EOS 450D Kit (EF-S 18-55mm & EF 75-300mm)... Which lens to keep/sell?

[dan88]

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum (as well as photography as a hobby). The tutorials have been fantastic in explaining how to use certain features of my camera.

I was wondering if someone could advise what lens to keep/sell? I've read on this forum that the EF 75-300mm performs pretty poorly (neither lens are USM but the 18-55 is Image Stabilised). Could someone advise whether to keep these both or just keep the 18-55mm and buy an L series for the other lens or replace both with L series? I have read that the L series is way better than the normal, but I don't know this for sure. I don't mind spending another $1000 AUD or more as I really would love to learn/experiment more and more about photography.

If someone could shed some light on this, I'd much appreciate it.

Ta

[crisscross]

you will no doubt get tons of advice from the Canon gang, but meanwhile....

You have lenses that cover most of the likely range you need (except longer tele). Use them to find your style, the camera characteristics and where to direct your cash carefully. Apart from anything else, although it is a good intro camera, it may not be good enough to show the difference between a good lens and superb as would a 5D or 1D and you might want to go that way.

PS whatever folks say, I find having an 80-400 lens attached most of the time is very good discipline to make sure you only include into landscape shots what is really important. Sometimes it isn't on, but I used to have the 18-55 with a 350D and if you are going wider than 75, you probably want to go a long way wider.

[Dave Humphries]

Welcome Dan88,

I agree with Chris' advice.

I might expand upon it thus; while you'd probably not go wrong with an L series lens, and I believe they'd be compatible with a better (Canon) body in future (if the bug really bites), I'd say don't rush into it yet; get used to what you have, in terms of ergonomics and the picture taking opportunities they offer. Then make a decision on focal length ranges from a more experienced viewpoint in a few months time.

Do post some pictures when you can.
Good luck,

[shreds]

Dan 88, Hi and welcome,

You say you are new to the hobby so I presume that you acquired the lenses as a package with your camera. Photography can be incredibly expensive (like many hobbies if you start to take it seriously) but dont get into 'needing' the newest or best lens on the market, just because everyone says so.

The range you currently have is good, you might in future want to consider a 'prime' or fixed focal length lens. Why, the quality is usually stunningly good for little money and they can cover a wide variety of lighting conditions. Most folk have say a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 in their kit bag, even though it might appear to double up on the focal length already covered by your lenses, but they are great for low light and general portraits, especially as a crop sensor will take the focal length to a good 'portrait' lens length of around 80mm. (well anywhere between 80-105 and possibly a bit further, is considered to be favourable for this)

Enjoy your camera and lens combination as it is though. Different lenses do different jobs and you might find that you are leaning towards one particular aspect of the hobby in a few months time, at which stage you can consider part exchanging your lens for something more appropriate.

For example you might find macro photography takes your fancy, in which case totally different lenses will be needed to say wildlife photography at a distance.

Let us know a little bit about what you enjoy photographing and I am sure good sound advice will be forthcoming.

But as rustyshutter71 and crisscross both say, dont feel you need to rush at it.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Dan,

As the resident "L-coholic" (as they call L-Series lens users), feel free to run any particular questions about the lenses past me - I've got quite a few myself, and have access to technical info on all the rest.

You could well find that an L-Series lens costs in the region of 10x that of a non-L counterpart (generalizing, but I'm sure you get the idea); and because of this many people have an expectation that they should be 10x as good. Well in my opinion they ARE probably 10x as good - but - please don't take that to mean that I'm saying that they produce an image that's 10x as good because you simply can't put numbers on image quality. What makes then "10x as good" in my opinion is a number of factors including usually better image quality - they're usually faster (wider apertures) - they usually have superior dust and moisture weather sealing - and they're usually of far more rugged construction.

The more difficult part is to work out what's the best lens for you.

To be honest, I started out with the 18-55mm kit lens and got results that I just wasn't happy with - I switched to L-Series lenses and now that's all I ever use (although I would make an exception where there wasn't an L-Series model if necessary (eg 2 of the 3 tilt and shift models)).

Overall, and in agreement with the others, I'd suggest starting with what you have and see if you're happy with the results. If you are then "job done" - but if you still have a yearning for professional grade stuff and the money's not a problem then by all means jump in boots and all - it's unlikely that you'd ever regret that decision either!

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

[Colin Southern]

PS: I'm forgetting my manners. Welcome to the forums - it's great to have you on board!

[dan88]

Thanks for all the advice/welcomes guys!

A few quick other things;

Crisscross: I think you're right regarding style - I need to find my style and also having too much in landscape photos is something I'm often guilty of.

Rustyshutter71: Waiting seems to be the best thing (along with experimenting) and as I learn more I guess I can look and see whether my lens suit my needs adequately. I'll post some pictures up soon in one of the other threads to get some opinions/pointers.

Shreds: you are correct; the lens came with the camera as a package. Do the prime lenses provide that much more quality? I've read mixed reviews online with some people saying they provide much more than zoom lenses, however I've also read other opinions saying that the zoom lenses are that good these days that they prime isn't always worth getting. In terms of what I like to take photographs of - I like low light landscape photographs... but I also want to dabble with macro. I'm not sure which lens would be best for macro (the 18-55 or 75-300). I'd probably be taking photos of interesting looking bugs if I was to get into macro photography. Portaits aren't a big deal to me as I rarely take them (and the 18-55mm seems to take pretty high quality photos when it comes to portaits).

Colin: Do the L series have Image Stabilization as well (I don't know if IS makes much of a difference anyway as I'm still learning)? Also, would I notice the picture quality difference on my entry level dSLR or does it take a more professional camera for the differences to become noticeable?

[Colin Southern]

"Colin: Do the L series have Image Stabilization as well (I don't know if IS makes much of a difference anyway as I'm still learning)? Also, would I notice the picture quality difference on my entry level dSLR or does it take a more professional camera for the differences to become noticeable? "

Canon do IS (Image Stabilisation) on a lens-by-lens basis, so you'll find it in both consumer and L-Series varients. My advice is to always go with the IS option - it can reduce shutter speeds by 2 to 4 stops (depending on the generation of the IS unit) and still get you a sharp shot in low light or when things are "on the move" (eg assuming a mean of 3-Stops with, say, an EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM Lens @ 100mm (that has a generation 3 IS unit) you'd want a minumum shutterspeed of 1/160th (1 over focal length x crop-factor) - so with a 3-Stop IS unit you stand a good chance of getting away with the same shot at 1/20th - MASSIVE difference. IS can be turned off if you don't need it, but of course it can't be turned on if you don't have it. It's a great invention.

In terms of "Would I notice the difference on an entry-level DSLR etc" the answer is "yes", "no", and "maybe"! ... The type of camera really doesn't enter into it (for the purists; "much") - (it's just a box that lets in the light). Let me put it this way: "any advantages of L-Series lenses will hold true whether they're on my 1Ds3 or your 450D" - but - if you're happy with non L-Series then you'll be happy with either. It's a tough one to advise on because what I demand out of an image may well be different to what you'll be satisfied with, so all I can really do in that respect is to make a couple of generalizations that might help ...

1. A high-quality lens on a low-quality camera will give better results than a low-quality lens would on a high-quality camera.

2. A lot of people have upgraded to L-Series lenses because they want L-Series advantages (including image quality); I haven't heard of any L-Series users downgrading to consumer grade lenses because they were too good!

The old saying is "Once you shoot L, you won't want to shoot anything else" - and that was certainly true for me - but having said that, they're not a "magic wand" that'll guarantee success everytime of course - even with the best cameras and lenses I can still stuff up a shot something chronic - it's just that my stuff ups are more expensive and stuffed up to a higher standard! (not that I'll ever admit it - not will you ever see any of them!!!)

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

PS: If it helps, take a look through my gallery - all shot with L-Series - I wouldn't have been able to do these with consumer-grade glass. Also - keep in mind that if you do "go L" then you've got them for a VERY long time - and they hold their value well - not like the cameras they attach to!

[Bill44]

G'day Dan, welcome to another Aussie, I'm about 100K north of you.
A good point has been brought up regarding identifying what type of photography you are going to do before spending big money on lenses.
As an example, I've just ordered a new Nikon body and two lenses, one of the lenses, 70-300, could have been purchased for just over $200.00, but I chose to spend $720.00 on a better grade of lens because that is where my main shooting will be done. By the same token I could have spent over $6,000.00 on a 300mm fast prime but that is a bit beyond my budget.

[crisscross]

... but I also want to dabble with macro. I'm not sure which lens would be best for macro (the 18-55 or 75-300). I'd probably be taking photos of interesting looking bugs if I was to get into macro photography.

For dabbling in (quasi) macro, there is an alternative which is to use 'close-up' lenses on the front. I have a Canon 500D 77mm to go on front of my 80-400 and they make a 54mm one a bit cheaper. Amazon stock them. But don't bother with very cheap ones. As well as being cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, it avoids a lens change and is far smaller in the kit bag if you do a lot of walking. Will hunt out examples.

[Colin Southern]

"there is an alternative which is to use 'close-up' lenses on the front."

They're fun little accessories, but they'll only focus out to 500mm, and in to around 300mm from the front of the lens - so you have to get your subject between these two distances.

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

[crisscross]

"there is an alternative which is to use 'close-up' lenses on the front."

They're fun little accessories, but they'll only focus out to 500mm, and in to around 300mm from the front of the lens - so you have to get your subject between these two distances.

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

If toys, they are quite good ones. In Nikonspeak the focus distance is object to sensor, so 500mm typical of 500D ring means about 150-200mm from front of lens. Perhaps its more like compact cameras; my 1st digi E4500 focussed at 20mm and I am still unable to improve on some of the small flowers shots, (much less get my D80+80-400+500D under a snowdrop to picture the inside)

[Colin Southern]

"In Nikonspeak the focus distance is object to sensor, so 500mm typical of 500D ring means about 150-200mm from front of lens."

Are we talking about the same part here Chris?

Canon's 500D fits both Canon and Nikon lenses - and although Nikon might specify distances from the sensor, it won't change the properties of the lens adaptor. I just rechecked my measurements witha 500D on my 70-200.2.8L lens and at both 70mm and 200mm and the range in which I could focus on the writing on my trusty electric can opener (only the best scientific aids here!), from the 500D end of the lens, was around 330 mm to about 500mm (ie about 1.1 to 1.7 feet), I'd be surprised if it were any different on a Nikon as all it's really doing with any lens if shifting the infinity focus point back. Would be interesting if you could measure at your end.

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

[crisscross]

"In Nikonspeak the focus distance is object to sensor, so 500mm typical of 500D ring means about 150-200mm from front of lens."

.. the range in which I could focus on the writing on my trusty electric can opener (only the best scientific aids here!), from the 500D end of the lens, was around 330 mm to about 500mm (ie about 1.1 to 1.7 feet)

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

Sorry, yes you are right Colin - testing with a scale 400 from lens front typical. Continued in PM so as not to confuse Dan.

[Zephyrize]

Welcome Dan88 !
Since I'm new to this 'hobby' as well, so I've struggled on the lens choice too.

First of all, you can see the difference yourself between 'standard' and L-Series lenses:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/ (check the samples of the 450D, you'll see clear contrast and image quality difference between the different lenses used)
http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/i...2.8%20L%20USM/ (more samples categorized by lenses)

As Colin and many more suggested, it's better to go with a +lens/-camera rather than +camera/-lens.
So instead of buying the kit lenses , I'm going for the body only.

As for the lenses...

Photography can be incredibly expensive (like many hobbies if you start to take it seriously) but dont get into 'needing' the newest or best lens on the market, just because everyone says so. [...] you might in future want to consider a 'prime' or fixed focal length lens. Why, the quality is usually stunningly good for little money and they can cover a wide variety of lighting conditions.

... I chose to buy a combo of one prime + one zoom.
The EF 50mm Mark II prime is the basic prime suitable for me to take portraits while a 28-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 II USM lets me take architecture and scenes a distance away.
The package cost me the same as if I took the two kit lenses.

Because those lenses were inexpensive, I chose to begin working with these and when I would be familiarized with DSLR, nothing stops me buying a more advance (L maybe).
In my opinion, I'd rather start basic, safe and later upgrading than directly starting on an upper level.
In the end, like many say, it's the eye behind the camera that makes the major difference!

Good luck! Looking forward to see some great pics!!

[dan88]

Hi Guys,

Just want to say thanks for all your input here! I suppose I will stick with the kit lens for a little while when I'm learning and choose to upgrade once I find my 'niche' or style.

I'll be sure to post some pictures up soon once I get a bit of time to go out shooting and look forward to talking to you guys more on the forums!

[Colin Southern]

You're welcome Dan.

If you ever get a small windfall of extra cash that you want to spend on L-series lenses then the "standard trio" that cover most day-to-day situations are the EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II, the EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM, and the EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM.

Cheers,

Colin

[rpcrowe]

I presently have four L lenses, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 17-40mm f/4L, 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L. I love my "L" glass except for the 17-40L for which I only have lukewarm affection and will probably liquidate soon.

However, I am not really an "L" of a snob and have several lenses which I like as much or in one case actually better than the L lenses for 1.6x cameras. I love my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and, IMO, there is nothing in the "L" inventory to match it. (Of course it costs as much as an "L" lens would). I also love my 90mm f/2.8 Tamron and 12-24mm f/4 Tokina. These last two, non-Canon, lenses produce great imagery and are a joy with which to shoot.

My favorite two lens combination for general and travel photography is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a pair of 1.6x cameras (I use the 30D and 40D). I can cover about 90% of my imaging needs with these two great lenses.

The lens quality needed depends on the uses to which you will put your images. "L" lenses are generally well built and generally have excellent image quality and fast autofocus. They also often give very good to excellent results when shot wide open. However for many photographers who seldom print larger than 4x6 and use their cameras to produce images of the kids and of Fido, the dog, to email to grandmother; "L" lenses could be overkill.

Two accessories which will bring out the best in less expensive lenses are:

1. A sturdy tripod. You will find that shooting at f/8 or so on a good tripod will produce excellent images with less expensive lenses; sometimes better than "L" lenses hand held.

2. A good hotshoe flash such as the 580EX or 430EX (series) or even the older 550EX or 420EX will allow you to bounce the flash to get natural looking lighting while using smaller apertures at which many less expensive lenses are competitive.

[Colin Southern]

"I love my "L" glass except for the 17-40L for which I only have lukewarm affection and will probably liquidate soon."

Have you thought about swapping it out for the EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II at all? (it's the lens I have on my camera pretty much through the entire landscape "season") - very happy with it.

Cheers,

Colin