| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2006 12:12:47 PM · #1 |
| I have a Canon EOS 350D Rebel XT and have been using the kit lens (EFS 18-55mm) for general shooting. I also have the EF 75-300mm zoom and EF 100mm macro. I have heard several people say kit lenses are not the best, and have noticed the zoom and macro lenses seem to produce images with sharper focus. My question is: What is a good general purpose lens? |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:15:45 PM · #2 |
| kinda depends on what your general purpose is. I think the 17-40 f4L is a great lens for wide angle and general walking around. it runs about $600 i think and is very sharp. the 100 2.8 you already own is my favorite lens in my bag. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:17:26 PM · #3 |
| Depends upon the zoom range you prefer and your budget. My favorite all-around lens is the Tamron 28-75. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:20:13 PM · #4 |
| I have the 28-135 IS USM as a walkabout, and I think it's pretty good, though some find it a bit soft. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:23:09 PM · #5 |
| Don't let anybody talk you into buying a new lens just because the kit lens is crap. As this gallery shows, the kit 18-55 is capable of producing some very fine images. It's more about your skills and your vision than about any particular lens or camera you may own. Shoot with and enjoy the 18-55. You'll know when you need to expand into something new, and it won't be because of what anybody tells you, it'll be because you aren't able to get what you're after photographically. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:24:59 PM · #6 |
24-105 f/4L :D.
that's my next lens.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:26:00 PM · #7 |
| My macro is my absolute favorite, and I do use it sometimes for walk abouts, but there are times when it just doesn't work for what I am taking. I would like something in the $200 range if possible, and would like it to go to f1.8 or f2.8 (or at least under f4.5) Maybe that is not possible and I will have to wait until some more lens money shows up! The macro was a budget buster--but worth it. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:28:25 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Don't let anybody talk you into buying a new lens just because the kit lens is crap. As this gallery shows, the kit 18-55 is capable of producing some very fine images. It's more about your skills and your vision than about any particular lens or camera you may own. Shoot with and enjoy the 18-55. You'll know when you need to expand into something new, and it won't be because of what anybody tells you, it'll be because you aren't able to get what you're after photographically. |
It does produce decent shots, but not as sharp as my macro or zoom lenses. It is not something I have to have to enjoy photography, but I wanted to start investigating the possibilities. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:28:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Don't let anybody talk you into buying a new lens just because the kit lens is crap. As this gallery shows, the kit 18-55 is capable of producing some very fine images. It's more about your skills and your vision than about any particular lens or camera you may own. Shoot with and enjoy the 18-55. You'll know when you need to expand into something new, and it won't be because of what anybody tells you, it'll be because you aren't able to get what you're after photographically. |
there are two versions of the kit lens. I have enver used either one of them but many say that the newer one is not as good. I have no idea but the gallery you link to is the first version this gallery has some ncie iamages in it as well but have not impressed the voters asa much (whatever that means) but for the record many lower end lenses have produced a few high scoring images.
Message edited by author 2006-10-02 12:30:07. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:38:18 PM · #10 |
| That Tamron is about $350. I don't think you'll find a zoom lens as sharp for less than that. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 should be in your toolbox for portraits and low light... a no-brainer at $80. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:49:48 PM · #11 |
I surely agree with Scalvert that the 50/1.8 is a slam dunk at the price.
You should be able to get good results with the kit lens, but when you push it to maximum aperture (and you will, regularly, since its max aperture is not very large to begin with) you'll find that the results are less than pleasing.
You have one of Canon's finest non-L lenses in the 100 macro, and once you get used to that kind of performance you tend to notice the poorer performance of other lenses a lot more. You also seem to appreciate the benefits of faster lenses.
In your situation, I'd recommend keeping the kit lens around right now for times when you can stop it down (plenty of light) and when you need a zoom. Supplement it with the 50/1.8 and a wider-angle prime for those occasions when you can use a prime and want the best possible low-light performance. Perhaps the Sigma 20/1.8 would fit the bill, though it is more than you wanted to spend. Good wide-angle glass is never bargain priced, and bargain-priced wide-angle glass is, well, never a bargain. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:12:37 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Mo:
24-105 f/4L :D.
that's my next lens. |
Heheheh, haven't taken this off my camera since I bought it (with the exception of the macro challenge). |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:20:35 PM · #13 |
I also love the 24-105 f/4L lens.
sample, taken in mid-afternoon.
 |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:21:58 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Mo:
24-105 f/4L :D.
that's my next lens. |
Heheheh, haven't taken this off my camera since I bought it (with the exception of the macro challenge). |
Wish I'd taken mine off before I went on the Freedom Walk in Boston, at night, on uneven brick sidewalks, and fell on it.... Wah!
Still works, but will forever have the UV filter attached - it's quite firmly jammed into place at this point.
But I do agree it's an awesome lens - didn't use it much for the self portrait challenge but use it for everything else! (Including the macro challenge, which I shouldn't even have entered but that's neither here nor there and certainly not the lens' fault!) |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:26:20 PM · #15 |
holy crap! ... i just noticed you've voted on well over 98,000 images
wow
Originally posted by kirbic:
I surely agree with Scalvert that the 50/1.8 is a slam dunk at the price.
You should be able to get good results with the kit lens, but when you push it to maximum aperture (and you will, regularly, since its max aperture is not very large to begin with) you'll find that the results are less than pleasing.
You have one of Canon's finest non-L lenses in the 100 macro, and once you get used to that kind of performance you tend to notice the poorer performance of other lenses a lot more. You also seem to appreciate the benefits of faster lenses.
In your situation, I'd recommend keeping the kit lens around right now for times when you can stop it down (plenty of light) and when you need a zoom. Supplement it with the 50/1.8 and a wider-angle prime for those occasions when you can use a prime and want the best possible low-light performance. Perhaps the Sigma 20/1.8 would fit the bill, though it is more than you wanted to spend. Good wide-angle glass is never bargain priced, and bargain-priced wide-angle glass is, well, never a bargain. |
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 06:34:03 PM · #16 |
| When I bought my 30D, I opted for the body only. I started with the Sigma 17-70, but felt that it was too soft and returned it. After reading reviews here and elsewhere, I decided on the Tamron 24-135 f3.5/5.6 as my walkaround lens. Its very clear and sharp, and I'm pleased with the results. I recently added the Canon 17-40 f4L for a some wider coverage, but the Tamron covers most of what I need. The Tamron runs around $295 at The Camera Box. The Canon 17-40L is about $650 through Pricegrabber. Its also a very sharp and clear lens. I, too, have the 100mm f2.8 macro and like another responder said, its probably the sharpest lens by far in my bag as well. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 07:32:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Mo:
24-105 f/4L :D.
that's my next lens. |
Heheheh, haven't taken this off my camera since I bought it (with the exception of the macro challenge). |
Wish I'd taken mine off before I went on the Freedom Walk in Boston, at night, on uneven brick sidewalks, and fell on it.... Wah!
Still works, but will forever have the UV filter attached - it's quite firmly jammed into place at this point. |
That sucks. No hood on at the time? |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:23:46 PM · #18 |
| You guys know not everyone can afford L-glass, right? |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:25:00 PM · #19 |
| You know that lense cost less than your camera, right? |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:25:02 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
That sucks. No hood on at the time? |
Nope. Didn't take it with me and it was night time when we were out so I wouldn't have been using it if I'd had it. Sigh... But I did discover I can still attach filters to the UV filter, so all is not lost, I supppose!
Message edited by author 2006-10-02 21:26:03. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/12/2026 11:03:38 AM EST.
