Canon T2i - kit lens or upgrade?

[mcclussa]

I am looking at purchasing the canon t2i, however I am debating between getting the kit lens, and possibly a wide angle zoom lense - or getting the t2i body only, and upgrading to the canon ef-s zoom lens 15-85mm f 3.5-5.6. Is it worth the extra $700-$800 to upgrade the kit lens to this lens? Or would I be okay with the kit lens?

I'm just starting to get into photography, and I do a lot of traveling. I am going to Kauai in October, so I want to have a lens that will show the beauty of the landscape and waterfalls - but I also want something that will be versatile for everyday use: portraits, landscape, wildlife.

I don't want to spend a fortune, since I am traveling in a few months and need to save the money for that, but I want to make sure I'll have a lens that will give me great pictures in Kauai as well as something I can use for everyday use.

Could anyone offer some advice as to whether the kit lens is decent, if a wide angle zoom lens is necessary for great landscape, or if I should upgrade tothe 15-85mm? Any help would be greatly appreciated because I've been ready reviews and they are all over the board.

Thanks!!!

[inkista]

This is just me (and many disagree), but go with the kit lens and maybe an EF-S 55-250 IS and EF 50mm f/1.8 II. Cost you a buttload less, covers more, and yeah, the image quality won't be as nice, but people tend to exaggerate how "crappy" the kit lens is. This image was taken by a professional photographer with a Canon digital Rebel (the old 6MP 300D) and the non-IS 18-55 kit lens:

bigsur.jpg IMG_5320s4.jpg photo - Daniella T. photos at pbase.com

It's less about the gear you use than about your own abilities, knowledge, and post-processing skills. The kit lens may make it a bit harder, but the 15-85, while it has USM and nicer glass, isn't any faster, and may not be worth the upgrade to you just now, because you're liable to be making a ton of technique errors as a newbie that are going to cause you far more problems with image quality than your glass will.

Knowing what lenses to get is a chicken and the egg proposition for a new dSLR owner. You need to have experience with lenses to know what lens you want. To me, the cheap "training wheels triple" of an 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS and 50/1.8 II will give you enough to know if you like zooms vs. primes, IS vs. non-IS, wide vs. telephoto, and fast vs. slow. They will also teach you to stop down for sharpness, and why nobody prefers consumer glass. But, also, being cheap, they are going to be eminently trashable/disposable. And this is a good good thing in a travel lens that could get broken, lost, or stolen.

To me, shopping for lenses is a lot like shopping for clothes: it's not about getting the best ever, or the most expensive. It's about getting the ones that are the best fit for you and your personal style. What lens you want is all about what and how you like to shoot and how much you can afford. dSLR lenses are special purpose tools. And they'll outlast any camera body you buy. It's where the bulk of your money is likely to be spent in the future. You really should know whether you need a lens before you buy it.

[mcclussa]

Thank you for the advice! The more and more I read don this site, I'm starting to see that I do need to start out with the kit lense first - as other beginners have written though - many people talk so badly about the kit lens and talk about getting the body only and upgrading the lens - that you start to doubt your decision lol

The other question I'm hoping you can answer is about the wide angle zoom. Some people say that wide angle zooms are overrated when it comes to landscape photography, and others say you absolutely need it. I was looking at the tokina 12-24mm. I want to be able to really take great pictures in Kauai - and I'm not sure if it will be necessary to get this lens for that, or just use th kit lens...any advice? (I also thought about renting one for the week, but I wouldn't be able to get any practice in with the lens before I started using it in Kauai).

[inkista]

Originally Posted by mcclussa

Thank you for the advice! The more and more I read don this site, I'm starting to see that I do need to start out with the kit lense first - as other beginners have written though - many people talk so badly about the kit lens and talk about getting the body only and upgrading the lens - that you start to doubt your decision lol

A lot of people fall into two traps.

1) They take blurry pictures, and wonder why. They hear the kit lens is soft. They then decide the problem is the kit lens, not them. They don't know how to use a tripod or cable release, the 1/focal_length rule of thumb for shutter speed to eliminate camera shake, or stopping down for sharpness and DoF. Or to shoot RAW and sharpen in post-processing. They also probably don't know how to hold their cameras. But they still think it's the lens. They get an expensive lesson.



2) They don't realize that a lot of the online reviews they read are by professional photographers talking about the gear they use to earn a living. They have to be much more hypercritical about image quality issues that may not matter to a hobbyist. And they can claim this gear on their taxes as a business expense and (hopefully) pay for it out of a business, so the price/value ratio for them is a bit different than for a casual shooter.

The other question I'm hoping you can answer is about the wide angle zoom. Some people say that wide angle zooms are overrated when it comes to landscape photography, and others say you absolutely need it. I was looking at the tokina 12-24mm. I want to be able to really take great pictures in Kauai - and I'm not sure if it will be necessary to get this lens for that, or just use th kit lens...any advice? (I also thought about renting one for the week, but I wouldn't be able to get any practice in with the lens before I started using it in Kauai).

My advice is if you aren't even used to the kit lens, probably going for an ultrawide this early is not a good idea. Ultrawides can be fantastic tools and take wonderful pictures--particularly landscapes, but again, personal taste and skill levels differ. But just getting a wider FoV to stuff more of the scene into the frame can actually hurt a photo sometimes, rather than strengthen it. And with ultrawides, you're battling distortion, vignetting, and C/A as well, not to mention getting a strong composition when you're including MORE of the scene can be harder (easier to crop distractions at the edges).

You can shoot landscapes with any focal length. It depends. On the scene. On where you're standing. On what you want to show. No lens is ever a guarantee that all the pics you take with it are going to be amazing.

I will say that you may want to consider the alternative of panoramic stitching for those times when 18mm isn't wide enough. It's more of a PITA (particularly when waves are involved), and the results aren't the same as using an ultrawide, but it requires less gear, and it's cheaper.