Buying my next lens

Question

Currently I have Canon 500D with following lenses.

1. Canon 18-55 IS.
2. Canon 55-250 IS.
3. Canon 50 1.8.
4. Tokina 100 2.8 Macro.

These days I'm thinking of adding another lens to my armory. And my choices are as follows.

1. Canon 15-85 IS. ( for its range )
2. Canon 10-22. ( for its UWA capabilities )
3. Tamron 17-50. ( for its fastness )

Even after reading large number of forum entries and reviews, I still can't make up my mind on one lens. Basically I have trouble with 18-55 and I am pretty satisfied with other 3 lenses. My problems with it includes not sharp enough, not fast enough and not wide enough at times. But when I analysed pictures I have taken using exposureplot, I got to know that I am shooting in either wide end or tele end most of the time. Therefore 15-85 seems logical choice as it extends range in both ends. But strictly speaking in lens speed terms it wouldn't give me a much of speed performance over current setup.

Other option I'm thinking about is go for a 10-22 and extend my range in wide range and use 10-22+55-250 setup. But it will involve constant lens swapping.

Final option is to go for Tamron 17-50 non VC and possibly drop 18-55 and 50 1.8 from current setup. It's the cheapest option, will provide sharp pics, but current range restriction will be there.

I will really appreciate if you guys can provide me with some advice as it will make my decision process an easy one.

Asked by user1133477

Answer

It seems to me, you’re at the point where really it’s more about what works for you, so it’s going to be hard for anybody to give a definitive answer. As you’ve said, each decision has different tradeoffs and really it’s about which one’s you want to make.

Taking your current setup, you already have a Cannon 50-1.8 which is towards the upper end of your zoom for the 18-55 (where you’ve said you take a lot of your shots) and it can let in significantly more light than your kit lens. So using this lens more would seem to tick your ‘not fast enough’ requirement, it may also match your ‘not sharp enough’, as you’ve not mentioned that you’re unhappy with this lens. So, my question is why don’t you use this lens more? I’d guess it’s because you don’t like having to change lenses often and you feel restricted by it. If this is the case, then I suspect going for the Canon 10-22 would result in you keeping the kit lens (for flexibility) and rarely using the wide lens unless you had a particular series of shots in mind.

I like the Canon 15-85, it’s a reliable lens with great flexibility, however as you’ve said, it’s basically the same f-range as your kit lens. How much of a limiting factor is that in your photography. If it’s the driving force for you buying a new lens, then I’d suggest trying the Tamron. But really it’s about which lens is actually going to make the most difference to you (be it because it gets the most use because it’s a great walk-about lens, or because it makes you excited because you can get that wide shot you’ve been looking for).

Answered by forsvarir

Check more discussion of this question.

Cannon EOS 550D, Which lens should I purchase [closed]

Question

Possible Duplicate:
Which would be more suitable lens in terms of utility, weight, price: 18-135 or 18-55 + 55-200?

I am going to purchase my first DSLR which is Cannon EOS 550D. The seller says it comes with 18-135 mm lens and price is around 922$ and also he offer me same camera with 18-55mm lens for 650$. I prefer people, street, nature, indoor, wildlife, and night landscape photography. If I purchase 18-55 lens I will purchase some telephoto zoom lens later. Which lens set should I select with the camera. Appreciate your help on this selection.

Asked by Prasad Rajapaksha

Answer

When I was in your exact situation I've bought the 18-135 and I'm very happy with that choice.

The extra zoom is extremely useful for photographing people - both for portraits (people look better with longer lenses) and candids (it let me take picture from a non disturbing distance) - the extra zoom is even more useful for photographing kids because they tend to move a lot and the 18-135 range will get you tight or wide framing at any reasonable parent-kid distance.

55mm is way too short for wildlife (I've tried once to use a 50mm lens to photograph animals in a zoo - and I couldn't get any picture that didn't require a lot of cropping), 135mm is actually also too short in my opinion but it will work well in a zoo or if you can get animals to come to you - if you are serious about wildlife you will have to get a longer lens eventually.

Also, the 18-135 is slightly better built, for example it has a non-rotating front element (very useful if you ever use a polarizing filter, commonly used for nature and landscape photos)

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I find infinity focus on a kit lens with no markers?

Question

I have a kit lens which has no markers. What would be a recommended way to find infinity focus on this lens?

I plan to shoot objects at night -- not necessarily stars or the moon. So, adjusting the focus using the viewfinder may not be an option.

Asked by publicRavi

Answer

I'd go to the aperture you want, go to live view, zoom in, and manually focus on the moon. For all practical purposes, it should be infinite. Mark it on the lens.

Answered by rfusca

Check more discussion of this question.

What's the difference between the lenses EF-S 18-55 DC III and EF-S 18-55 IS II?

Question

I'm planning on purchasing a Canon 1100D with an image stabilized lens.

However, I've found two offers with different lenses. Can you explain to me the difference?

1. Canon EOS 1100D + EF-S 18-55 IS II
2. Canon EOS 1100D + EF-S 18-55 DC III

A similar offer on amazon.de suggests that offer 1 has an image stabilizer, but I don't know about offer 2.

Asked by gentmatt

Answer

Canon's overview for lenses with EF-S mounts does not use the descripton DC. The reason for why several third-party resellers use this description remains unclear to me

This list on Wikipedia suggests that the DC version of the lense is the basically the same, but without image stabilization.

Block diagrams

(source: Canon)

EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III

EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

Description

(source: Canon)

EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III

The Canon EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III is a lightweight, compact standard zoom lens specifically for cameras that take EF-S lenses. Featuring a high-precision aspherical lens element, the lens compensates for chromatic aberrations that can occur while zooming to deliver high-resolution, high-contrast imaging performance. Through optimized lens positioning and coatings, the model greatly minimizes the flare and ghosting commonly associated with digital camera photography. It is a worthy successor to the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II and features a revamped external design.

EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

The new Canon EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II inherits the highly regarded optical design utilized in its predecessor, the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, released in September 2007. Featuring a high-precision aspherical lens element, the lens compensates for chromatic aberrations that can occur while zooming to deliver high-resolution, high-contrast imaging performance. Through optimized lens positioning and coatings, the model greatly minimizes the flare and ghosting commonly associated with digital camera photography. Furthermore, the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II includes an optimized control algorithm that has been aligned with the Image Stabilizer structure and characteristics, achieving image stabilization equivalent to approximately four shutter-speed stops.

Based on a shutter speed of "1/(focal length x 1.6)" seconds, considered the limit to prevent hand shake during hand-held photography.

Answered by gentmatt

Check more discussion of this question.

Photo is not as crisp as expected

Question

During my experiments with HDR photography, I was intending to get some really great landscape shots and I was able to capture this picture.

However, I was expecting it to turn out a bit crisper than the way it came out. I kept my camera settings on to take RAW photos with three different exposures (+2,0,-2). The camera being used is a Canon DSLR 550D with its basic kit lens 18-55 mm. I post processed it through Photomatrix Pro and then Lightroom but I am still unable to get the picture I was hoping to generate while I was shooting this. Any recommendations on where I am going wrong?

Sample Cropped Image:

Asked by Nerds.Dont.Swear

Answer

I shoot HDR images using the same workflow you did (Bracketing > Photomatix Pro > Lightroom) and my images are all crisp, in fact, most of them are sharper than original photos due to overlaying of multiple images. Sot sure whats causing your images to become blurry, but you can try out a few things.

• When taking bracketed (-2,0,+2) shots, use a tripod. This ensures that the subjects in all the images are in the same position. If you don't have a tripod, use your car, a bench, a rock or anything steady to put your camera on.
• Use a smaller aperture (f/8+) to ensure everything in your image is within focus.
• Use Photomatix's image alignment option (if you shoot handheld), so that even if your images are slightly different from each other, the software can correct it. You'll get this option after selecting the images in Photomatix.
• Do not use noise reduction (or use as minimal as possible) if your images are already noise free/have very low noise.
• This particular image you posted looks over processed (dodged and burnt quite a bit). This often compromise sharpness. Play with different presets and settings in Photomatix to see if sharpness has been compromised. Preview at 100% before exporting the final TIFF image.
• Wind is a major problem when shooting bracketed shots. This forces your images to be different from each other and subjects like trees, leaves, curtains etc move a lot. In this case its better to take one single RAW image at 0 and produce -2,+2 using DPP or anything else. This solves the movement problem.

Answered by ShutterBug

Check more discussion of this question.

What can be done using a 18-55mm lens?

Question

I have a Canon EOS 1000D with 18-55mm kit lens (entry level, as many say). Whenever I go out for a shoot, I always end up feeling handicapped because of the limited zoom range.

Most of my friends keep suggesting I get a 'good lens' sometime. I agree on the need for a long range lens, but I am not quite ready to quit on this lens just because of the zoom range. And I am also sure that good photography would still be possible with an 18-55mm lens.

I have tried shooting flowers, close-range portraits, still-life and I liked the photos it gave.

I need pointers about where this lens is most useful. How can I make it work wonders ?

Asked by essbeev

Answer

All these things can be done with your kit lens:

• Learn to minimise depth of field in a given situation (max aperture, max zoom, foot zoom to fit) to see how much background defocusing you can achieve. Not an ideal lens for this but results will please you. Try selecting between two objects in mid distance but at different distances. Can you get pleasing differentiation.

• Set lens to minimum aperture. Use tripod or place camera on a wall etc. Take photos at night of street lights etc. Note halo/coma effect. What photos can you [produce using this.

• "Through the bars": Find some "bars" - birdcage etc, put front lens element almost touching bars (as close as possible). Experiment with what you can achieve. Can you make the bars vanish? How can you use this ability? This photo was taken through cage bars. Can you see them. That used a 50 mm f1.8. What can you achieve. This photo was taken through a heavy mesh as seen here at f6.3. In both cases this is achieved by placing the lens front element as close to the bars or mesh as you can manage so that they are well inside one focal-length of the lens centre and so are dispersed rather than focused. Your kit lens can achieve this same result allowing to to produce pictures of apparently uncaged beasties or birds or ... .

• Super Macro: Do you have ANY other lenses. Using even an old lens from another camera that does not fit your mount, set spare lens to "wide open", invert so front elements of it and yours are adjacent and almost touching. Maybe tape together. Now point at something small and very close and well lit. Note massive macro effect possible. Experiment with focal length setting on each lens.

• Set to small aperture, low ISO. Tripod or brace and photograph falling water and fountains.

• Set to small aperture and low ISO and use flash. Photograph fountains that have streams of drops or blobs of water in the air. Experiment with flash level and ISO. Be amazed. Like this fountain shot - f6.3 at 200mm but your lens can do similar This used no flash. Addflash and use a smaller aperture and the background will darken or even vanish - jewels of water on "satin background."

• Small aperture, low ISO, exposure compensation up. Photograph people when standing close to them looking slightly downwards with large area of roomlight lit carpet etc behind them. ie camera sees target lit by flash plus even carpet etc area behind in distance and not well lit by flash. Play with exposure until person is well lit for a nice portait but background drops away to almost blackness - even in a well lit room - and no photoshopping.

• Do you have rear curtain flash? Experiment at night with people with lanterns and flashing lights etc.

• Fun shots like this hair and water shot do not need special lenses etc - just lots of patience.
  (It took about 12 trials to get this right.)

  

• Silhouettes - bright background, dark foreground, expose for bright. Even higher contrast than this can be easily achieved.

• Lie on the ground like this, stand on chairs, climb trees, move in close, lean out of windows and trains carefully! find interesting angles. None of these need special lenses but all add interest. This or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or you get the idea etc can be done with the kit lens.

Answered by Russell McMahon

Check more discussion of this question.

Does using a different lens affect the dynamic range for HDR post-processing?

Question

I am a bit new to HDR photography and lately I have been trying to carry out the post-processing with Photomatrix. After many trails and errors, I am still unable to get the effect that many other HDR pictures usually have.

Picture Setup:

Canon DSLR 550D: 18- 55 mm lens, three pictures at different exposures (-2,0,+2) - JPEG format - Evaluative mode, 2 sec continous shooting.

Post-processing software:

Photomatrix 4.1.4.

I have three parts to my question:

1) Would using a different lens (50 mm) affect the dynamic range of the photograph and help me in post-processing?

2) If the above is No, is it always related to the proper tone-mapping of the picture to produce the HDR effect?

3) I usually have a cloudy climate around the place I live, should I change any camera settings in order to take a proper picture first with the above settings to get the desired HDR effect?

Asked by Nerds.Dont.Swear

Answer

• 1) No, the lens has very little influence on the dynamic range captured, except in exceptional circumstances, for academic interest only, see this question:

  Is it possible for a lens to produce too much contrast?

• 2) Yes, the look people attribute to HDR is the result of converting a high dynamic range image to a low dynamic range image suitable for viewing. This step is usually achieved by tonemapping. Merging images to HDR is straightforward, there is usually one possible result. Tonemappig is difficult and requires aesthetic decisions to be made. See:

  What is tone mapping? How does it relate to HDR?

• 3) It depends on what your goals are. Often in overcast situations the dynamic range of the scene is not so high that you need HDR in order to capture a detailed image, if your intention is to produce an ultra detailed high contrast unreal image then you can simply apply tonemapping to a single good exposure.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

Are the Canon 15-85mm + 50mm f/1.8 adequate substitutes for the 17-55mm f/2.8?

Question

The EF-S 15-85mm lens is a relatively recent lens, and I haven't seen too many recommendations on it thus far. However, most of the reviews have been very positive and the lens is said to be optically on par with the 17-55mm. It sacrifices the constant wider aperture for better zoom range that could translate to fewer lens changes. As for the 50mm f/1.8, it is one of the most recommended lenses, dirt cheap and suited to low light & portrait photography.

The two lens combo is also cheaper than the single one (around INR 53,000 vs INR 64,000). The usage scenarios I have in mind are the following, along with my thoughts:

• General purpose\travel photography - the 15-85mm seems to be more versatile than the 17-55mm for this, especially when light is not a constraint
• Portraits - the 17-55mm would be quite versatile in this regard (however, 55mm feels a bit short for getting tight shots, and getting close can lead to distortion)
• Event photography (weddings, parties etc) - the 17-55mm has the low light advantage over the 15-85mm, and 50mm can get a bit long in closed environments
• Low light shooting - the 17-55mm is more versatile, but the 50mm has a wider aperture

So, which would be a better upgrade for my current setup comprising of the Canon 550D with the 18-55mm IS & 55-250mm IS kit lenses? Are there any alternatives worth considering in this budget?

Note: I had asked a similar question regarding upgrades for the kit lens, but that was without a particular scenario or lens in mind.

Also, on a related note, I will need a bigger camera bag once I get the new lenses - any suggestions for the upgraded setup (2-3 lenses)? Update: I went and got the Lowepro Fastpack 350 Multi Use Backpack that contains a laptop storage compartment as well.

Answer

Before you get any other lens, get the 50mm f/1.8. Its a must-have lens for anyone even remotely interested in portrait photography. You just can't go wrong with it. Actually I never used the 18-55 after I got my fifty prime.

For your zoom needs, you would be better off with a third party lens like the the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC). At INR 21,000 ($440) it costs a third of the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, and has great overall performance.

Here is my story:

I had a similar dilemma a while back. I had a Canon 500D with the 18-55 kit lens and was looking for a new lens. Since my budget was tight I purchased the 50mm f/1.8 and I was blown away by what a difference the wider aperture made. Amazing low light performance and sweet looking bokeh made it difficult to take a bad shot with it.

But with a crop factor of 1.6, I found it a little too tight for indoor use and while 'zooming with your feet' is the norm with a prime lens, I found myself running out of space indoors.

Also I used to shoot a lot wide open and found that shooting a portrait at f/1.8, even getting both eyes in focus becomes a challenge. Get a second person in the frame and there is no way you can get both people in focus. So I started stopping it down to about f/2.8 which gave me workable DOF while still giving great low light performance.

This made me realize that I needed a lens with the versatility of the kit lens and the wide aperture like the prime. I was on a tighter budget and hence purchased the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC). I have not been disappointed since. I still turn to the 50mm f/1.8 when I really need the extra 2/3rd stop or really shallow DOF, but the Tamron is what I use 95% of the times.

I've shot portraits, concerts, weddings and its always performed well. It would be better if it were a little sharper wide open and if the autofocus wasn't as loud, but its overall performance and versatility trump these minor issues.

---

PS: I'm a huge fan of bokeh and shoot mostly in low light, so I thought it would be useful to show some examples of what f/2.8 lets you do.

This one shows how you can use the shallow DOF at f/2.8 to get sweet bokeh. The 50 prime would have also done wonders here, but you can't keep switching lenses at an event.

---

This one was shot with just a candle to the left (out of the frame) and the lighter (in the frame).

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it normal for the Canon kit lens to exhibit lens flare even without a UV filter?

Question

I recently bought a Canon 550D and have been experimenting with this for a week. I have been pretty satisfied with the quality, until I faced this lens flare problem. Notice the unwanted blue light near the red board with yellow star:

Attached are two pics

1. Shot with Canon 550D - 18-55 kit lens with UV filter on:

2. Shot with Canon 550D - 18-55 kit lens without UV filter on:

Is this level of lens flare normal? Or are there any quality issues with my camera?

P.S.: Pics are little blurred — I have quite shaky hands.

Answer

Yes, this is normal. It's important to realize that this is almost entirely to do with the lens and not the camera body. See What causes lens flare? for more detailed background, but basically, flare is the result of stray light bouncing around, and is common with lower-cost lenses and with wide-angle lenses — and the 18-55mm kit lens is both.

You can see that the problem is worse with the UV filter. A large, flat, and probably cheaply-coated glass element is ideal for bouncing light (but not so ideal for avoiding artifacts like this). A higher-quality filter will contribute less to the problem, but won't improve the lens itself. A higher-quality lens will have a design intended to protect more against random bouncing light.

A cheap thing you can do to help, though, is to shade the lens from out-of-scene light. You can use your hand or a piece of cardboard in a pinch, but really this is what a lens hood is for. It screws on the front of the lens and keeps some of the "extra" light away. (For your Canon kit lens, the item you want is the EW-60C lens hood.)

Of course, that won't help flare caused by lights in the scene (as in your image, where the blue ghost light appears to be caused by the bright white lamp on the building). For that, the best option is to compose differently — move so that light source is obscured, or just hits the lens in a less-obtrusive way. If that's too limiting — sometimes, that's the picture you want to take! — a lens which better controls flare (which is to say, a more expensive lens) will help get this kind of shot.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does the cheap kit lens seem to be sharper than the expensive L wide-angle?

Question

So recently, I was just browsing through Canon's product lists and found the 17-40 f/4 L to be quite interesting, although I will not buy it anytime in the near future. Still, I decided to make some comparisons, just for fun:

EF 17-40 f/4 L USM vs EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS

These shots were, according to the website, done with the same camera, aperture and almost the same focal length. What struck me is that the L lens seems to be only a little bit sharper in the center, and, even worse, the kit lens seems to beat it in the corner areas!

How can this be? Is the test flawed? Anything I missed out?

Of course, the 17-40 needs to draw a bigger image circle in order to suit FF cameras, and the 18-55 is optimized for an APS-C sensor. But until now I assumed I could still expect clearly better image quality even on an APS-C camera?

Answer

"L" lenses aren't always necessarily sharper than their non-L cousins. In fact, some of them are very much softer, often as a consequence of being two or three stops faster than the cheaper lenses, but sometimes just because they're a decade or two older in design.

What you do get with "L" lenses is professional features and the build quality of a light armoured vehicle. For instance, you might not care so much about a constant aperture while zooming, but I can guarantee that somebody who is using separately-metered studio-type flashes either as main or auxiliary lights would. And the manual focus ring on kit lenses (so far true of both Canon and Nikon) is just a little less than useful.

There have been a couple of "L" lenses that were, frankly, lousy lenses by most objective standards, the most notorious being the now-discontinued 50mm f/1.0. Considering it as a "standard" lens and using it at f/5.6 or f/8, you'd have to be an idiot to spend the extra two grand on that lens (and that was in early-'90s dollars) -- but when TMax P3200 was that fastest thing around, being able to go to f/1.0 for "available darkness" shooting made the difference between being able to get the shot and not being able to get the shot. It didn't matter that the $50 (at the time) f/1.8 version could shoot rings around it at other apertures -- that stop and a half meant everything to the people who needed a lens that fast. Most of the "L" series for the old FD mount were like that -- they filled a niche that pros needed to do their jobs, but were actually worse for general photography than the non-"L" variety. Things got better for the AF EOS era, but there have been a couple of stinkers along the way too. The worst of them have already been replaced by updated designs, but some adequate performers are still in need of an update.

If you want (or need) the build quality, usability and environmental sealing of a pro lens, then the "L" is almost always worth the money. If you're making pictures for your own pleasure and can afford the sometimes fiddly and fragile nature of consumer lenses, then the newer, cheaper optics are often a much better option.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the limitations of a typical kit lens as a general purpose lens?

Question

I have a Canon EOS 550d with the 18-55mm IS kit lens. I have done quite a bit of shooting with it over the last few months (portraits, nature, night shots etc), and find the image quality to be pretty good. In fact most of the reviews have also been positive (at least in terms of image quality):

dpreview Quote:

indeed Canon's main concern may ultimately become whether users have as much incentive to upgrade to more expensive optics as they did before

DxOMark comparison to the Canon 17-55mm lens

Amazon user reviews

So, what are the key limitations of this lens (or any other similar kit lens) that would compel one to upgrade to a more expensive general purpose zoom lens (apart from the wanting to upgrade the zoom range)?

Answer

For general purpose photography for a general purpose casual user there probably isn't much reason to upgrade your general purpose lens. For everyday photos you'll be printing out on your printer or at the local lab/supermarket to 6x4or A4 etc to show friends and family I doubt you'll notice much of the quality difference between this lens and the more expensive ones. The only gripe you may have is wanting a shallower depth of field on people shots, or wanting a lower ISO when shooting in low light.

It's when you start wanting to view or print your pictures bigger than a screen/A4 that you may be wanting a better lens. When you start looking more closely at the pixels you'll notice some fringing/chromatic aberration around subjects. You can help minimise this by closing down the aperture but then that makes the lens less useful in certain lighting conditions.

Also if you're doing some action shots you may want a lens with a quicker autofocus, or a quieter one for nature photos. You might want a slightly more robust lens if you're planning on hiking places and worried it might get knocked or dropped, or weather sealed if you'll be out in the rain.

So as a general purpose lens it's great, but if you start noticing it's limitations in the kind of photos you want to be taking then that's when you realise you 'need' to be using a more expensive lens. If you don't notice any of these things in the photos you're taking, then there is probably little point in upgrading, and as more and more casual users are investing in DSLR's these days more and more people are going to be finding the kit 18-55mm lens more than adequate for their needs.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I choose a Canon 550D or a Sony DSLR-A580?

Question

I am planning to buy a Canon EOS 550D with its Kit Lens (18-55 mm) and a prime lens (50 mm 1.8) with my main intention of clicking portrait and landscape pictures. Just yesterday I came across Sony DSLR-A580 and noticed that the features were a bit better for the Sony as compared to the Canon. I referred to this link to understand the ups and downs of both the DSLR's. I have personally used the Sony A580 (with prime lens 50 mm 1.8 and telephoto lens Sigma 18-200 mm) for more than 3 months and I am quite impressed with the quality. I have even used the Canon 550D in stores to get a feel for the quality and in stores I felt Canon was better. I understand that Sony would be a bit more expensive than the Canon with the same setup, but is there really that much of a difference in quality of images and video?

Answer

There's no single answer to this question, because it comes down to a lot of personal factors. However, you won't go wrong with either choice. I highly recommend looking at How much do lens lineups vary across platforms? and considering which system might fit your vision of your working style as a photographer — but not stressing about it too much.

The difference in image quality in an absolute sense is very small. That's because all modern DSLRs offer excellent, amazing image quality, and any debate is between levels of A-grade. These differences are magnified because camera review sites wouldn't get very many hits if they just kept focusing on that positive story — instead, they have a huge incentive to magnify small differences into distinguishing factors.

The Snapsort link you gave provides a good example of this. While Snapsort provides some useful comparison information, one thing it says is that the Sony camera provides "More than 20% better image quality". This is clearly preposterous. The numbers they use — given as the bare "80.0 vs 66.0" — are from some highly-technical sensor measurement scores, which demonstrate some small clinical aspects of image quality, and which barely relate in any way to the actual potential quality of results.

The claim that one model "Distinguishes more than 3x more colors" is also absurd — there's a technically-measured bit depth of "23.8 bits vs 22.1 bits", which both does not correspond usefully to the practical dynamic range of the sensor nor have anything to do with "number of colors distinguished". The higher value is better, but when it's presented as "3× better" that sounds like a big deal — when in reality, it's a difference that humans, even expert humans, can't possibly distinguish without taking careful measurements.

So, yeah. Don't worry too much about these things.

That's assuming there's no deal-breaker lack of functionality for you in one model or another. For example, if you absolutely must have 24p video for a project, this particular Sony model won't do.

Check more discussion of this question.

What does it mean to get a “free upgrade” to the IS MKII lens with purchase of a Canon 550D?

Question

I am going to buy a DSLR camera, the Canon 550D with the 18-55mm IS lens kit, and additionally, it has a free upgrade to IS MKII Lens.

I am a bit new to photography and after doing a certain amount of research, I could only understand that MKII is Mark II Lens, which are a bit heavier, better in quality and focus. Am I right in this or is there anything else to it?

Answer

It means, normally a 550D comes with the older 18-55 IS lens, and now you will get the 18-55 IS Mk.II instead.

Note that optically, the two are identical. The only improvement is IS algorithm (the algorithm, not hardware)

Other than that it is cosmetic : the silver band is now painted black instead.

In terms of performance, there is no difference between the two, and the new IS algorithm provides a very slight improvement during a very specific type of shooting (panning shot)

In short, they are the same. The one with a silver band is called Mk I, the one without is called Mk II.

If you want any in-depth information, you can look through the very long and detailed reveiw here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-II-Lens-Review.aspx

The sales is just trying to make you think you are getting a big offer - upgrading the lens for free. Well, now you know there is no difference between the two, it really isn't that big a deal at all. At most, the sales is just trying to fool you.

Check more discussion of this question.

Will my Canon 500D with 18-55mm lens kit fit in a Crumpler Jimmy Bo 300 case?

Question

Someone recommended Crumpler camera bags to me, I've just bought a Canon 500D with the standard (18-55mm) lens kit.

I want to the bag to be as small as possible. Crumpler says this one is for a SLR and short lens:

http://www.crumpler.co.uk/?product=Jimmy_Bo_300&page=details&product_line=843

I'm not sure if my lens qualifies as "short". Is anyone using this bag with a similar Canon? Does it fit and still protect the camera?

Answer

One of the product shots actually uses a Canon body:

the kit lens is also one of the shortest in the current product line (the only one that is physically smaller that I can think of is the 50/1.8; so I would expect it to fit. Of course, it is always worth visiting your local friendly retailer if you're unsure about ordering online.

Check more discussion of this question.

What's the advantage of buying a fixed 50mm f/1.8 lens when my camera has an 18-55mm zoom lens?

Question

I've got a Nikon D3100 with an 18-55mm zoom lens. I'm keen to experiment with some other lenses and a friend of mine recently reccommended I purchase a fixed 50mm f/1.8 lens as he said it's good for portrait photography and capturing really sharp images. He also said that as it isn't a zoom lens it will sharpen my composition skills.

My question is - I currently have an 18-55mm zoom lens, so by purchasing a 50mm fixed lens, won't I be purchasing a spec of lens already covered by my 18-55mm lens? What are the main differences between these two lenses?

Finally - can anybody vouch for the Nikon fixed 50mm f/1.8 lens as being a good lens to go for?

Answer

At 50mm on your 18-55, the max aperture is f/5.6. On the 50mm f/1.8, the max aperture is - obviously - f/1.8. It is perhaps not immediately obvious, but f/1.8 lets in 10-12 times more light than f/5.6. That is the difference between shooting at 1/10 second shutter speed (which is absolutely a no-go for moving subjects) and shooting at 1/100 (which is a usable shutter speed for moving subjects). Big difference indoors at night, for example. It lets you shoot without flash, or with the flash used as mere fill flash instead of it being the main light-source.

Note that Nikon has two variants of the 50/1.8, one with a built-in autofocus motor and an older one without. Do get the new one.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I get a kit or separate lens for my D7000?

Question

I am set on getting a D7000 and am drooling already to get one. My only hurdle left is to determine whether the kit lens is good or if i should get the body only and put the 300$ difference between the body only and the kit towards a better lens?

The kit the comes with the camera is 18-105mm and from what I can tell is the same lens that comes with the D90 kit. I had the d90 kit and found i was not able to get good depth of field control.

Based on this I was thinking to get the body only and look at somethign like this 55-300mm for $350: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens

Is this a good choice? What else would be a versatile lens that's a step up from the kit lens that I should look at? I want nice low light images and want a lens able to harness the ISO range of the D7000, so that i can sit in my seat at a party and get nice shots close up to subjects on stage... as well as nice shots of my kids indoors and out, and portraits of my beautiful wife.

Answer

55-300 is a telephoto zoom, not the most versartile lens for shooting indoors as it's relatively slow (doesn't let in much light). It's fine for outdoors/nature though. I would recommend getting something wider, especially if this is your only lens. 55mm on the d7000 is around a portraiture focal length, meaning it's usually used for close ups of people. If you attempt to shoot groups of people you'll find yourself backing off a long way to get everyone in!

Unfortunately shooting parties and telephotos don't mix very well due to the combination of low light, small aperture, camera shake and limited flash range. I would definitely recommend you getting a 50 f/1.8 lens as well as / instead of the kit lens. The 50mm will let in about 8x as much light as the 55-300 or the kit lens (it's about three stops faster). This comes in very handy shooting at parties.

However the 50mm isn't the most flexible lens, it suffers the same problems as the 55-300 in that it's not wide enough for many uses. I would still get one if I were you, but pair it with a standard length zoom. I'm not that familiar with the Nikon range but I'm sure someone here could suggest a few options.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is my Canon 500D with kit lens having trouble focusing at higher focal lengths?

Question

I have a Canon 500D with the kit lens. Recently I have observed that its not able to focus at higher zooms but it works at min zoom. To get it to focus, I have to zoom out or recompose and it works. Why would this happen?

Answer

If this is the f/3.5-5.6 lens, then as you zoom out the max aperture is reduced ( f/3.5 at 18mm, but f/5.6 at 55mm). Autofocus will struggle in lower light at the f/5.6 end.

You can try to find something high contrast to focus on, or use manual focus if you have to.

If you focus at 18mm then lock focus and zoom in, that won't necessarily still be in perfect focus at 55mm.

Check more discussion of this question.

How are kit lenses for Nikon's DSLRs chosen?

Question

Why are the lenses which are in a kit with DSLRs generally low quality lenses, or at least rarely match the quality of the DSLR body?

For example, a new Nikon D7000 ($1100) comes in a kit ($1300) with a 18-105mm lens. Even if this lens can be great for general usage on a Nikon D3100, it is obviously strange to see a $275 lens on a $1100 body.

It means that:

• semi-professional photographers who will buy a D7000 - 18-105mm kit will need to replace the lens by a much more expensive 18-200mm VR2, or, if quality matters, a 24-120mm with, if needed, a wide-angle lens and telephoto lens.

• non-professional photographers who will spend more money for a D7000 - 18-105mm kit will not gain too much comparing to cheaper DSLRs with a separate 18-105mm lens.

So, what am I missing?

Answer

I don't think it's 100% universally true that all kit lenses suck (5D Mark II kit came with a 24-105F4 IS which is a high-quality zoom lens).

Much of it has to do with information, sales, and the psychology of money.

Kits with 'low quality' lenses aren't targeted to semiprofessional/professional photographers. They are targeted to first time buyers who might not yet understand why a lens would cost more than a camera body. If camera kits only came with high quality lenses, first time buyers might balk at the nearly $2000+ price tag.

Kit lenses also simplify the buying process. Imagine being a first time dslr buyer; how overwhelming all those choices are. Having a pre-packaged kit makes it easy for newbies to buy a dslr, which increases sales.

And I suspect for many people, they are perfectly happy with the kit lens.

As photographers better come to understand the relationship between gear and results, it might be puzzling to us, why anyone would buy a cheap lens, but I do understand that not everyone is trying to take their photography as serious as we do. Some people just want to take photos. A kit helps them do that, in a cost-effective way.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is my Canon 500D with kit lens having trouble focusing at higher focal lengths?

Question

I have a Canon 500D with the kit lens. Recently I have observed that its not able to focus at higher zooms but it works at min zoom. To get it to focus, I have to zoom out or recompose and it works. Why would this happen?

Answer

If this is the f/3.5-5.6 lens, then as you zoom out the max aperture is reduced ( f/3.5 at 18mm, but f/5.6 at 55mm). Autofocus will struggle in lower light at the f/5.6 end.

You can try to find something high contrast to focus on, or use manual focus if you have to.

If you focus at 18mm then lock focus and zoom in, that won't necessarily still be in perfect focus at 55mm.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is the Canon 28mm f/2.8 sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm kit lens?

Question

I have a Canon 500D/T1i with the kit 18-55mm IS lens. I need to replace the kit lens with a prime as a work around lens. I usually take photos of streets, people etc., and use the 20-35mm range of the kit lens.

I am planning to buy the Canon 28mm f/2.8, as it's very cheap, but could not find any resources comparing it to the kit lens.

I want to know if the 28mm f/2.8 is very sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm. Remember I am going to use the 28 as a work-around lens and get rid of the 18-55, so hopefully I'll zoom with my feet.

Or, should I instead save a bit more for the 35mm f/2 ? My budget is less than $300.

Answer

Yes, if you're absolute sure about the preference of your focal length, Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 would be ideal for you. If you compare ISO Chart crops of the 28mm lens @f/2.8 and 18-55mm lens @28mm and @f/4.0, the 28mm is a lot sharper in the center, almost same in the mid-frame and slightly worse in the corner. As you'll be using the lens (which is an EF lens) on a crop sensor camera, you wont be suffering much around the corners. Please note that the 28mm f/2.8 does not have USM and its very noisy in AF. This might place you in an awkward situation while shooting in a quite environment.

Now about the 35mm f/2.0, it has slightly upper hand in low light conditions, but might be just a little too tight to be used as an all purpose lens. I'd recommend the 28mm f/1.8 USM lens (which is 200$ over your budget but have USM and better build quality) over 35mm f/2.0 for you if you had budget.

And don't just get rid of the 18-55mm lens as in throw it away/sell it off. I saw a lot of people who did and later regretted :)

Check more discussion of this question.