Toronto Photography Meetup Group

So I might be getting a Canon T3i soon and I'm wondering if I should get the kit lens or something else?

Lenses are expensive as hell and I don't really have much to spend (T3i with the kit lens is $550, body only is $500 and I really don't want the total bill to come in over $650-700 before tax)
I'm lost when it comes to lenses and this sucks when you need something that is better than the kit lens at being a good all around lens.

What I want/need from a lens:
I need an all around lens which is good in low light, takes portraits and macros well ('dat bokeh), but can also take nice landscapes, some zoom functionality would be nice, and nice for video use.

Would the kit lens be able to do everything I'm asking? Obviously it doesn't have to be amazing, but I don't want photos to turn out like a point and shoot camera...

I realize I'm asking a lot for a lens with not much to spend, but I'm not a professional so I don't want/need to spend thousands on multiple lenses for each individual application to get the best shot.

Does anyone have a recommendation over the kit lens?

I want to take photos of cars, nature, landscapes, portraits, macros, and video all in a variety of high and low light conditions.

I think the lens is the most important part of your investment. Cameras get upgraded frequently, but a good lens changes very little. Since you're using Canon, get an L lens - say a 24-70 or a 24-105. When you upgrade your camera in a few years, you'll still have a very good lens.

I second the 24-105 suggestion, they're getting cheaper and cheaper. 24-70 is a great all rounder too. But, with your budget cap of $700 they're not options. Given your budget I'd reconsider my expectations if I were you. If this is your first DSLR get the body and the 50 1.8. Actually, even if it's not your first DSLR the 50 would be a good choice as it fits a few of your criteria (macro(close up), acceptable portraits, great bokeh, can work in video (very vague request) and it can work in landscape (some people do telephoto landscapes)). Otherwise finding a lens that fits all those criteria, at least to the standards I have, in that budget range is near impossible. You can look at the Tamron 17-50 option too... still gonna be over budget.

I have a budget of around $700 (with some flex room) for a body and lens, what makes you think I have the ability to put down $2000 on a lens?



Well if you could possibly lower your standards to that of a starting hobbyist (with not much money to burn), that would help me a lot. As for my vague video need, I guess my needs are pretty basic; slow/stationary targets mixed with some action shots (low light performance is a plus). What lens would you suggest be my best option in the price range for being the "jack of all trades but master at none" without breaking the bank for what I will be using the camera for?

I guess that pretty well narrows the choice. Aden camera has a Canon EOS Rebel T3i Body w/ EF-S 18-55mm IS & EF-S 55-250mm IS Lens for only $734.00. You can choose different lens combinations. This covers the full range of most people need.

nofear...let me start by saying that I'm new to photography as well and was in the same predicament as you.

I opted to buy a used Canon XTi/400D that came with a 50 1.8 and I also bought (resale) a 28-135 IS 3.5-5.6.

That combo forced me to learn how to make the most of my gear in all situations. Eventually if you continue with photography..you will upgrade your glass and camera.

The T3i is only $375 right now. That leaves you a lot of room get get a lens for over $300. I'd look around for what you can get a used 17-50 f/2.8 for.

Where can I find a T3i for $375???

They have a T3i with 18-55 kit lens and EF 75-300mm for $684, why would I get the EF-S 55-250mm over the EF 75-300mm? The EF-S doesn't even transfer over to full frame cameras.

I don't think you're going to enjoy the 18-55 for video or bokeh, too slow. I'm gonna stick with my above suggestions, 50 1.8 and or the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

Like I said, you can choose different lens combos. I would get the IS lens over the non-IS lens. When you're ready for a $2000 full frame camera, why would you want to use a cheapy $200 lens? By the way, where did you get the idea that the 2 L lenses I recommended cost $2000 each?

Henry's Outlet. Everything is 25% off right now. $500 - 25% = $375.

On a budget and L lenses don't mix well.

I also went with body only when I got my 60D and got a 50mm f/1.8. Shot with that combo for close to 4 months before I picked up a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

It was very good experience, zooming with my feet, and the fast glass let me experience what I truly wanted in a lens. They say the 50mm f/1.8 is a gateway drug, it's absolutely true. Now that I look back though, I kinda wish I went for the 50mm f/1.4 instead, however.

+1 look for a new or used Tamron 17-50 2.8

... not /absolutely/ true. My 50 f/1.8 didn't impress me -- too long for a crop sensor. I got a (Nikon) 28mm f/2.8 which was the next cheapest prime, and it was an improvement; or showed that I'd rather go a little wider than "normal".

I have since gotten over the preference for shorter and seek a little discomfort from time to time.

So, to add a suggestion: maybe consider something around the 35mm range (Not sure of the Canon selection in this area), since it's been the most popular angle of view for all camera formats.

I'm also on the list of Tamron 17-50 owners.

Since I don't exactly have the cash to throw around I guess I will be going with the t3i with kit lens, and get a used 50mm 1.8 on kijiji or something.



They were sold out, but I got a pretty good tripod Henry's HT100 (Velbon Sherpa 200R) for $60 when the regular price is $160.

That's too bad.

I guess this is the next best deal, if you can pick it up from the US.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/st ... id=C126149

Tamron and Sigma do cover all sort of general purpose lens like from as low as 17 all the way to 270mm. 24-105 would be a good choice but too expensive.

Ok I got the T3i with the kit lens around christmas; after tax and 4 year warranty it came out to a bit over $700. I've had some time to play around with it and now I understand a hell of a lot more about DSLRs, lenses, and what is good for what situation.

I think on my budget there was no getting around the fact that the kit lens was the only thing I could afford as an "all around" zoom lens. Although I will probably pick up a 50mm 1.8 on Kijiji for around $80 soon, even though I wish the 50mm 1.4 was in my price range the 1.8 will be a good addition to my gear.

Let me start by saying this: I am not new to photography. What you have on your hands is easily fixed by eliminating auto focus or auto aperture control. Just look into adapting old manual lenses and you will get a whole world of sweet and awesome right in front of your crispy sensor. The only problems you will face are: no AF means you need to learn photography in-depth and become familiar with manual focus and critical eye for details. No auto aperture control means you need to compose wide open, then stop down the lens to the aperture you want, which in turn also makes you aware of the composition, movement, critical framing.
Plus you most probably need to replace the focusing screen in your camera to be able to see the focus.
It all costs anywhere from $20 to thousands depending on how much hype there is around the lenses you want.

What you do get: somewhat unique look to your photos (depending on what lenses you use), fast glass, a lot of glass for less (again depends), more intimate control over your photography, more manual involvement, strange looks and questions from other photographers, constant hunt for that super deal of a century.

What you don't get: the red ring (sometimes depends too), unreliable AF, instant capture within fractions of a second, action shots (if you're really good you might conquer this), "damn tourists" remarks when travelling (depends too), respect from your clients thinking you're a professional.

Mind you, critical focus is not so important if you look at photography as an art form, as opposed to business. Nor is a lot of other aspects. Your eye is what's more important, and of course being there.

Contrary to popular belief (present company, like the balance of this thread, suffer(ed) from Gear Acquisition Syndrome), good things *can* be done with the 18-55mm kit lens.

A little link that proves it, courtesy of a little googling: http://www.lightstalking.com/kit-lens-portraits

On a crop body the tamron 17-50 f2.8 is the best value lens out there. You can get one for under $400 new. I suggest start with one lens first and add/upgrade as the need arise.