[inkista]

I like mine.



Using one won't suddenly turn all your photos butt-ugly, and it's the best bargain wide-angle lens you'll find for a crop body.

Originally Posted by Jill H

On a recent 5 week trip I became a little disillusioned with the SLR - ease of use for one thing - never having the right lens on for the the job - don't have this problem with the Power Shot, but something I need to get used to. And also I wasn't always particularly happy with my results from the SLR as opposed to the PowerShot. Maybe it is the operator!

It's probably a combination of the lens and the operator. Out of curiousity, how long did you shoot with the film EOS? Or did you buy it at roughly the same time? Because for someone completely new to SLR photography, who's used to P&S digicams, buyer's remorse is a common factor: you spent a lot of money expecting a huge upgrade, and suddenly you got something harder to use and more limited than your P&S in terms of telephoto and macro, that's turning out duller pics by default, because dSLRs assume you want to process the photos yourself, rather than rely on the one-size-fits-all overcooking P&S cameras do.

If you're experienced with SLRs, skip this list. The main technique "deficiencies" that can cause blurred photos are:

1. handholding technique: most folks skip the bit in the manual on how to hold the camera.
2. misfocus: learn how to select focus points, and what the different focus modes do. Also, learn to aim for high-contrast targets (ideally, where black meets white at a sharp edge).
3. too slow a shutter speed for camera shake (without a stabilized lens, the shutter speed you want to use is 1/focal_length or faster, so with a 200mm lens, you need to be at 1/200s or faster)
4. too slow a shutter speed to freeze subject action (only the subject is blurred)
5. shooting wide open with the narrowest DoF (with a larger sensor and longer lenses, you really can get things out of focus). Also lenses don't perform equally at all apertures: you can often increase sharpness by stopping down one or two stops from wide open.
6. Learning to post process. Simple Levels/Curves adjustments can work wonders.

My question is? Are kit lenses rubbish? I have read various articles about the "glass" not being as good as more expensive lenses and if you want good quality photos you need to pay more. Is this correct?

Yes, and no. Depends on your definition of "good quality". The lens can work on chromatic aberration, sharpness, contrast, etc. But it doesn't do a freaking thing to improve composition, timing, or your ability to find/make light. Remember the great pics you took with your P&S? There are a ton of camera folks who would relegate that lens to the same level of the kit lens. Or even below it.

More expensive lenses can be better than the kit lens, but not necessarily on image quality. They may be more usable, more versatile, have more contrast, be faster, etc. But remember that the way you need to judge the lens is as a special-purpose tool. Price, size, and weight also go into the equation of finding what's the best fit for you.

I have also read that Tamrom make some great lenses that fit Canon. What would your opinion be in relation to buying Tamrom instead of a Canon lens or should I stick with Canon?

The only real drawback to going with a 3rd party lens is that they often reverse engineer the electronic communication in the mount. If Canon updates the mount somehow (say, to communicate lens EXIF information) 3rd party lenses can be made incompatible. Tamron/Sigma/Tokina, et. al. may rechip a lens if it's relatively recent, but older used lenses run more of a risk. Canon only has the obligation to make sure its own lenses work with the new mount; not everybody else's.

All of that said, right now, I'd say stick with the lenses you have and learn to get the most out of them. Your Pro1 did NOT, btw, have a 28-200 lens. It had a 7mm-50mm lens, and a 4x+ crop factor, which gave you the equivalent FoV of a 28-200 on film. But your P&S's lens's depth of field and minimum focus distance and effect on camera-shake are completely different from what you'd get from a 28-200 lens on film. It's just the FoV that's equivalent.

The only lens you may want to consider getting right now is the 50mm f/1.8 II: cheap enough (~$100) to be a great third training wheel lens, and it will teach you about wide max. apertures, and the joys of shooting with a prime instead of a zoom.