I do not have a DSLR camera..Yet. But I have come to own a Canon EOS 35-80MM F/4-5.6 III lens.
Question: Is this a good all-around lens? I am saving my coins for a Canon DLSR camera and was wondering if I could just buy the body and use this as an all around lens. In the one digital photography class I took, the instructor recommended a Canon 50mm prime lens. How does this lens compare?
As you can see, I'm probably not ready for a "big-girl" camera yet as I don't know anything about them.
The lens you're asking about is the same lens I use. There's a lot of people that don't like it at all (including some that consider it to be the worst lens ever made by Canon).
I however am kinda attached to this lens and it works for me just fine.
It's really up to whether or not it works for you. Since you already have it, I'd recommend when you buy your DSLR you only buy the body. You can try out that lens and if you find that it leaves something to be desired, look into other lenses.
You could always look into renting lenses from a place such as this: http://www.borrowlenses.com/
I've never used that particular site but I've heard great things about them.
I hope this helps a little bit!
The 35-80mm is a very cheap lens so the image quality (sharpness, contrast, etc.) and usability (autofocus speed and noise, manual focus control, etc.) will be so-so, but that's not my concern with it. As you are saving your pennies for a DSLR, I think it's safe to say you're not going to be spending several thousand dollars on a full-frame camera such as the Canon 5D, but will instead be opting for one of the crop-frame sensor cameras such as the T3, T3i or T4i.
To explain further, DSLR cameras were originally intended to replace 35mm film cameras, and as such, the camera's sensor, which gathers the light, was designed to be the same size as a 35mm piece of film. This meant that you could use your existing lenses and they would work exactly the same on a 35mm film camera as they would on a DSLR.
The problem with this was that making a camera sensor that big is extremely expensive (and hence makes the camera extremely expensive). As such, all the major camera manufacturers introduced a smaller sensor that costs less, and that's what you find on most consumer-grade DSLRs like (in Canon's range), the T3, the T4i, the 60D and the 7D.
However, this smaller sensor has an effect on the lens. If you imagine the lens is projecting a picture onto a piece of 35mm film -- if you cut off the sides of that piece of film, you're effectively going to make the image appear zoomed in -- you've got rid of the edges. This is exactly what happens with a crop-sensor DSLR -- compared to a film camera, all your lenses suddenly don't go as wide, and go more telephoto.
What that means is that the 35-80mm lens, which was never really a wide-angle lens in the first place, becomes really really not a wide-angle lens when you mount it on a crop-sensor DSLR. You will find it extremely limiting for indoor photography, landscape photography, some kinds of street photography, etc. etc. I started off with a 28-135mm lens and I found that not nearly wide enough when mounted on a crop-sensor DSLR, so 35mm will be really quite bad in that aspect.
The good news is that Canon have a nice cheap lens that's an absolutely perfect focal range for beginner DSLR users -- and if you buy it in a bundle with the camera it costs peanuts. The 18-55mm IS lens that Canon now provide as a kit lens with all of their cheaper DSLRs is probably about the same image quality as the 35-80mm, but covers a hugely more useful focal range than the 35-80mm, and includes a really good image stabilisation system as well (which significantly reduces camera shake and results in more sharp photos).
By all means keep the 35-80mm if you want -- it will fit any Canon DSLR you buy -- but I would highly, highly recommend not buying your camera 'body-only' and using this lens as your primary lens -- I'm almost certain you'll find the 18-55mm lens to cover a far more useful range and, with the stabilisation, give you far better results.
In answer to your question about the 50mm prime lens, both the 18-55mm and the 35-80mm lens will cover this focal length (50mm). However, that's not the benefit of the 50mm prime lens. Canon do three 50mm prime lenses, an f/1.8, an f/1.4 and an f/1.2 -- almost everyone starts with the f/1.8 because it's so cheap. The reason people buy this lens in addition to their other lenses (which will typically cover 50mm already) is because of the f/1.8 bit -- this means that the lens has a very wide maximum aperture, which gives you a very narrow depth of field. Photographs that you see with just a narrow strip of detail in focus, and everything else beautifully blurred, are typically created with this kind of lens, and you can't get that effect (to the same degree) with the much narrower maximum aperture of a zoom lens like the 18-55 or 35-80mm. It's a tradeoff between the convenience of a zoom lens and the artistic possibilities of a prime lens (a lens that doesn't zoom).
I appreciate that's a lot to take in, let me know if you have any questions :)
@abirkill very interesting and helpful, thankyou. I have the 18-55 lens and the 50mm too and have just bought x10 filters instead of the mega expensive macro lens I really want. they seem to work ok.
@abirkill Alexis, a very helpful and informative response, as always. I knew that my crop-sensor DSLR had that effect, but I never quite fully visualized why until reading your description.
I'm relatively new to the DSLR world and I have two lenses -- an 18-200 MM (which I bought used), and a 50mm/1.8 prime. I LOVE the prime, but I also appreciate the versatility of the 18-200. I have debated whether I should have gone with the 35MM prime (for the reasons described by Alexis), but I really am happy with my nifty-fifty. Of course, I wouldn't mind having up to 300MM on a lens, and I would like to have a wide angle lens, too. :)
@rockinrobyn The 50mm prime vs. 35mm prime question is a good one. Historically, people raving about a 50mm prime have always been talking about film cameras, and when you mount your 50mm prime onto a crop-sensor DSLR, it becomes more of a long portrait lens and possibly less versatile.
The problem is that there isn't anything in the 35mm prime range that's like the 50mm f/1.8 for price -- so I'd still recommend it as a fantastically cheap way to fiddle and experiment with the narrow depth of field a prime lens offers.
If you are considering buying, or upgrading to, the more expensive 50mm f/1.4 lens, then you should really consider a 35mm prime lens as an alternative option, as there are various choices at that price range, and you are getting a focal length that is what people originally meant when they talked about a 50mm prime. A 35mm prime is fairly high on my list of next lenses to buy, but for me also it ends up competing with a whole range of other lenses I'd like too!
@abirkill I just popped over to the Nikon website to check pricing out of curiosity, and it looks like a 35MM/1.8 is "only" $199, but it sure does jump up in price (more than $1,100) if you go to 35 MM/ 1.4! Am I seeing that right? Phew.
@soxfansara Thanks, I will definitely keep the lens. It was given to me, so I'll keep it.
@abirkill Alexis. You are right, I will not be spending Thousands. I'm thinking in the $500-$600 range. I see the Canon T (something) on sale in this range with a lens kit included..18-55mm. So, it sounds like that is something that I should aim for. I am certainly a novice and would like to have only one lens for my camera (at least at this time).
Would a 35MM/1.8 be a better choice for one lens than the 50MM prime? Although I think I usually just see the 18-55IS lens advertised with the Canon body.
Wow, my head is spinning. Y'all are so informative.
What I want in my price range is probably not possible anyway. LOL If I go to the camera store, I'm sure to want more. So, I need a plan. I have a bridge FinePix 1800S now and still haven't learned to use to very well. But I do know I want a faster shutter speed, for sure.
Henri, here is my two-cents, for what it's worth.
Everyone should own a 50mm prime, they're reasonably priced and a good lens.
I shoot with a Canon, and my walk-around lens is the 15-85 3.5/5.6. It's not a bad general use lens, and when not shooting something specific, that requires one of my other lens, this is the one that sits on my camera, in the ready, for those quick grab shots. It also has a "faux" macro setting which works decent in a pinch.
Now having said all that, I too am a beginner, so my opinion is reflective of that. Most of my lens are the "L" series but haven't found a nice equivalent replacement for that EFS lens yet.
@henrir Yes, a Canon T3i or similar would be good to aim for, with the 18-55mm kit lens bundled. Now the T4i has been released the T3i prices will start to drop. I think the T3i bundle with the 18-55mm lens was on sale for $599 from Fry's Electronics when I was in the states a couple of weeks ago.
For prime lenses, the 50mm prime is far cheaper than any other options, so if you wanted a second lens to experiment with, that would be a good choice. Canon don't bundle either of these lenses with their cameras, so it would be an additional purchase either way.
My only slight concern is that you say you only want one lens -- if that's for the short term while you learn about the camera, that's fine, but if you don't ever see yourself wanted to bother carrying around and swapping lenses, a DSLR might not be the best choice for you, compared to a high-end bridge camera with a decent-quality sensor.
Going to a camera store is a really good idea, but try and find a local store that's likely to have photographers working there, rather than Best Buy or similar. It sounds like you have no reason to choose Canon other than your one existing lens (which I wouldn't say was a compelling reason). Have a play with the cameras and see how they feel -- while I use Canon, a lot of people prefer Nikon, and Sony are coming out with some very interesting cameras -- it's best to go in with an open mind and decide what works best for you.
that guy hits the nail on the head. in the UK the T2i which is a real good camera is £360 on ebay, and £348 without a lens, so they're asking for £12 about 20 dollars for the 18-55mm which in shops itself costs £69. So get your camera with lens. That said, reading your messages you don't seem like the kind of person who needs a camera with interchangable lenses and a shiz load of menus?? There are some great bridge cameras like the Panasonic FS range which will cost you less and hav manual settings options and come with a fixed lens and with some amazing zoom. Googlee best bridge cameras. You'll only end up shooting automatic on a DSLR and missing the point.
hope you don't mind a related question, since your info is top stuff. But I've had a DSLR for the last 12 months, stepping up from several film SLRs. I use various lenses and full manual and I shoot models and portraits. But I've only got the Canon 400, and I've started to notice a real lack of quality in focus and clarity. peoples faces from only 5 or 6 metres away are almost unrecognisable, just blobs. There's no clearness at all. Would a move up to the 550D aka T2i be a good move? 10mp to 18.7mp and a whole bag of other features. Or are my lenses to blame?
@chewyteeth Ideally I'd like to see an example if possible before making any judgement.
You mention that you've started to notice this -- do you think that the issue has always been there and you're only just now becoming aware of it, or is the issue actually getting worse? The camera and lenses shouldn't significantly degrade over time unless damaged or faulty, so if it is getting worse then that would narrow down the problem.
Do you have the same issue with all of your lenses, or are some better than others? It looks like most of the lenses you use are manual focus, so I'm presuming that rules out autofocus issues. Does the native Canon lens you have perform any better than the converted lenses?
I'd be reluctant to say you'll notice a drastic improvement in the issues you are mentioning by upgrading to the 550D from the 400D unless there is a problem (settings or malfunction) with the 400D. Yes, it's overall a better camera with a higher-resolution sensor, but by the sound of it your problems are not related to the resolution of your current sensor (a 10mp sensor should be able to resolve faces fine a few metres away). But it depends on your level of expectation, which is why an example would help :)
@abirkill Alexis ,that is the best explanation of the difference between full frame and crop frame sensors I have ever read! Your advice is spot on. Personally, I think everyone who has a crop sensor DSLR should have a 35 mm prime as one of their lenses. Besides the amazingly shallow dof they produce, I find them to be sharper than the kit lenses, they are a great learning tool for new photographers as they force one to zoom with their feet, which ultimately improves one's composition skills. Plus, they are marvelous for low light shooting without flash.
I've deleted all the bad ones in a rage! and I don't feel like adding a real bad pic to my 365, over the weekend I might stick one somewhere and link you to it if thats okay. I just feel like my ability to capture clear photos has deteriorated, at the moment the jury's out on whether its my eyes or the camera. The manual focus lenses are a nightmare too, but thats me being a tight arse. I'd bin them if I got the 550, I'd get the 50mm 1.8. I'll mention it to you again when I've got more time.
@abirkill Thanks Alexis. You're the first person to tell me that I might need a better bridge camera. My camera does have manual settings now and I have been learning to use them rather than shooting automatic. I really do not see myself ever wanting to have several lens to carry around. I want a really good camera for travel and enjoyment. I am 69 years old and I don't see starting a photography business or anything like that. My main objection with my FinePix 1800S is the shutter/processing speed. It seems I miss a lot of shots I would like to try for because I am waiting for the processing to finish. Of course, now that I am using manual settings, I spend more time adjusting for the shot too.
So, if I want to take pictures quicker, one after the other, am I talking about shutter or processing speed. Is it the camera or is it the lens?
These are probably pretty dumb, basic questions. I really appreciate your taking the time to explain these things. I took a digital photography class to learn to use manual, and it was more confusing than ever when I left. So, I've spent a lot of time with the manual and learning from good folks on her, and Nick Kelsh. And I feel I've some a long way from completely Auto settings.
@henrir OK, there are three things at play here, and I think two of them are what you are finding annoying.
1. The maximum shutter speed of the camera -- this is the shortest time the camera can have the shutter open for. Bridge cameras are often 1/2000th of a second, lower-end DSLRs are usually 1/4000th of a second, more expensive offer 1/8000th or higher. Realistically it's *very* rare for anyone to actually find this problematic, regardless of what camera they own. You can take a look at the EXIF data on your photos on this site, and they'll rarely show the shutter speed as being anything close to these limits.
2. The shutter lag -- this is the time it takes from you pressing the shutter button to the camera taking the first photo. This assumes that you have pre-focused the camera (by pressing the shutter button half-way), as focusing will add a significant amount of time on, regardless of camera.
3. The burst rate -- this is how long it takes the camera to be ready to take a second shot after the first.
I suspect that what you are finding frustrating is a combination of number 2 and number 3, both of which are very common complaints with non-DSLR cameras. For all three of the above factors, the lens makes absolutely no difference.
Looking at the specs for your current camera, the shutter lag is listed at 430ms (that's approximately 4/10ths of a second) and the burst rate is 1.3fps (or just over 1 photo per second). Both of these are quite poor, especially the shutter lag -- half a second doesn't sound like much, but it's more than enough time for you to have missed the best of a smile, or for a moving subject to have gone out of frame.
If we compare these to a DSLR such as the T3i, this has a shutter lag of 87ms (less than a tenth of a second) and a burst rate of 3.7fps (almost 4 photos per second). Both of these make the camera feel hugely more 'snappy' and responsive to use.
However, it is possible to get bridge cameras with similar specs. For example, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 has a shutter lag of 100ms, and can take photos at 5fps (5 photos per second). It even has a special burst mode (that you'd have to enable through the menu system) that enables it to take 12 photos per second!
On top of that, the camera has a image-stabilised super-zoom lens (covering an equivalent of 25mm-600mm, vastly more than even the most heavy and expensive multi-thousand dollar SLR lens could cover), and does all that in a lighter and more compact body than a T3i and kit lens.
The downsides are that the image quality will be slightly lower, especially in low-light situations. However, it sounds like from what you're describing, a camera like this might be worth considering, especially as they'll almost always be under your budget.
If the Panasonic sounds interesting, I'd recommend waiting to see the price for the new DMC-FZ200 that's just been announced -- it has an even better lens, a faster autofocus system, powers on more quickly, and has a new sensor that should be better in low light. Assuming it comes in under your budget and you wanted to go this way rather than for a DSLR, it could be a strong contender.
I love my DSLR and wouldn't swap for a bridge camera, but I know several people who have bought a DSLR and stuck with the kit lens, and wonder what all the fuss is about -- they've ended up with a large, expensive and heavy camera with a lens that doesn't zoom very far, and stays at home in a cupboard, where a smaller, lighter bridge camera would have been a better option.
@chewyteeth Yes, that's absolutely fine. Don't be in too much of a hurry to dump the manual lenses -- I'd absolutely love to have that selection of Pentacon primes (I'm hunting for a good price on the 135mm f/2.8 on eBay)! A Canon 50mm would be a good addition on top, though.
@abirkill Thank you for the great explanation. It really makes me think that the Panasonic might be a really good step up for me and fill my needs. I like to always carry my camera in my bag with me, so if I carry a point and shoot and leave the big camera at home, I've defeated my purpose. I will put this on my list to look at and I will definitely wait for the new model to see what it offers and the price.
@abirkill since you're being so kind as to answer questions - can i ask one? i have a canon T2i and mostly use an older kit lens with a range of 17-85mm... i'd love to upgrade to a better quality lens, but i am reluctant to go with a 50 or 35 prime, because there are many times when i want the versatility to shoot at 17-20... i believe there is a quasi hgh end 17-55 canon lens and i am wondering if you are familiar with it and have any views as to its quality... if you have the time to answer i would appreciate it very much... tx lots!
@northy Sure -- I also use the 17-85mm lens as my main walkabout lens -- it's a good lens for the money, but there are a few good upgrade options.
I'd agree absolutely that while a prime lens is nice, it's no replacement for a versatile zoom like this.
The first upgrade option is the lens you've mentioned, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. This is a really high-quality lens, generally considered by many photographers to be of 'L' glass quality, and only having omitted the L markings because it is an EF-S lens (i.e. not compatible with full-frame cameras).
The combination of f/2.8 and image stabilisation makes it a really good low-light lens, as well as being really good for providing a narrow depth of field. Your camera also will enable a more accurate focus system when using this lens (or any lens that is f/2.8 or wider) if you use the centre focus point.
You will also get better sharpness throughout the frame compared to the 17-85mm, as well as better contrast, less flare, nicer 'bokeh' (out of focus highlights) and so on.
The main downside of this lens is the relatively considerable loss at the telephoto end -- 55mm is a fair bit less than 85mm, and if you don't have a dedicated telephoto lens you might miss that. However, if you can afford it, and can live with the loss at the telephoto end, I've never heard of anyone being disappointed by this lens.
The second option is the 15-85mm f/3.5-f/5.6 IS lens. While this appears to offer a very similar focal length to your current lens, it is a decent step up in quality. It's also the kit lens for the 7D, as the 17-85mm wasn't considered good enough to bundle with that camera.
While spec-wise it doesn't seem much different, it's a high end lens with superb image quality, and again uses some lens elements (sections of glass inside the lens) of a quality usually only found in Canon's L range. It has a variable aperture, which means it's not as good in low light as the 17-55mm, will not enable the extra-sensitive focusing, and doesn't have such a shallow depth of field. However, it maintains your telephoto range, and also adds 2mm at the wide end -- although this doesn't sound like much, it's actually quite noticeable, and can put off the desire for a super-wide lens, at least for a while! As it's a wider zoom range, it will have slightly less sharpness and slightly more distortion than the 17-55mm (this is a typical trade-off for a greater zoom range at a similar price point).
The third option is worth considering if you are planning on upgrading to a full-frame body in the next couple of years. Both of the options above are EF-S lenses -- i.e. will not fit on full-frame cameras, and so will have to be sold should you upgrade. If an upgrade was planned, it would be worth considering the 17-40mm f/4L lens. This is a true L lens, with the quality (both image and construction) associated with these lenses.
The downsides are that it's got a very limited range, maxing out at just 40mm -- if you don't have a telephoto lens you may well find this too limiting -- and it doesn't have image stabilisation. However, if you're looking to buy a lens that will work with your existing camera, and with a high-end camera in the future, it's worth considering. (Note that if you fit this to a full-frame camera it will effectively be an ultra-wide lens, so you probably wouldn't get away without buying a second lens anyway).
For pure image quality, I would put the 17-40mm at the top, with the 17-55mm a very close second, and the 15-85mm a bit behind, but still significantly ahead of the 17-85mm. For versatility, the exact opposite is the case. It's up to you to decide on the best trade-off, given your budget (but if you have no plans to upgrade to a full-frame body, then I'd eliminate the 17-40mm).
@abirkill thank you SO much for all this info... very very helpful... no questions for now... but you've given me tons to think about and i very much appreciate it!
@abirkill I don't actually have a question more a statement in support of you recommendation for a bridge camera.
In 2005 I bought a Panasonic FZ20 which produced quite acceptable images for a long while.
In 2008 I replaced it with an Olympus DSLR E-520 and added a 70-300 mm lens to the two kit lenses. This worked very well but was somewhat cumbersome so I added a Panasonic TZ5.
On return from a 95 day around the world trip with the Oly, I put thw whole kit up for sale on Ebay - I replaced it with a Panasonic TZ100 about mid 2011.
The TZ100 covers the complete range of the Oly's three lenses and it is less weight to carry and I don't face the problem of having the wrong lens mounted.
I don't do any "serious" photography but except in low light situations the TZ100 works for me.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I however am kinda attached to this lens and it works for me just fine.
It's really up to whether or not it works for you. Since you already have it, I'd recommend when you buy your DSLR you only buy the body. You can try out that lens and if you find that it leaves something to be desired, look into other lenses.
You could always look into renting lenses from a place such as this: http://www.borrowlenses.com/
I've never used that particular site but I've heard great things about them.
I hope this helps a little bit!
The 35-80mm is a very cheap lens so the image quality (sharpness, contrast, etc.) and usability (autofocus speed and noise, manual focus control, etc.) will be so-so, but that's not my concern with it. As you are saving your pennies for a DSLR, I think it's safe to say you're not going to be spending several thousand dollars on a full-frame camera such as the Canon 5D, but will instead be opting for one of the crop-frame sensor cameras such as the T3, T3i or T4i.
To explain further, DSLR cameras were originally intended to replace 35mm film cameras, and as such, the camera's sensor, which gathers the light, was designed to be the same size as a 35mm piece of film. This meant that you could use your existing lenses and they would work exactly the same on a 35mm film camera as they would on a DSLR.
The problem with this was that making a camera sensor that big is extremely expensive (and hence makes the camera extremely expensive). As such, all the major camera manufacturers introduced a smaller sensor that costs less, and that's what you find on most consumer-grade DSLRs like (in Canon's range), the T3, the T4i, the 60D and the 7D.
However, this smaller sensor has an effect on the lens. If you imagine the lens is projecting a picture onto a piece of 35mm film -- if you cut off the sides of that piece of film, you're effectively going to make the image appear zoomed in -- you've got rid of the edges. This is exactly what happens with a crop-sensor DSLR -- compared to a film camera, all your lenses suddenly don't go as wide, and go more telephoto.
What that means is that the 35-80mm lens, which was never really a wide-angle lens in the first place, becomes really really not a wide-angle lens when you mount it on a crop-sensor DSLR. You will find it extremely limiting for indoor photography, landscape photography, some kinds of street photography, etc. etc. I started off with a 28-135mm lens and I found that not nearly wide enough when mounted on a crop-sensor DSLR, so 35mm will be really quite bad in that aspect.
The good news is that Canon have a nice cheap lens that's an absolutely perfect focal range for beginner DSLR users -- and if you buy it in a bundle with the camera it costs peanuts. The 18-55mm IS lens that Canon now provide as a kit lens with all of their cheaper DSLRs is probably about the same image quality as the 35-80mm, but covers a hugely more useful focal range than the 35-80mm, and includes a really good image stabilisation system as well (which significantly reduces camera shake and results in more sharp photos).
By all means keep the 35-80mm if you want -- it will fit any Canon DSLR you buy -- but I would highly, highly recommend not buying your camera 'body-only' and using this lens as your primary lens -- I'm almost certain you'll find the 18-55mm lens to cover a far more useful range and, with the stabilisation, give you far better results.
In answer to your question about the 50mm prime lens, both the 18-55mm and the 35-80mm lens will cover this focal length (50mm). However, that's not the benefit of the 50mm prime lens. Canon do three 50mm prime lenses, an f/1.8, an f/1.4 and an f/1.2 -- almost everyone starts with the f/1.8 because it's so cheap. The reason people buy this lens in addition to their other lenses (which will typically cover 50mm already) is because of the f/1.8 bit -- this means that the lens has a very wide maximum aperture, which gives you a very narrow depth of field. Photographs that you see with just a narrow strip of detail in focus, and everything else beautifully blurred, are typically created with this kind of lens, and you can't get that effect (to the same degree) with the much narrower maximum aperture of a zoom lens like the 18-55 or 35-80mm. It's a tradeoff between the convenience of a zoom lens and the artistic possibilities of a prime lens (a lens that doesn't zoom).
I appreciate that's a lot to take in, let me know if you have any questions :)
I'm relatively new to the DSLR world and I have two lenses -- an 18-200 MM (which I bought used), and a 50mm/1.8 prime. I LOVE the prime, but I also appreciate the versatility of the 18-200. I have debated whether I should have gone with the 35MM prime (for the reasons described by Alexis), but I really am happy with my nifty-fifty. Of course, I wouldn't mind having up to 300MM on a lens, and I would like to have a wide angle lens, too. :)
The problem is that there isn't anything in the 35mm prime range that's like the 50mm f/1.8 for price -- so I'd still recommend it as a fantastically cheap way to fiddle and experiment with the narrow depth of field a prime lens offers.
If you are considering buying, or upgrading to, the more expensive 50mm f/1.4 lens, then you should really consider a 35mm prime lens as an alternative option, as there are various choices at that price range, and you are getting a focal length that is what people originally meant when they talked about a 50mm prime. A 35mm prime is fairly high on my list of next lenses to buy, but for me also it ends up competing with a whole range of other lenses I'd like too!
@abirkill Alexis. You are right, I will not be spending Thousands. I'm thinking in the $500-$600 range. I see the Canon T (something) on sale in this range with a lens kit included..18-55mm. So, it sounds like that is something that I should aim for. I am certainly a novice and would like to have only one lens for my camera (at least at this time).
Would a 35MM/1.8 be a better choice for one lens than the 50MM prime? Although I think I usually just see the 18-55IS lens advertised with the Canon body.
Wow, my head is spinning. Y'all are so informative.
What I want in my price range is probably not possible anyway. LOL If I go to the camera store, I'm sure to want more. So, I need a plan. I have a bridge FinePix 1800S now and still haven't learned to use to very well. But I do know I want a faster shutter speed, for sure.
@lauralatham @rockinrobyn Thanks for your comments also,.
All you rock.
Everyone should own a 50mm prime, they're reasonably priced and a good lens.
I shoot with a Canon, and my walk-around lens is the 15-85 3.5/5.6. It's not a bad general use lens, and when not shooting something specific, that requires one of my other lens, this is the one that sits on my camera, in the ready, for those quick grab shots. It also has a "faux" macro setting which works decent in a pinch.
Now having said all that, I too am a beginner, so my opinion is reflective of that. Most of my lens are the "L" series but haven't found a nice equivalent replacement for that EFS lens yet.
For prime lenses, the 50mm prime is far cheaper than any other options, so if you wanted a second lens to experiment with, that would be a good choice. Canon don't bundle either of these lenses with their cameras, so it would be an additional purchase either way.
My only slight concern is that you say you only want one lens -- if that's for the short term while you learn about the camera, that's fine, but if you don't ever see yourself wanted to bother carrying around and swapping lenses, a DSLR might not be the best choice for you, compared to a high-end bridge camera with a decent-quality sensor.
Going to a camera store is a really good idea, but try and find a local store that's likely to have photographers working there, rather than Best Buy or similar. It sounds like you have no reason to choose Canon other than your one existing lens (which I wouldn't say was a compelling reason). Have a play with the cameras and see how they feel -- while I use Canon, a lot of people prefer Nikon, and Sony are coming out with some very interesting cameras -- it's best to go in with an open mind and decide what works best for you.
hope you don't mind a related question, since your info is top stuff. But I've had a DSLR for the last 12 months, stepping up from several film SLRs. I use various lenses and full manual and I shoot models and portraits. But I've only got the Canon 400, and I've started to notice a real lack of quality in focus and clarity. peoples faces from only 5 or 6 metres away are almost unrecognisable, just blobs. There's no clearness at all. Would a move up to the 550D aka T2i be a good move? 10mp to 18.7mp and a whole bag of other features. Or are my lenses to blame?
You mention that you've started to notice this -- do you think that the issue has always been there and you're only just now becoming aware of it, or is the issue actually getting worse? The camera and lenses shouldn't significantly degrade over time unless damaged or faulty, so if it is getting worse then that would narrow down the problem.
Do you have the same issue with all of your lenses, or are some better than others? It looks like most of the lenses you use are manual focus, so I'm presuming that rules out autofocus issues. Does the native Canon lens you have perform any better than the converted lenses?
I'd be reluctant to say you'll notice a drastic improvement in the issues you are mentioning by upgrading to the 550D from the 400D unless there is a problem (settings or malfunction) with the 400D. Yes, it's overall a better camera with a higher-resolution sensor, but by the sound of it your problems are not related to the resolution of your current sensor (a 10mp sensor should be able to resolve faces fine a few metres away). But it depends on your level of expectation, which is why an example would help :)
I've deleted all the bad ones in a rage! and I don't feel like adding a real bad pic to my 365, over the weekend I might stick one somewhere and link you to it if thats okay. I just feel like my ability to capture clear photos has deteriorated, at the moment the jury's out on whether its my eyes or the camera. The manual focus lenses are a nightmare too, but thats me being a tight arse. I'd bin them if I got the 550, I'd get the 50mm 1.8. I'll mention it to you again when I've got more time.
So, if I want to take pictures quicker, one after the other, am I talking about shutter or processing speed. Is it the camera or is it the lens?
These are probably pretty dumb, basic questions. I really appreciate your taking the time to explain these things. I took a digital photography class to learn to use manual, and it was more confusing than ever when I left. So, I've spent a lot of time with the manual and learning from good folks on her, and Nick Kelsh. And I feel I've some a long way from completely Auto settings.
1. The maximum shutter speed of the camera -- this is the shortest time the camera can have the shutter open for. Bridge cameras are often 1/2000th of a second, lower-end DSLRs are usually 1/4000th of a second, more expensive offer 1/8000th or higher. Realistically it's *very* rare for anyone to actually find this problematic, regardless of what camera they own. You can take a look at the EXIF data on your photos on this site, and they'll rarely show the shutter speed as being anything close to these limits.
2. The shutter lag -- this is the time it takes from you pressing the shutter button to the camera taking the first photo. This assumes that you have pre-focused the camera (by pressing the shutter button half-way), as focusing will add a significant amount of time on, regardless of camera.
3. The burst rate -- this is how long it takes the camera to be ready to take a second shot after the first.
I suspect that what you are finding frustrating is a combination of number 2 and number 3, both of which are very common complaints with non-DSLR cameras. For all three of the above factors, the lens makes absolutely no difference.
Looking at the specs for your current camera, the shutter lag is listed at 430ms (that's approximately 4/10ths of a second) and the burst rate is 1.3fps (or just over 1 photo per second). Both of these are quite poor, especially the shutter lag -- half a second doesn't sound like much, but it's more than enough time for you to have missed the best of a smile, or for a moving subject to have gone out of frame.
If we compare these to a DSLR such as the T3i, this has a shutter lag of 87ms (less than a tenth of a second) and a burst rate of 3.7fps (almost 4 photos per second). Both of these make the camera feel hugely more 'snappy' and responsive to use.
However, it is possible to get bridge cameras with similar specs. For example, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 has a shutter lag of 100ms, and can take photos at 5fps (5 photos per second). It even has a special burst mode (that you'd have to enable through the menu system) that enables it to take 12 photos per second!
On top of that, the camera has a image-stabilised super-zoom lens (covering an equivalent of 25mm-600mm, vastly more than even the most heavy and expensive multi-thousand dollar SLR lens could cover), and does all that in a lighter and more compact body than a T3i and kit lens.
The downsides are that the image quality will be slightly lower, especially in low-light situations. However, it sounds like from what you're describing, a camera like this might be worth considering, especially as they'll almost always be under your budget.
If the Panasonic sounds interesting, I'd recommend waiting to see the price for the new DMC-FZ200 that's just been announced -- it has an even better lens, a faster autofocus system, powers on more quickly, and has a new sensor that should be better in low light. Assuming it comes in under your budget and you wanted to go this way rather than for a DSLR, it could be a strong contender.
I love my DSLR and wouldn't swap for a bridge camera, but I know several people who have bought a DSLR and stuck with the kit lens, and wonder what all the fuss is about -- they've ended up with a large, expensive and heavy camera with a lens that doesn't zoom very far, and stays at home in a cupboard, where a smaller, lighter bridge camera would have been a better option.
I'd agree absolutely that while a prime lens is nice, it's no replacement for a versatile zoom like this.
The first upgrade option is the lens you've mentioned, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. This is a really high-quality lens, generally considered by many photographers to be of 'L' glass quality, and only having omitted the L markings because it is an EF-S lens (i.e. not compatible with full-frame cameras).
The combination of f/2.8 and image stabilisation makes it a really good low-light lens, as well as being really good for providing a narrow depth of field. Your camera also will enable a more accurate focus system when using this lens (or any lens that is f/2.8 or wider) if you use the centre focus point.
You will also get better sharpness throughout the frame compared to the 17-85mm, as well as better contrast, less flare, nicer 'bokeh' (out of focus highlights) and so on.
The main downside of this lens is the relatively considerable loss at the telephoto end -- 55mm is a fair bit less than 85mm, and if you don't have a dedicated telephoto lens you might miss that. However, if you can afford it, and can live with the loss at the telephoto end, I've never heard of anyone being disappointed by this lens.
The second option is the 15-85mm f/3.5-f/5.6 IS lens. While this appears to offer a very similar focal length to your current lens, it is a decent step up in quality. It's also the kit lens for the 7D, as the 17-85mm wasn't considered good enough to bundle with that camera.
While spec-wise it doesn't seem much different, it's a high end lens with superb image quality, and again uses some lens elements (sections of glass inside the lens) of a quality usually only found in Canon's L range. It has a variable aperture, which means it's not as good in low light as the 17-55mm, will not enable the extra-sensitive focusing, and doesn't have such a shallow depth of field. However, it maintains your telephoto range, and also adds 2mm at the wide end -- although this doesn't sound like much, it's actually quite noticeable, and can put off the desire for a super-wide lens, at least for a while! As it's a wider zoom range, it will have slightly less sharpness and slightly more distortion than the 17-55mm (this is a typical trade-off for a greater zoom range at a similar price point).
The third option is worth considering if you are planning on upgrading to a full-frame body in the next couple of years. Both of the options above are EF-S lenses -- i.e. will not fit on full-frame cameras, and so will have to be sold should you upgrade. If an upgrade was planned, it would be worth considering the 17-40mm f/4L lens. This is a true L lens, with the quality (both image and construction) associated with these lenses.
The downsides are that it's got a very limited range, maxing out at just 40mm -- if you don't have a telephoto lens you may well find this too limiting -- and it doesn't have image stabilisation. However, if you're looking to buy a lens that will work with your existing camera, and with a high-end camera in the future, it's worth considering. (Note that if you fit this to a full-frame camera it will effectively be an ultra-wide lens, so you probably wouldn't get away without buying a second lens anyway).
For pure image quality, I would put the 17-40mm at the top, with the 17-55mm a very close second, and the 15-85mm a bit behind, but still significantly ahead of the 17-85mm. For versatility, the exact opposite is the case. It's up to you to decide on the best trade-off, given your budget (but if you have no plans to upgrade to a full-frame body, then I'd eliminate the 17-40mm).
Let me know if you have any questions!
In 2005 I bought a Panasonic FZ20 which produced quite acceptable images for a long while.
In 2008 I replaced it with an Olympus DSLR E-520 and added a 70-300 mm lens to the two kit lenses. This worked very well but was somewhat cumbersome so I added a Panasonic TZ5.
On return from a 95 day around the world trip with the Oly, I put thw whole kit up for sale on Ebay - I replaced it with a Panasonic TZ100 about mid 2011.
The TZ100 covers the complete range of the Oly's three lenses and it is less weight to carry and I don't face the problem of having the wrong lens mounted.
I don't do any "serious" photography but except in low light situations the TZ100 works for me.