Which lens for a beginner?

[petermer]

I'm going to buy Canon 500D, but without the kit. Which lens do you suggest? The standard 18-55mm one that comes with the kit, or another, like the 50mm one? Please suggest only lenses that do not cost more than the 18-55mm one.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by petermer

I'm going to buy Canon 500D, but without the kit. Which lens do you suggest? The standard 18-55mm one that comes with the kit, or another, like the 50mm one? Please suggest only lenses that do not cost more than the 18-55mm one.

Peter, there's no reason why you should not consider the 18-55 kit lens as a starter, especially if it's the IS (image stabilized) version. With the 1.6x lens factor, that lens works out to an 28.8mm - 88mm lens. That said, it gives you a decent enough wide angle along with the 88mm being good for portrait work. Other lenses like a fast 50mm can always be added at a later time. In the meantime, work and learn the camera with the 18-55 until such time you're ready to make another purchase. Hope this helps...I'm sure you may get other opinions, but I would firmly stand with my opinion as the right starting point.

Vince

[castman]

I am with auto-focus on this the kit lens is the way to go. There is much out there for that price.

[inkista]

Just get the kit. You're not going to find a better lens at that same price range. It only adds about $60 to the price of the camera body alone (at least on Amazon), vs. being $150 if you pick it up separately. Yes, there are a ton of reviews out there that tell you the kit lens is garbage and you're better off getting a better lens separately, but that assumes two things: a) you know what lens you want, and b) that you have the money for the "better" lens, which may cost as much or more than the camera body.

If you're worried about spending more than $150, then b) is out for you. And the problem with a) is that you have to have experience with lenses before you can actually figure out what lens you want. It's a chicken-and-the-egg problem.

That's why we're all advocating just blowing the extra $60 and getting the kit. It's a perfectly good consumer lens, and it will teach you what focal lengths you want, stopping down to f/8 for sharpness, the limits of a slow max. aperture, and also the limits of IS. It's also the best low-cost wide-angle for a crop lens you can find on the Canon side, so once you do get that "better" lens, you may still have a place for it in your bag. If only because the low cost makes it trashable--something few other lenses are.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but with dSLR photography, getting the camera body is just the beginning of the money pit. Most folks will end up spending at least two to three times the amount of money they did on the camera body to equip themselves.

[natek313]

Originally Posted by inkista

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but with dSLR photography, getting the camera body is just the beginning of the money pit. Most folks will end up spending at least two to three times the amount of money they did on the camera body to equip themselves.

So true, and I can attest to it. I've already invested over $2,000 in lenses. My camera body ran me about 25% of that.

[petermer]

I'll follow your advice and take the default kit lens. As you said, as a beginner I should firstly learn to work with lenses and then I should invest on one! I just read favourable reviews for the 50mm lens, and I had to ask.

[inkista]

The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a great lens, but as an only lens it might limit you, because the crop factor of an entry-level dSLR makes it more of a short telephoto than the general purpose lens it was on film/full-frame. I do highly advocate getting the 50/1.8 as your second lens, since it's so inexpensive and such a great performer. Some folks do get the 50/1.8 as their kit, but many folks do find it to be too narrow a field of view.

If you want to go with just the 50, you can do it. That would probably be the only other good low-priced option. But it will be harder to use than the 18-55--you have to zoom with your feet, and there's no stabilization. But you will have that larger maximum aperture and better optics. And it will probably whip your butt into shape as a photographer faster than the 18-55 will, simply because it doesn't zoom. But it's not as easy to use as a general purpose walkaround.

The main reason I'd suggest the 50 as a second lens, though, is simply because you'll be spending about the same amount of money to get the kit w/18-55 and then the 50, as you would just buying the body and the 18-55 separately. (Remember, the 18-55 when kitted gets you a $90 discount of the lens price--that's practically the entire purchase price of the 50).

[petermer]

That sounds reasonable. Does however the 18-55mm lens make a good travel lens?

[inkista]

I think so--it's wide-to-normal on a crop body, so you can use it for landscapes and architecture. And the IS will help you take handheld shots of buildings at night. Where it'll be weak, though, is in low-light ability for moving subject matter, because the max. aperture is relatively small. Also, to get it to perform at its best sharpness, you may need to stop the lens down a little, which further limits your low-light capability. That's why pairing it with the 50/1.8 is a stronger combo.

But as a travel lens, it is small, light, and very cheap, which makes it trashable. If it gets lost/stolen/broken while you're travelling, it's not that hard to replace it.

[petermer]

This is bad news, since I want to be able to shoot in low-light conditions. However, I'll just stick to the basic lens for the start, and I'll consider buying the nifty fifty afterwards.