DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> “Kit Lens” Vs. Low-end “Professional” Lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/12/2007 08:05:41 PM · #1
So Iâm not sure what the difference between the lens that came with my camera (Rebel XTi) and the lower end âprofessionalâ grade lenses (the $100 - $200 range of Sigma or Tamron) Obviously the best thing to do would be to buy a really good and expensive Lens, but Iâm an amateur with a budget. So would the extra money spent on the lower end lenses really be worth it(will I really notice the difference), or should I just stick with what Canon gave me.
07/12/2007 08:11:31 PM · #2
Many people will tell you to drop the kit lens and the truth is if you cant shoot with the kit lens then you really cant shoot. I say that with love because I can't really talk lol.

What comes with 400D/XTi an 18-55 EF-S? if so shoot with it and maybe drop 200 bucks on the Canon 75-300 USM III. Its not the best but for 180-200 bucks its awesome lol. I shoot with a 55-200 USM II on a Rebel T2 35mm and I like it as far as an inexpensive zoom lens goes.

In the end the glass is what resolves the light. Better lenses tend to(ranging up to does) get you better results but not better photographs.

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 20:14:56.
07/12/2007 08:25:56 PM · #3
I say stick with the kit lens and save your nickels and dimes for a higher end lens. I think the kit lens holds up well when stacked agains the lower end lenses. I used the affordable canon 75-300 often and was moderately happy wit its performance. That is, until the 70-200 made it into my bag. I then gave the 75-300 to my sister...

Take a look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for a budget lens with great performance. It is well thought of around here and elsewhere. Runs about 330-360$
07/12/2007 08:33:39 PM · #4
Personally I don't see anything more "professional" about a low end Sigma or Tamron than the kit lens...
07/12/2007 08:35:30 PM · #5
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Personally I don't see anything more "professional" about a low end Sigma or Tamron than the kit lens...


Uh, the box says 'professional'. ;)
07/12/2007 08:37:55 PM · #6
Originally posted by mpeters:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Personally I don't see anything more "professional" about a low end Sigma or Tamron than the kit lens...


Uh, the box says 'professional'. ;)

LoL, he got you there Doc.
07/12/2007 08:40:57 PM · #7
Let's Be honest the Sigma and Tamron Look a lot cooler on your camera than the "kit" lens
07/12/2007 08:41:10 PM · #8
LMFAO!
07/12/2007 09:04:25 PM · #9
for anyone that complains about the kit lens look at this:

Kit lens

Another thing people often forget about the kit lens is the minimum focus distance. At just 11" that is pretty close to a very cheap macro lens.
07/12/2007 09:05:55 PM · #10
Originally posted by Teedoej:

Let's Be honest the Sigma and Tamron Look a lot cooler on your camera than the "kit" lens


lol the man has a point
07/12/2007 09:32:08 PM · #11
Originally posted by BHuseman:

for anyone that complains about the kit lens look at this:

Kit lens

Pretty amazing I'd say! Perhaps even toss in a WOW! :)
07/12/2007 09:48:46 PM · #12
Originally posted by Teedoej:

but Iâm an amateur with a budget.

What's a budget?
07/12/2007 10:12:39 PM · #13
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by BHuseman:

for anyone that complains about the kit lens look at this:

Kit lens

Pretty amazing I'd say! Perhaps even toss in a WOW! :)


Sure but they all have the magical version of the lense:

Lens Information
Model : Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Type : Prime

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 22:26:54.
07/12/2007 10:26:01 PM · #14
I'll tell you my experience, as I was in a place similar to yours.

I first got the cheap Sigma 70-300 (~$150) - it focuses slow as a dog, but it satisfies that yearning for long reach, and has a macro mode, all for a price anyone can handle.

Second lens was the $90 Canon 50mm 1.8 - the difference in focus speed between it and the Sigma 70-300 will blow you away. Nice bokeh, great in low light, good portraits, wonderful lens - best bang for the buck. And an introduction to primes.

Now I'm looking into the semi-pro-ish end. See my comparison chart for lenses I consider to be very nice (some more so than others), popular lenses in what you and I would consider the mid-to-upper price range.

Personally, I think I've decided on the 24-105 f/4L IS. Now I'm just saving up and waiting for a rebate. Good luck, and have fun choosing!

Edit: I also dropped $15 on a closeup filter for the 50mm. Cheap way to boost macro capability (at the cost of a bit of image quality).

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 22:28:32.
07/12/2007 11:03:44 PM · #15
Yes, I still get caught out with the close focus when I'm trying to do macros. I scratch my head wondering why it won't take the shot, until I realise that it's simply too close to focus. I'm too used to my old P&S which would focus practically touching the lens. :)
07/12/2007 11:06:46 PM · #16
Originally posted by MrEd:

Originally posted by Teedoej:

but Iâm an amateur with a budget.

What's a budget?


$100-200
07/12/2007 11:07:10 PM · #17
Originally posted by surfdabbler:

Yes, I still get caught out with the close focus when I'm trying to do macros. I scratch my head wondering why it won't take the shot, until I realise that it's simply too close to focus. I'm too used to my old P&S which would focus practically touching the lens. :)


My P&S will focus @ 1cm. 1cm from sensor to target of course. I can press it against a TV screen and focus on the color gels lol.
07/12/2007 11:20:50 PM · #18
Originally posted by Teedoej:

Originally posted by MrEd:

Originally posted by Teedoej:

but Iâm an amateur with a budget.

What's a budget?


$100-200


If you only have $200 to spend on a lens, I would recommend keeping the 18-55mm and buying the Canon 75-300mm III. Then if you find out that the 18-55mm is holding you back, you can upgrade to a Tamron SP, Sigma EX or higher-end a Canon lens. Those will set you back at least $400 but by that point the upgrade will be worth it.
07/12/2007 11:28:55 PM · #19
Originally posted by Teedoej:

$100-200

Did I mention the 50mm 1.8? =)

Sigma 18-125 is near your price range at $229. However, except for a bit more reach, it doesn't appear to have anything your kits lens doesn't.

Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is only $409 (mmm, IS), also the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (mmm, f/2.8) is about that, too... if you can save a bit more.

I'd stick with the kit lens until you can afford at least the $400 range. I just can't imagine you seeing a big difference between the kit lens and a $200 lens.
07/13/2007 12:32:27 AM · #20


Kit lens

I own this lens. ;) And never realized it until now.
07/13/2007 01:21:55 AM · #21
Originally posted by mpeters:

Kit lens

I own this lens. ;) And never realized it until now.


It looks like you may be the boss, but Nuzzer is half the board of directors... :)
07/13/2007 07:04:53 AM · #22
My lens history included various kit lenses. Like some others, my first additional lens was the 75-300mm Mk III, then the 50mm 1.8 and 8mm Peleng. They have all kept their value well enough to resell well through eBay.

Each time I have updated my kit it has been because I have had a very specific want or need and I have known what kit I needed to scratch my itch.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 04:10:27 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 04:10:27 PM EDT.