Kit lens replacement

[Roy Hobbs]

I have had my Canon Digital Rebel (300D) for about 3 years now. The kit lens as you all know isnt the greatest. Please give me suggestions on a replacement lens that won't cost me an arm and a leg. Looking to spend no more than $400ish. Kit lens in 18mm-55mm and I forget the rest of the specs.

Thanks

 

[compuwar]

I have had my Canon Digital Rebel (300D) for about 3 years now. The kit lens as you all know isnt the greatest. Please give me suggestions on a replacement lens that won't cost me an arm and a leg. Looking to spend no more than $400ish. Kit lens in 18mm-55mm and I forget the rest of the specs.

Thanks

1. What focal length do you normally shoot at with that lens?
2. Are you missing shots because it's not longer?
3. Are you missing shots because it's not wider?
4. Are you missing shots because it's not faster?
5. Rate the above (2-4) in terms of importance.

 

[epicwelshman]

Like Compuwar said, it's hard to just give suggestions for a lens without knowing why you feel you need a new one. Do you want to be able to zoom in more, or do you want to be able to zoom out more? Do you want to be able to shoot in low light without flash, or do you want a better all-purpose lens?

 

[Roy Hobbs]

I am looking for faster and longer than the kit lens.
I want a good all around lens

Decent low light performance would be good too.

 

[Lovesong]

Something faster than the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 would be an f/2.8 lens. The 17-55 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 would suit your needs but not your wallet.

Maybe something like the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 or, if you want more zoom, the 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 might work, but I don't know anything about those lenses.

 

[ChrisA]

I am looking for faster and longer than the kit lens.
I want a good all around lens

Decent low light performance would be good too.

About the only way to do that and stay in the low 3 digit price range is to go with Primes. Get a 50mm or an 85mm in f/1.4 or f/1.8. I think the 85mm would make an ideal compliment to the kit lens but would not replace it. I use the 85 a lot when I'm in a larger space or outdoors and the 50mm indoors for people shots

 

[miloblithe]

Sigma's new 18-50 f/2.8 looks good.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4118/lens-test-sigma-18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html

The 17-70 isn't as fast, but would give you a little more length. It's marginally faster than your kit lens.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

I'd second getting primes though. For $400, you could get the 50mm f/1.8 and have over $300 left over maybe for a macro or a longer lens.

 

[Roy Hobbs]

Can some one explain what a "Prime" lens is for me??

Like I said my budget at this point is $400 roughly.....so I don't think I could buy a $400 prime lens and have $300 left over for a macro lens

 

[orangezorki]

Can some one explain what a "Prime" lens is for me??

Like I said my budget at this point is $400 roughly.....so I don't think I could buy a $400 prime lens and have $300 left over for a macro lens

A prime lens is a lens that has just one focal length, i.e. no zoom. They tend to be smaller, lighter, faster(wider aperture), and better quality than their zoom equivalents, though there are now zooms which are very good lenses. Most companies manufacture a 'standard' lens, originally for film, which will be roughly a 50mm/1.8. These are very cheap, used to be the kit lenses, and IMHO it is a crime that they have been replaced by cheap and shoddy zooms for this purpose.

David.

 

[miloblithe]

Can some one explain what a "Prime" lens is for me??

Like I said my budget at this point is $400 roughly.....so I don't think I could buy a $400 prime lens and have $300 left over for a macro lens

Oops. And I wasn't very clear. The 50mm f/1.8 is about $70. You'd have a lot left over after buying one. If you can sell your current lens for $50 online or something, you'd have a $450 budget. For that you could get the 50mm f/1.8, which is very fast and very sharp, and the Sigma 17-70, which is a big improvement over your lens in quality, and is a little faster and a little wider and a little longer, and can focus fairly close for OK macro.

 

[epicwelshman]

Oops. And I wasn't very clear. The 50mm f/1.8 is about $70. You'd have a lot left over after buying one. If you can sell your current lens for $50 online or something, you'd have a $450 budget. For that you could get the 50mm f/1.8, which is very fast and very sharp, and the Sigma 17-70, which is a big improvement over your lens in quality, and is a little faster and a little wider and a little longer, and can focus fairly close for OK macro.

Yeah, I wouldn't keep your kit lens AND buy the 17-70, but if you sold your 18-55 then the 17-70 would become a nice walkaround, general use lens. Then you'd be fine with the 50mm 1.8 which would be great for portraits and indoor shows etc. I'm no expert, but from what I gather a 50mm viewpoint is about the same as the wide angle side on a P&S.

 

[Westside guy]

a 50mm viewpoint is about the same as the wide angle side on a P&S.

No, a 50mm lens on one of these crop-sensor cameras is a mild telephoto. The "normal" field of view lens is around 35mm (50mm fills this role on a full-frame or film camera). Wide-angle would fall below that; although I'm not sure exactly what "wide angle side on a P&S" is, exactly.

The 50mm lenses are inexpensive largely because of economy of scale in manufacturing - they were the standard prime for film shooters, and lots of people bought them (so Canon, Nikon, etc. were able to build lots of them). If you look at the 35mm primes you'll see the price is somewhat higher. I do love my Nikon 35mm f/2 though - wonderfully sharp.

 

[Zeke]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is in your budget. Anything longer while maintaing the wide angle won't be good quality so you'd be better off keeping the kit and getting a telephoto. If, however, you want a nice kit focal length lens and are prepared to drop the extra on a tele later then this is an awesome lens.

 

[epicwelshman]

No, a 50mm lens on one of these crop-sensor cameras is a mild telephoto. The "normal" field of view lens is around 35mm (50mm fills this role on a full-frame or film camera). Wide-angle would fall below that; although I'm not sure exactly what "wide angle side on a P&S" is, exactly.

The 50mm lenses are inexpensive largely because of economy of scale in manufacturing - they were the standard prime for film shooters, and lots of people bought them (so Canon, Nikon, etc. were able to build lots of them). If you look at the 35mm primes you'll see the price is somewhat higher. I do love my Nikon 35mm f/2 though - wonderfully sharp.

I stand corrected

 

[sananda]

I have had my Canon Digital Rebel (300D) for about 3 years now. The kit lens as you all know isnt the greatest. Please give me suggestions on a replacement lens that won't cost me an arm and a leg. Looking to spend no more than $400ish. Kit lens in 18mm-55mm and I forget the rest of the specs.

Thanks

the kit lens isn't so bad.

 

[Roy Hobbs]

the kit lens isn't so bad.

It isn't so good either. Decent at best

 

[walangij]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is in your budget. Anything longer while maintaing the wide angle won't be good quality so you'd be better off keeping the kit and getting a telephoto. If, however, you want a nice kit focal length lens and are prepared to drop the extra on a tele later then this is an awesome lens.

I have this lens and it is superb lens for the price, great IQ, speed, only bad thing is the noisy autofocus. about $50 outside of your price range but ebay has great deals, got mine there for less than $400 new. It's a great stepping stone on the way up the lens ladder. Low light performance is decent, far better than the kit lens.

 

[sananda]

It isn't so good either. Decent at best

i'd agree with that assessment; it is decent. a lot of people rubbish it, but it's not as bad as they say.