These are some photos I've taken with the kit lens, which I've found to be serviceable but not very flexible. They are also examples of what I enjoy shooting.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
I'm a relative beginner at DSLRing, with equally basic equipment (Canon 350D w/kit lens). Reading these entries has inspired me to both shoot more and purchase more. Unfortunately I'm on a limited budget and usually carry around limited space, so I'd like to purchase one good all-around lens which doesn't need to excel at any particular one thing, but is adequate for a wide variety of purposes (though mostly scenery and family shots). Budgeting maybe around $600 max, but wouldn't mind a cheaper one. Any recommendations? Does such a lens even exist?
These are some photos I've taken with the kit lens, which I've found to be serviceable but not very flexible. They are also examples of what I enjoy shooting.
These are some photos I've taken with the kit lens, which I've found to be serviceable but not very flexible. They are also examples of what I enjoy shooting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Excellent Shots! Many people underestimate the KIT LENS, but I found it to be excellent Image Quality as demonstrated here.
You should have many choices for $600 budget.
IMHO, if you are shooting mostly outdoor, Canon 17-85 IS (~$499) would be good. If you are shooting indoor without strob and want shallow DOF, I would go with Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 (~$429). You can read Bob Atkins & Digital Picture Review (linked on main page) for detailed lens recommendations.
Good luck and keep shooting!
these are very nice indeed!
if you find yourself at a point where you feel your lens is limiting your ability to get the shot you intended, it's helpful to know what shot you were trying to get.
from a focal length point of view, you can look at your exif data to see what fl you tend to shoot at. or if you find yourself wanting more wide angle or being able to zoom more than the 17-55.
also as richard mentioned, if you find yourself not wanting to shoot w/ flash (b/c you light natural light) and want more shallow DOF, there is always the option of going prime lenses?
the options are endless!!
ooooh, pretty patterns...
Thanks for the kind advice. I have been considering the Canon 17-85 IS, though I wonder if the hefty price tag justifies the IS feature.
I heard from gman that IS might make a difference for taking lower-light shots, which is something I often do, taking photos of my son indoors. Have you guys seen the same difference?
Yeah, I hate the unnatural look that the flash creates, so currently I use a high ISO w/o flash, but find the photos come out quite grainy. J3, what do you mean by "prime lens", is this the same thing as an IS lens?
Thx!
If you're looking to forgo the flash, you should consider lens w/ high aperture. The higher the aperture, the more light it allows in, thus flash would be less needed. I particularly like Canon 85mm 1.8 USM lens. It's high aperture and the price is great. Right now, if you act now, you too can get the lens for $299 after rebate!
Hupod, jase has referred to it above, but a prime lens is a non-zoom lens. so there is just one focal length, e.g., 85/1.8.
it is not equivalent to IS. typically, prime lenses will not have IS unless you get to super telephoto (300mm and beyond)
Unless you're shooting really distant, I don't think IS is necessary. Anyone?
great suggestions, guys. many thanks. i think i might try and explore the prime lens ('tho it seems strange to think about a lens that doesn't zoom).
i'm in beijing, and haven't seen any shops selling tamron lenses yet. i have seen a few "sigmas", which seem to be in the same price range. have you guys had any experience with sigma lenses? i wonder how they compare with tamrons, in general.
btw tim, you probably don't recall, but i met you years ago at a retreat in tahoe. those are fantastic photos on your site, especially the ones with your kids. you're giving me something to shoot for. (pun intended)
Post a Comment