Indecisive newbie can't decide on glass to start his collection.

[ham]

Firstly: Hi, I'm new.


Secondly: I'm currently using my Dad's
400d, the 18-55 (I think) kit lens as well as a longer EF lens (that
I'm really not a fan of.


I'm looking to buy my first camera, and have pretty much (I'm indecisive by nature) settled on the 550d.


The only thing that's bugging me at the moment is that I
don't want to settle for the 18-55mm kit (IS II if I remember correctly) lens I'm going to
quickly out-grow it and buy something else to replace it.


I've been looking at a lot of the canon lenses on this site over
the last month or so and haven't yet nailed down a lens or even two which I'm
happy with from a quality, range and price stand-point.


Basically,
I've been quite disappointed with the sharpness of both the lenses I've
borrowed from my Dad, and can tell that the camera is being let down by
them far too often. So I don't want to make a similar mistake and have
glass which is letting down my camera from the get-go. But equally I
don't want to spend too much on a lens straight off the bat. Does that
make sense?


Should I be just buying the kit, and seeing where I
feel it's lacking before I build on my set (i.e. am I being daft)? Or should I be thinking
about this more and probably look to buy the body plus another lens of
my choosing (i.e. can I have some help please)?


Any help will be greatly appreciated.

[ham]

Sorry, forgot to mention, my budget isn

[neuroanatomist]

Hi, and welcome to the TDP forums!


You're right to be most concerned about lens choice - the lens has a much bigger impact on image quality than the body (consider - the sensor used in your chosen 550D is the same one used in the 600D, 60D, and even the 'prosumer' 7D).


If your budget will cover it, I'd recommend one of two lenses - theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or theEF-S 1<span class="bbc_u"]5-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Optical quality is substantially better than the kit lenses, and the focal ranges are excellent for general-purpose use. The 17-55mm has a fast f/2.8 aperture, meaning it's better suited to portraits and indoor use. The 15-85mm has a broader zoom range (one consequence of that is a bit more distortion at the wide end), but the tradeoff is a slower and variable aperture. Since you've used an 18-55mm lens with a slow/vairable aperture, you may have a good idea if you want more range or a faster aperture in your 'walkaround' lens.


IN addition to the body and lens(es), there are a few other things to comsider. One would be supplementing your general purpose zoom with a fast prime - a budget option like the EF 50mm f/1.8 II (aka nifty-fifty, a fast prime that's decently sharp although not well built, and is the cheapest lens in the Canon lineup), or a step up from that such as the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Also, consider an external flash (light from the pop-up is harsh, and IMO pictures taken with that look like they could have been taken with a point-and-shoot) - get one that allows you to bounce the flash off a ceiling (e.g. 270EX II, although I recommend the 430EX II if possible). Finally, consider a decent tripod - IMO, Manfrotto is the optimal compromise between value and quality (getting a cheap tripod just isn't worth it).


FWIW, I started out with a T1i/500D, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 85mm f/1.8, and a 430EX II, and was very happy with my kit. I have added a lot of gear to my kit since then, but I still have and use the 17-55mm - the lesson there is to get good lenses at the outset, since they'll probably last you through several bodies over time.


Good luck with your decisions!


--John

[thekingb]

Welcome ham!


I echo what John said; and if you can afford the 17-55 f/2.8, go for it. But I will also give you a less expensive option for a general purpose zoom that still gives you the f/2.8 max aperture: the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non vibration control version). At $450, it

[Kayaker72]

I second everything Neuro/John said. I own the EFS 15-85 and it is a great lens. I do not find the distortion at the wide end to be that big of a deal and it is something that can be fixed in post-processing. It is sharp, covers a very useful range and image stabilization (IS) is amazing. That said, I've always been tempted by the 17-55 f/2.8. Both are great lenses.


While I also recommend getting a better general purpose zoom, I wanted to add that the non-IS version if the EFS 18-55 has been reported to be significantly worse than the current versions of the EFS 18-55 with IS (you can compare using the ISO 12233 charts in this websites reviews). So, you may want to see if your Dad's old lens has IS or not. If it doesn't, you may be satisfied with the EFS 18-55 IS II as a kit zoon lens and then can spend your money on other items, such as the prime lenses/etc John mentioned.


Another thought would be to try the kit lens until one of Canon's rebate sales come along, at which time, if you are dissatisfied, youmay be able toupgrade at a slight discount.

[ham]

Just had a look at the review on here and the 17-55mm really does look like a lovelypossibly be an immediate purchase). What exactly does having a fixed aperture on the 17-55mm entail though? The review mentions "stopping down" more than once, but I assume that this was a mistake and that the fixed aperture literally means you

[neuroanatomist]

The review mentions "stopping down" more than once, but I assume that this was a mistake and that the fixed aperture literally means you're "stuck" at f/2.8 and have to adjust light via shutterspeed alone.

Not at all. You can always stop down the lens. A 'fixedaperture' ('constant aperture' would be a better term) means the aperture doesn't change as you zoom the lens - the 17-55mm has an f/2.8 max aperture at 17mm, and it has an f/2.8 max aperture at 55mm. Conversely, the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is a variable aperture lens (that's why the f/number is a range, not a single number) - it has an f/3.5 max aperture at 15mm, but an f/5.6 max aperture at 85mm (with stepwise reductions), A variable aperture is a compromise that allows zoom lenses to be produced more cheaply (because less glass is required for smaller apertures).


Avariable aperture has two consequences: one, the longer your selected focal length, the less light the lens allows in. So, with the 15-85mm lens at 25mm, you're max aperture is f/4 which may be enough light for your shot. But if you zoom in to 61mm or longer, you're at f/5.6 and only getting half as much light as you got at 25mm - mayne not enough. The other consequence applies ifyou shoot in manual (where you set both the aperture and shutter speed) - using a variable aperture lens in manual means you need to adjust the exposure every time you change focal length, whereas with a constant aperture lens, you don't.

I suppose the question is if I go with the kit lens and the "nifty" to start with, how long will it be until I want to upgrade to a better all-round lens. What are the re-sale values of the kit lenses like?

It all depends on your impression of how well those lenses perform. If you're heppy with them, they may last you a long time... Resale value for them will be pretty low - despite the standalone price of the kit lens, anyone buying one used would know it's a kit lens, and not pay anywhere close to the high individual price of the lens. The high-end glass (which includes EF-S lenses like the 17-55mm and 10-22mm) holds value pretty well, the low end glass, not so much.

My Dad's lenses are both non-IS, and I had read that the IS (II especially) is an improved lens from the non-IS equivalents

For the 18-55mm lens, the IS version is definitely an improvement. There's no optical difference between the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS original and MkII (cospetic changes only).


OTOH, for the Tamron lens, the VC version (VC is what Tamron calls IS) is optically substantially worse than the non-VC version, thus the recommendation for the non-VC version. If you want IS in that focal range (personally, I find IS very helpful!), the Canon 17-55mm is the way to go.

[Dr Croubie]

ha, even i made that mistake when i first started looking at dslr lenses. I had a whole spreadsheet of various specs to compare everything, and didn

[DavidEccleston]

If you can afford it, the 85mm f/1.8 is vastly superior to the 50mm f/1.8. The Tamron and the 85 would be a killer starter kit. We hardly ever touch our 50mm these days, but the 85mm is on the camera nearly all the time. If we know we

[Kayaker72]

Another problem I'm having is that I can't really tell what my shooting habits are

A very rough guide on this could be based on what you intend to shoot. If you intend to shoot people or indoors a lot (note, f/2.8 isn't enough for all low light situations), I would be more tempted by the 17-55 f/2.8. If you intend to shoot outdoors mostly (as I do), I would be more tempted by the 15-85. Also, I wouldn't try to find the "perfect" lens, as there isn't one. I think of them as tools. Ultimately both the 17-55 and the 15-85 are general purpose zoom lenses (so the same type of tool). The 17-55 gives you more light and thinner DOF (helps with fore- and background blur) but has a more limited focal length range. The 15-85 gives you both a wider and longer focal length, but will let in less light and have greater DOF. But ultimately, these two lenses are both great and can be used for the same general purpose photography. I've taken plenty of photos of people/indoors with the 15-85 and they have turned out great. It is just sometimes I needed a flash. And I am sure many have taken wonderful outdoor photos with the 17-55.