Photography Thailand Forum

[alex]

I have just bought my first dslr camera, well my first camera ever to be honest, a Canon EOS 350D.

I have the standard kit lens, the EF-S 18-55mm and want to upgrade to a better lens. I've been looking at the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens as this seems to be a better lens than the kit one and a good starter lens for someone new to photography.

Any opinions on the lens or recommendations on a better one for a beginner?

thanks

[gregoire]

I've got the same camera and the same problem.

Canon's 18-55 kit lens is a real piece of crap. First off, do know that stopping down makes a much bigger difference in image quality than changing lenses. A bad lens at f/8 to f/16 will be very close to a good lens at similar aperture values. The problem with your lens is wide open, which on this particular piece of CENSORED WORD means from f/3.5 to f/5.6. Avoid shooting at those apertures. But in real-life, aiming for f/8 to f/16 means using a tripod. For my kind of work, it's not too big of a problem but for many people it just can't be done. And don't shoot too stopped down either. I tried my kit lens at f/32 and the amount of diffraction was insane. It have test shots here: http://leserpent.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-diffraction-rears-its-ugly-head.html

The 50mm f/1.8 MkII is a fantastic lens for the money, and if you're going to build up a collection of primes, it could be a good idea. It has nearly the same image quality as the f/1.4 that costs 4 times the money but has, of course, much cheaper build quality. You have a 350d so I'm guessing you're on a budget, like me--forget the f/1.4. I might the f/1.8 one day but fotofile (MBK) is currently out of stock and I only saw it at Pantip for B4990. This lens retails for 70-80 USD in the US so there's no way I'm paying B5000 for it. When fotofile has it in stock again, it will be a good bargain at B3800 or so.

But the 350D (as the 20D and 30D) has a huge crop factor of x1.6. 50mm is a standard lens on a 35mm camera (or a full frame "FF" digital like the 5D or 1D). On your camera, a 50mm will give you a 35mm equivalent of 80mm! That's a nice portrait lens but a terrible standard lens. Get it only if you plan on adding some kind of 24, 28 or 35 mm to your set. But if you want something in the 24-35mm range at less than f/2.8, you're going to have to cough up a LOT of dough. Think USD1,200, which is almost twice what you paid for your 350D.

It's really sad that getting a fast and affordable 50mm equivalent prime is pretty much impossible on a cropped sensor like the 350d and 20/30D. There is one lens, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC EX HSM that manages to be "only" USD400 because it's designed for cropped sensors and won't work with FF cameras. It's a superb idea on paper. It's reasonable priced, it's super fast (f/1.4) and it's a 48mm equivalent (pretty damn close to the 50mm standard). The downside is legions of people experienced focusing issues with them. I'm one of them. Since this lens is not sold for Canon in Thailand, I had to get mine from the US. Sigma's service center in Bangkok couldn't fix it so they had to send it to Japan. Maybe I'll see this lens again in a few weeks. Re-calibrated, it can apparently do wonders. But based on internet forums and my experience, I would hardly recommend that you get one.

One last option is just getting the same zoom you already have, only better. After all, with the ever-increasing quality of zooms, primes are becoming less and less interesting, particularly on cropped sensors because of the problems mentioned above. Tamron has a 17-50 f/2.8 (pretty fast) that got excellent reviews and costs half the price of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. Apparently Sigma's take on this is ok but not as good as Tamron. I'm seriously considering getting either the Tamron or the Canon. The Canon does have vibration reduction which can give the possibility to reduce shutter speed by up to 3 stops from what you'd normally shoot at. f/2.8 + 3 stop compensation means you can tackle some pretty low light. Is it worth paying twice the price of the Tamron? Up to you. You will get some barrel distortion and pin-cushioning, more than with primes, but then again, Photoshop can help with that. Reviews here: http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

Wide aperture is just too important to me (for short depth of field and low-light shooting) to consider the host of other zooms out there that do anywhere from 18-70 to 18-200 but depending on your needs, you might consider those too.

Digital IS cheap but when you start getting picky, it turns out extremely expensive. For USD400 you could pick up a Mamiya 645E and an 80mm (50mm equivalent) that is far better than any Cananon 50mm. For another USD400 you get a 35mm (21mm equivalent!) that has just about the same distortion than Canon's 50mm f/1.4! Just imagine shooting that wide with virtually no barrel distortion. I swear, digital busts my balls

[Chris Savery]

Hi Alex, Welcome.

Check out the "reviews" section on fredmiranda.com. Lots of owners post info there about their experience with lenses for Canon. As a beginning photographer that lens you have isn't so terrible. But as Gregoire points out it does have it's limitations. Do test shots to determine what works well and not. Choose a stationary object with detail and shoot at a range of aperture anf focal lengths. You WILL see much variation in quality across the range. Note that down and tend to keep to those settings if you want good quality. Keep in mind that 90% of the people looking at your shots (like friends and family) won't see the difference. Nonetheless, most people a bit serious about the photos will take it off and only put it on again when it's time to sell the camera. And those who have been through it once will buy body-only next time.

There are some good alternatives but nothing is cheap - except that 50mm of course. If you are in Bkk then a good place to try for lowest price on Canon mid-low-range lenses is on the 3rd floor kiosk in MBK. This guy seems to bring them in from Japan perhaps but I've bought a few there including my 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 and they're ok. One option that a lot of people consider a good step up is the 17-85 IS . It's not rated as highly as the L glass but it does work and is a wonder for travel due to it's range. The newer Tamrons are also excellent for a good price.

The best you can get is the L series Canon and you have to pay for it. Depending on your bank account it may be a good idea anyway as these lenses also tend to sell for a high price later if you decide you want out. In fact, all of my" "L lenses were bought secondhand and I expect to lose little if I ever sell them. Unlike bodies where the new models come out every year, the lenses tend to have much better staying power.

The best place in Bkk to go and try out lenses is at FotoFile on ground floor MBK. They also have a good selection of secondhand. A lot of lenses come through there that you won't see either because they sell too quickly. If you tell them what model you want and your mobile # they will call you when it comes in. At least they did for me and I only had to wait a few days for a 1.4x converter to show up that otherwise you never see used there. They also are ok about you taking some test shots with the lens and will even let you browse the images on the screen there too. Though that can be difficult if they're busy and they seem to often be busy like a beehive.

I also have a Sigma (20mm) and I also had to send it in for repair/calibration (took months). I started out thinking I was getting a good lens for the price and in the end I've decided I don't like it much and will likely sell it.

One of the most fun lenses you can buy is the 10-22mm EF-S wide angle zoom good for the 350D and other 1.6 crop Canons. It isn't exactly cheap either but I like to use it a lot and there isn't really a better way to cram so much into a photo.

Hope this all helps.

Chris :)

[Chris Savery]

Hi Bjorn,

I agree and disagree. I wasn't saying he should go stock up on L glass but just laying out some paths. I don't think that L lenses are really the same as F1 cars. More like a Mercedes that gives you a good ride and tends to keep it's value better than a beat up Honda. I've lost so much money over the years buying lower quality stuff that I just had to provide that option as well. For example, I bought a cheap Tamron 7-300 zoom that one year after I bought it was hard to sell for 1/4 it's price. My Canon 70-200L I can still sell for the same price I paid after 2 almost years. Price is different than cost and that's why I qualified the statement with "bank account".

While no lens is a good "investment" per se, as you'll rarely make money on them, I have changed my thinking on this over the years. I'm not a rich person by any figuring but I did have money in the bank for a few years that did me nothing at all. And I decided that owning high quality lenses with good resale value is the better choice. Your money is actually being useful to you this way, and with the internet nowadays it's easy to liquidate high quality gear.

I do agree that we're often photo gear junkies but that's also due to the nature of discussion forums. We can talk about gear for 1000 words but if you were to spend 1000 words on a photo people would have fallen asleep already - better to just look at the photo in my opinion.

Anyway, not trying to defend my comments so much as clarify why I mentioned the L glass at all. For the price you are right, a good Tamron is an excellent choice, and I think I wrote the same. And frankly you can take excellent shots with the kit lens too if you avoid wide open.

Chris :)

[gregoire]

Bjorn, I'd love to read 10,000 words on either one of those pictures. By all means post your essays. I think discussing famous photographer's work is a great idea. Might be more constructive than discussing our own.

Yes, we tend to focus on equipment too much but Alex is asking about equipment so I discussed just that--not my pictures, negative space, or the rule of thirds. Furthermore, he'd like to upgrade. He already has an 18-55 f/3.5-f5.6 all around zoom and apparently (and wisely I'd say), he wishes to upgrade not in the direction of more range, but in the direction of better image quality (since he's eyeing the 50mm prime). I don't think a Tamron 17-85 f/3.5 will take him as far in that direction as their 17-50 f/2.8 or even Canon's (it's not L glass!) but maybe I misunderstood his intentions. Furthermore, I'm a beginner too and Chris's advice is turning out very true indeed. Cheap glass is really a waste of money. In the digital age, your glass will outlive your body so glass is not a bad place to spend your money. I love my cheap 350d, I hate the kit lens.

Lastly, discussing equipment doesn't have to be opposed to discussing photographs. You mentioned Ansel Adams. He discusses gear and tech endlessly, but it's always in relation to how it affects an image, and I agree we shouldn't lose sight of that. In this sense, I think I didn't make myself clear enough as to how unfortunate it is that prime lenses aren't really a good deal on a 350D because, as a beginning photographer, one of the most important things is to understand how focal lengths affect an image. I see so many people who frame with their zoom. That's the worst habit ever and it's hard to not develop it when you've grown up on zoom lenses. I learnt photography the day I got stuck with a camera that had only a 50mm equiv. to which I later added a wide-angle. Now, I know at which focal length I want to take the shot before I even look into the camera. I don't frame with my zoom. When I got my 350D with the kit lens (I needed digital for my work, not my personal work), the zoom drove me so nuts, I even used duct tape on the lens to block it at one point. I'd like to stress that one positive aspect of primes is that they are great learning tools. After using them for a while, your mind will be able to "visualize" (to quote Ansel Adams) a picture at say, 28mm, 50mm, and 80mm. With that capacity, you will use the right focal length for the effect you desire, not the focal length that happens to produce the right frame from wherever you were standing when you got the idea of taking the picture and starting turning your zoom ring. You will walk around your main subject to get it just the way you want it and choose the right focal length to get the picture's other elements where you want them as well. That is what taking pictures is about in great part. Your main subject can be exactly the same size at any focal length, but the perspective will not, and neither will the impression of depth of field. Alex, if you get a zoom, make sure you don't let it replace your feet!

Chris, thanks for depressing me about how long it'll take to see my Sigma again.  You're saying it didn't even work too well after calibration?
 

[Chris Savery]

When I got the lens it had a severe blurr on the right side, f/5.6 and down. At first I thought it was due to lens flare in a photo I took. But I setup a test chart and did some tests and it was repeatedly sharp on the left and blurry on the right. I sent a note and the photos to Sigma and they admitted it needed fixing. So I took it in and I think it was approx 2 months before they had it back. AFAIK they sent it to Japan. When I got it back I had pretty much lost interest in the lens and never ran it through the tests since (I have this humungous poster size test chart that I printed on a Epson oversize plotter). In fact, I rarely even use it now. It may be perfect - don't know. What happened was over that time I had bought more lenses and one was my 24-70L which I use almost always now. A couple times I put on the Sigma 20 and when I started playing with it the noisey / slow focus really put me off. If I had a specific need for it I wouldn't hesitate to use it but so far I haven't. I've gotten lazy and tend to use the zoom mostly. Just what you were saying not to do. Bad me. But I do also very much visuallize the shot before deciding where to stand and I think that's good. I just don't carry so many lenses with me. Usually the 10-22 and the 24-70.

Now there's a long answer for you...

Bjorn - I still think often about falling back to a simple P&S again. The weight and encumbrance of so many lenses is something to think about, and I leave them at home too often. I guess it depends on style of photography as this wouldn't work for some but for a lot of what I like it's not about getting images that can be displayed at 30"x40". Many of what I think are my best shots were on a 2mpix P&S - the biggest probably back then was noise. I may be quite happy travelling with a 8Mpix Canon S80 or equivalent as it fits in your pocket! It's an ongoing debate for me and right now I'm trying to see what I can achieve with the big equipment and if it really matters.

Chris :)

[gregoire]

Sorry Bjorn, I don't get your points at all.

You want to discuss  Adams and Edwards but only on the premise that it's LESS constructive than discussing our on work, or "just as", or what? All I meant was "more constructive than only discussing our own." And my invitation for you to do so is still open rather than bitching about how I made it.

And what's your advice to Alex? Is it "Don't get a new lens, get a book on Ansel Adams" or is it, "don't get a new lens, get a compact like that magnum guy" or is it "don't get a better lens, get a lens that's just as bad but with a wider focal range"? Cuz if you tick all of the above, it just doesn't help him at all, you know. I'm really happy for that Magnum photographer, and Araki who sometimes uses a point and shoot compact too, and Sarah Moon who does Polaroid. I've posted some of my work with Holga and Polaroids here too. But when a guy asks for which upgrade to his current cheap gear he should get, you'll forgive me for not suggesting just-as-cheap gear, a compact camera, or a book. I find that patronizing.

Lastly, I said I think primes are better tools than zooms to learn photography. You're free to disagree but don't make me say bullshit about Ansel Adams not liking zooms that I never even came close to saying. Ansel Adams actually promoted 35mm cameras when serious photographers were saying they were junk so I'd never say anything about him not being willing to try out new gear. I never made a general statement about the quality or usefuleness of zooms either. I made a statement on how they affect our ability to learn how to take pictures.

[gregoire]

Ok, thanks Chris. Sounds like I'm not getting my lens back any time soon.

Oh and I never said not to use a zoom but if that's what everybody understood I guess it's my bad.

[bjorn slis]

As you see I took away my posts on this topic because apparantly they offended people.

[Chris Savery]

Gregoire,
My mistake - I replied a little vaguely regarding the zoom issue. I did understand your post to mean "avoiding moving to what may be a better location for the shot rather than zooming". What I meant was that sometimes I'm lazy and will use the zoom in place of exploring more angles/positions of view. I learnt on a K1000 with 50mm and 135mm, as well, and at that time couldn't afford anything. I didn't get so far due to frustrations in general and with the advent of digital, and more free time nowadays I can be lazy and also take photos (joking). Using a prime lens does force you to move more to compose the shot and I think that is a good thing. I find that the moving around isn't so bad as having to carry several lenses and constantly change them that puts me off. I think it's a good point though that we should avoid falling into the mode of P&S zooming as it will tend to lead to uninspiring photos.

Bjorn,
You certainly didn't offend me and I'd prefer if your post was still here. I think it's better to endure a bit of crabiness perhaps than not post at all. And we should cut a little slack to each other as I know I don't always write exactly what I mean to say either. I post for amusement and to be helpful when I can.

Chris :)

[bjorn slis]

I just sent a personal message to Gregoire, he said that it would be better to post it here, so here it is.

" Hi, Gregoire

I did'n mean to offend anyone in the equipment discussion.
But I just disagree with you in the prime vs. zoom discussion, for a starting photographer.
The point and shoot camera I brought up because I don't want to give a starting photographer the idea that without expensive lenses you can't make great photographs. And as a matter of fact, I sold all my hasselblad stuff rolleicord etc. after my photography study because for me it took the fun out of photography to carry cases of stuff around. Thus I tend to take only one body with a single zoom lens with me and most of the time it suits me fine. Again, that doesn't mean my photographs are worse than before, aux contraire, because I have more fun doing it now my stuff improved a lot. (in my own humble opinion).
The remark about wheter it is better to discuss famous photographers I made because there is so little real discussion about the photographs posted here as it is. (again, an opinion)
In a discussion I would choose a different word then bitchin.

btw. I do like your stuff on Lomo, but as I'm not a writer I won't write an essay on Adams."

[alex]

Hi Gregoire and Chris
Thanks for all the advice, I have been reading the online reviews. I think I will be going for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens, after reading the reviews online and budget wise. Also I am looking at doing a lot of portraits first and this lens seems to be a good option for this.
So thanks again

[gregoire]

Sorry Bjorn, I'm not offended and hope you aren't either. Sorry for using the word "bitching" and "bullshit" and all that. Disagreeing is cool but I gotta keep it civil. Sorry about that. I'm very happy we disagree. It's much more interesting than agreeing

Glad you made up your mind, Alex, and are going to get something none of us recommended :P

It will be a great lens for portraits. Nice shallow depth of field and superior optics for the price of four canon lens hoods. I thought you wanted something more standard or walk around so I wrote it off as too long (80mm equiv. on your 350D) but again, ideal for portraits.

[bjorn slis]

I'm looking forward to see some great portraits from you here alex

[Chris Savery]

"Four Canon lens hoods" - Four?

Don't lose your lens hoods! Canon is charging more than $50 for some of them.
Must be the expensive down fluff on the inside that keeps them warm...

Chris :)