developed certain amount of composing skills which will help him get good pics out of a prime.

If the 18-55mm kit lens and the 50mm f1.8 prime are in the same price range have you thought why the manufacturer did not include the prime as a kit lens?

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

Finally, somebody has understood the point I was making. Most entry level DSLR owners stay with one lens for quite some time. The question becomes which lens.
And here the kit lens shines. If you buy body only you save around 3000 INR on a lens which costs 5000 in the open market.

Moreover, most people buy cameras to take pictures of their familes on holidays, take pictures of landscapes, etc.,
18-55 or 18-135 kind of lenses are jack of all trades. Only later, as they make photography their hobby, they start looking at specialist lenses.

[vina]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

If the 18-55mm kit lens and the 50mm f1.8 prime are in the same price range have you thought why the manufacturer did not include the prime as a kit lens?

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

In the film era, 50/1.8 was the standard Canon kit lense. I got it with my EOS33 at that time.

Also it used to be a very cheap lense (you could get it for $50 new) - not sure about the 18-55 but if you can get a zoom at that price it is almost guaranteed to be crappy - no speed on the lense, pretty bad vignetting and other such thing have to be expected.

Also if a beginner wants to use a zoom to learn what he wants to shoot he is probably better off with a non-SLR (and non-EVIL) camera. The lenses/sensors on most of the point-shoot cameras are better for far less price and if all you want to carry are crappy lenses you may as well save some money.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by vina

In the film era, 50/1.8 was the standard Canon kit lense. I got it with my EOS33 at that time.

Also it used to be a very cheap lense (you could get it for $50 new) - not sure about the 18-55 but if you can get a zoom at that price it is almost guaranteed to be crappy - no speed on the lense, pretty bad vignetting and other such thing have to be expected.

Also if a beginner wants to use a zoom to learn what he wants to shoot he is probably better off with a non-SLR (and non-EVIL) camera. The lenses/sensors on most of the point-shoot cameras are better for far less price and if all you want to carry are crappy lenses you may as well save some money.

Long gone are those film era's vina. And if you had a SLR in the film era's you would not be a beginner I guess.

The 18-55 kit lens is not crappy at all. It is sharp enough and AF is far better than the 50mm f 1.8 in low light. You may say the 50mm 1.8 is faster but its not sharp enough at 1.8.

When I was a beginner I had the S3 IS and 75-300(non USM) on a 350D. At telephoto I got amazing results on my 75-300 compared to the S3IS. I think faster shutter speeds of the DSLR's compared to slower P&S's makes a huge difference here. I still have the 75-300 lens now even after getting a 100-400mm. One day I will give it to my son for him to learn

[vina]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

Long gone are those film era's vina. And if you had a SLR in the film era's you would not be a beginner I guess.

The 18-55 kit lens is not crappy at all. It is sharp enough and AF is far better than the 50mm f 1.8 in low light. You may say the 50mm 1.8 is faster but its not sharp enough at 1.8.

When I was a beginner I had the S3 IS and 75-300(non USM) on a 350D. At telephoto I got amazing results on my 75-300 compared to the S3IS. I think faster shutter speeds of the DSLR's compared to slower P&S's makes a huge difference here. I still have the 75-300 lens now even after getting a 100-400mm. One day I will give it to my son for him to learn

Great idea to keep it for your son.

I stopped photography sometime in '04 - just couldn't find time and most in my family couldn't appreciate pictures that had no humans in them. Also in India I couldn't rent lenses for a day., and Mahatta in Delhi used to cost a lot for my salary to afford for developing the rolls. I still keep the camera though, for my daughter

Like I said I don't know about 18-55, for that matter, the 50/1.8 in those days was surprisingly cheap - other lenses that quality used to cost at least thrice as much (I'm talking about photo quality, not build quality).


I know about digital photography, but not from aesthetics side of things. I designed sensors for some scientific imaging applications years ago. like you said, the speed of the sensor is one huge advantage electronic cameras have. Convenience is another.

One question: for very long exposures (10min or more) in very low light, how do the sensors perform these days? Some years ago the dark current was big enough to mess up the pictures (compared to a film shoot).

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

The 18-55 kit lens is not crappy at all. It is sharp enough and AF is far better than the 50mm f 1.8 in low light. You may say the 50mm 1.8 is faster but its not sharp enough at 1.8.

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

Originally Posted by vina

One question: for very long exposures (10min or more) in very low light, how do the sensors perform these days? Some years ago the dark current was big enough to mess up the pictures (compared to a film shoot).

Upto 30 minutes at ISO 100 things are fine. At high ISO(1600) I would limit myself to 50-60 seconds of exposures mostly, atmost going to 100 seconds.
That said, if you take a couple of dark frames, it takes care of the hot spot issues.

However, if ambient temp is high, you may get some "AMP GLOW" around the corners if you shoot more than 15 minutes or so.

[robimahanta]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Most entry level DSLR owners stay with one lens for quite some time.
Moreover, most people buy cameras to take pictures of their familes on holidays, take pictures of landscapes, etc.,
18-55 or 18-135 kind of lenses are jack of all trades. Only later, as they make photography their hobby, they start looking at specialist lenses.

I still don't think its harsh to suggest a beginner to buy a 50mm 1.8. I feel most people buy DSLR's because they have an interest in photography. Not counting those who buy a DSLR for the coolness quotient rather than the utility perspective.
Besides buying a DSLR body by paying around 50K then sticking to just a 5K lens which is supposedly a "jack of all..master of none" type for a long time is not appropriate.

As vina said "if a beginner wants to use a zoom to learn what he wants to shoot he is probably better off with a non-SLR camera. The lenses/sensors on most of the point-shoot cameras are better for far less price and if all you want to carry are crappy lenses you may as well save some money"

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

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by robimahanta

I still don't think its harsh to suggest a beginner to buy a 50mm 1.8. I feel most people buy DSLR's because they have an interest in photography. Not counting those who buy a DSLR for the coolness quotient rather than the utility perspective.
Besides buying a DSLR body by paying around 50K then sticking to just a 5K lens which is supposedly a "jack of all..master of none" type for a long time is not appropriate.

As vina said "if a beginner wants to use a zoom to learn what he wants to shoot he is probably better off with a non-SLR camera. The lenses/sensors on most of the point-shoot cameras are better for far less price and if all you want to carry are crappy lenses you may as well save some money"

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

I am not a beginner now. Yet most of my photographs, even good ones came from 18-55 non IS lens which is not as sharp as the new 18-55 IS.
If I just had the 50mm 1.8 I would have been severely limited in landscape photography
50mm 1.8 is 80mm on APS-C, which makes it very narrow for landscapes. Its ideal for potraits, and quite good for street photography

[robimahanta]

I never said that 50mm should be your only lens. Depending on what you like to shoot buy your next lens when you have saved enough. That way you need not end up replacing lenses every six months...save some money in the process.
If you like the kit lens focal length buy something like 15-85, 17-55 2.8etc. If you are into landscapes buy a WA or a UWA..so on and so forth
If you are hell bent on sticking to just one lens, a superzoom like 18-200 etc. would be a better option.
The 50mm is one such part of your kit that you needn't replace for a long time.

[vina]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

I am not a beginner now. Yet most of my photographs, even good ones came from 18-55 non IS lens which is not as sharp as the new 18-55 IS.
If I just had the 50mm 1.8 I would have been severely limited in landscape photography
50mm 1.8 is 80mm on APS-C, which makes it very narrow for landscapes. Its ideal for potraits, and quite good for street photography

50mm is not very useful for landscapes even with the 36mm full frame.

Medium format cameras may call it slightly short, but even at 36mm format it used to be slightly long, with APS-C it is definitely long.

Also Landscapes do not allow you to position yourself for the best shot a lot of times, changing the focal length (and hence the magnification) is the only option. No wonder you love the 18-55.

[hiren.mistry]

Originally Posted by throttleking

ohhhh... Looking at some of the posts I feel got a expensive deal this weekend. Anyway, this is what happens in electronic market.

I finally got my self Nikon D5100 with 18-55mm VR kit lens which includes Nikon DSL bag and scratch guard for the display. Total cost 38500/- and also bought Nikor 55-300mm VR lense for 19500/- with all this he also gave me one UV filter free worth 500. Total bill 58000, exchange of my old Nikon P80 5500/-

Shooting on auto mode, need lessons for my new DSLR.

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