kit lens vs £ 500 new lens ?

[Paul11]

Hi all,

Just wondering how much of a difference a canon (say 17-40) is better than the kit lens ?

also, a question.

if a lens has 2.8 instead of 4.5, i know that this will let me use it in less light, but wont the depth of field become so small at that range that it wouldn't be very usable ??

 

[rpstewart]

Having not used either the kit lens or the 17-40L I can't really comment directly on the differences however in general when you compare a consumer lens with it's L range equivalent you notice that the L has far better build quality, faster focussing, better sharpness, better colour reproduction, less chromic aberation (coloured fringing) etc.

Yes, the DoF at f/2.8 will be less than at f/4.5 at the same subject distance, however as the subject distance increases so does the DoF and it's only at relatively short subject distances that the shallow DoF at f/2.8 becomes an issue. For example on a 30D at 18mm with a subject at 10 feet f/4.5 gives a DoF of about 44ft (5ft in front and 39ft behind) whereas f/2.8 only gives 13ft (4ft in front and 9ft behind). With those sort of numbers a shallow DoF isn't a problem.

 

[mrgubby]

I have a kit lens & I'm pretty happy with it. As rpstewart says L glass is sharper etc but if all you are printing is the standard 6 x 4.5 shots then you'll not see much difference. Where L glass excels (IMO) is when you want to crop the shot down , the extra sharpness reallly shows when you are printing a 100% crop at 6 x 4.5

 

[Scam]

If it's your first DSLR there's really no point going for £500 L glass. You're just throwing money away.

 

[Nicos Rex]

Hi all,

also, a question.

if a lens has 2.8 instead of 4.5, i know that this will let me use it in less light, but wont the depth of field become so small at that range that it wouldn't be very usable ??

The aperture quoted is the MAXIMUM aperture - your camera will meter and focus at that and then stop down to take the photograph. This gives you the benefit of a nice bright viewfinder and easier manual focusing should it be required.

Depth of field is not a more=good, less=bad equation - it is an opportunity to make a creative decision - for example, in portraiture it is often useful to have as little dof as possible to throw possibly distracting backgrounds out of focus.

 

[Tomsk]

If it's your first DSLR there's really no point going for £500 L glass. You're just throwing money away.

I disagree. The lens can still be used when the DSLR is replaced with a newer and better model.

 

[DarkShadow]

I disagree. The lens can still be used when the DSLR is replaced with a newer and better model.

It does however make much more sense to start out with a kit lense, it does have its limitations but I've some stunning photography produced by the kit lense . . . So with me personally, until I find that I'm very limited in whatever field of photography and only then will I look into other lenses

 

[Scam]

I disagree. The lens can still be used when the DSLR is replaced with a newer and better model.

True. But with someone starting out they're not really going to get the full benefits of a £500 lens. Plus, who says everyone starting out moves onwards and upwards in photography? I know i'm perfectly happy with my kit lens and new Sigma 70-300. They both provide me enough quality to play with; to put on my website, to send to friends, to get decent-sized prints done when i want. If that what you want from your photography then there's little point spending £500 on a lens when you're just starting out. You may as well get the kit lens for an extra £30 (or whatever it is) and use that until you feel the need to upgrade. It's called pro equipment for a reason.

 

[danza]

The kit lens is good, but TBH you can get better. The 17-40 will blow it's plastic pants off (I have one, and I also used to have the Canon kit lens). I've also had a Sigma 17-70, which was inferior to the the 17-40.

If you only have the kit lens at the mo, I suggest trying out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is meant to be as good as the 17-40, if slightly slower and noisier to focus. You can pick it up for about £220.

You could save the rest to put towards a second hand Canon 70-200 f/4 L, or a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

That's probably what I'd do in your shoes

 

[Scam]

A better option, but still excessive in my opinion. There's just no need to go spending extra £hundreds on a hobby which the guy might not even keep going, or want to take as seriously as some of those on here.

These forums are terrible for getting people to spend money they really dont need to. It was the same years back when i lurked in the graphics card/hardware forums.. everyone posts like it's pointless having the 'second-best' card, so everyone runs off to buy *the* best, which is of course twice the price. Whereas in reality most people wouldnt notice the difference. Lets have a touch of reality here -- if someone is starting out with a DSLR, they do not need to spend hundreds of pounds on new glass!!

 

[Nicos Rex]

Photography, for all the satisfaction it offers, has the downside of being a bottomless pit in terms of the money you can spend on it. I have no idea if any of the kit mentioned is worth the money or not. My view is that unless you are as rich as Croesus (or spie) you have to justify the kit you buy on the basis of need.

I don't know what sort of photography the OP wants to do. It may well be that he would be better advised to get some of the other "essential" kit before splashing out on an expensive lens. Has he got a decent flashgun? A tripod? Basic filters? A good bag to carry all the kit around and a nice wide strap may not be "sexy" but can make it more likely that you actually take your camera with you and so can improve your photography more than that lovely piece of glass.

 

[NuclearWinter]

They both provide me enough quality to play with; to put on my website, to send to friends, to get decent-sized prints done when i want. If that what you want from your photography then there's little point spending £500 on a lens when you're just starting out.

But if you aren't interested in buying quality lenses and taking the hobby seriously, then I'd question why I'm buying a digital SLR instead of a good point and shoot with 300mm optical zoom for half the price.

I agree that it's a good idea to spend time with the kit lens and figure out exactly what you want. But I think it's wrong to say that spending £500 on a quality lens would be "throwing money away".

 

[Scam]

But if you aren't interested in buying quality lenses and taking the hobby seriously, then I'd question why I'm buying a digital SLR instead of a good point and shoot with 300mm optical zoom for half the price.

Because photography is an interest? I dont just take photos to record events/holidays/memories. I enjoy the photography itself; the technical aspect, the upgradeability, the gadgets. I enjoy showing someone one of my shots and them saying that would look great on their wall - and have the ability to do so. I expect there's an aspect of that to everyone who wants a DSLR rather than a point-and-shoot. That doesnt mean that they have the money nor the inclination to spend hundreds of pounds on lenses; afterall, who do the manufacturers make all the budget lenses for? For a laugh?

I agree that it's a good idea to spend time with the kit lens and figure out exactly what you want. But I think it's wrong to say that spending £500 on a quality lens would be "throwing money away".

It would be throwing money away for someone just starting out though. My point is that losing the money you spend adding on a kit lens to a body because you eventually decide you want a better lens is far easier to take, than spending hundreds more on a lens to go with your body - then deciding you're not so fussed for photography afterall.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

In the real world, both views are correct.
The 17-40 really is a lot better, however it is true that the OP may not have any interest in upgrading. It's really down to the OP to make the decision.

Have to say that with the proposed body, I'd go with the suggestion of the Tamron 17-50, and that's despite owning a 17-40 myself.

 

[skankmaster]

Remember people, there are other pleasures in life that you can buy for £500!

ok, that sounded seedy..

Usually, I find it hard to spend that kind of money on a Lens as I dont make money from this. But as we're all one day closer to death each day, what the heck, do it if your finances allow.