Got Digital Rebel Kit, worth getting 50/1.8 Prime and others?

[jim_harris4]

I just got the digital rebel kit with the 18-55 lens. Trying to

decide on telephoto and wide angle. The telephoto I've narrowed down

to the 70-200/4 and debating about wide angle lens. I could get the

17-40, but will it be that much better than the lens that came with

the kit? Then, it's been suggested to get the 50mm because it's a

great lens at only 70 bucks, but again, since I have the lens that

came with the kit, is it worth it? I'm still a noobie with this

stuff, nothing professional or anything, but still want good prints

as I like to print out 8x10's on my photo printer. Other options for

the wide angle are to get the 20/2.8, and 28/1.8. Any other thoughts

or suggestions? Thanks.

 

(sorry for all the posts)

[jamesp]

get the 10-22mm lens.

[timothy_peterson]

I say definitely get the 70-200 f4-- incredible lens! The 50 f1.8 is also worth it. I don't care what other zooms you have, no zoom lens in that range can touch the image quality of a 50 prime. I have the 50 f1.8 mk1 and absolutely love it. Keep in mind that on that camera it will behave more like an 80 f1.8. If you truely want a wider field of view I would go with the 28 f1.8. As far as the 17-40 f4 goes, I have one and love it. My friend has the 18-55 and finds it OK, but REALLY likes my 17-40. Shoot for a while with your kit lens, 70-200 and 50 and decide if the drop in image quality bothers you. You can always decide to buy the 17-40 later. Enjoy!

[bob_bell]

The 50mm is great for when you just want to carry a body without a booster/vert grip and want to go light weight. It is also only $70 bux so regardless of what your kit ends up being, the 50mm will find a place.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

Go and take photo's. When you find you want to do thing's that you can't, work out why, if it's because your lens is too slow - short - long - soft. Then you can work out what lens to buy next.

 

You may well find that the kit lens is 90% of all the lens you ever need, or you might find that (in your opinion, for your usage) it's only worth putting in the garbage.

[alois_lazecky1]

Work with what you got, it is not bad lens as long as you stay away from min. and max.

apertures. 50 1.8 may be fine lens, I just did not like it because it feels very cheap. 24 2.8

is very fine lens for general stuff. 17-40 and 70-200 4.0s are perfect match and 50 2.5

macro fills the gap plus it is perfect for portraits besides close-ups. Keep it simple and

have fun.

[jim_larson1]

I'm with Phil: Go out and take 1000 pictures and ask the question again. . .and you will be able to provide your own answer.

 

But if you have $1000 burning a whole in your pocket, I would buy the following (in order)

 

1) 420EX flash (if you have the firmware hack) or 550EX flash (if you don't have the hack)

 

2) 50/1.8 because it is cheap, and you will know what all the hub-bub is about.

 

3) 70-200/4L: hubba-hubba premo telephoto!

[ericwarnke]

Jim,

 

Just curious... why 420 ( with hack ) or 550 without?

[jim_larson1]

The answer is Flash Exposure Compensation. For flash exposures, you really want the abiltiy to tweak the flash output using flash exposure compensation.

 

Digital Rebel does not include Flash Exposure Compensation. The 420EX also does not have Flash Exposure Compensation control.

 

The russian Hack provides access to Flash Exposure compensation on the rebel body. The 550EX flash also has flash exposure compensation control.

 

So. . .with the default firmware, the only way to get FEC on a rebel is to buy the 550EX flash. Or install the hack. . in which case you can get the cheaper 420EX.

 

(btw: the 550EX also has manual flash controls which the 420EX lacks. Personally, with the availability of FEC, I have never needed this functionality)

[yakim_peled1]

17-40/4, 50/1.8 and 70-200/4 is an excellent kit and is often recommended. If you need to go wider then get the 10-22/3.5-4.5 instead of the 17-40/4. You can't get a better set without spending a lot more.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

In your shoes I would by the 10-22 and the 70-200/4L.

Then by a 17-40L to replace the 18-55 at a later date if you feel you need to. The 18-55 is one of the better kit lenses.

[markubig]

Save yourself some money and get the 300D hack, so you can buy the smaller, lighter and cheaper 420. i just did the hack and it's sooooo easy. takes less than 5 minutes. 550 is a monstrocity of a flash without a grip. I'm a beginner and i'm finding the 420 is more than enough for now.

 

I can't say much about the 50/1.8 ('cause i dont' own it), but I did have the 50/1.4 USM and the pictures were sharp! I sold it 'cause it was too $$$ for the little use i was giving it. However, if I were to buy a 50mm prime again, i would probably get the 50/1.8 because everyone is saying, you'll get the bang for the buck

[chad_gard]

Tim's right - I REALLY like his 17-40 f4. Perhaps even covet? Maybe not that bad. But it is much, much better than the kit lens. The kit lens is rather "soft", has some color abberations at the perimiter that annoy me a bit, and the build quality is quite low in comparison to, say, the 17-40. Which is not to say the kit lens is a bad lens - I got it because it is usable as a utility lens that allowed me to make the move to digital within my budget.

 

I also really like Tim's 28-135 IS, which I believe I am going to buy from him shortly.

 

If I had my 'druthers, I would get the 17-40 and 28-135 IS, followed by the 70-300 f4 L, or maybe the 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM (a friend has the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and I really am not impressed. This is a range wehre I definitely believe the "L" glass is worth the money), and toss the kit lens.

 

I really doubt the kit lens has any resale value - it was worth it to me, as when I purchased my digital rebel I was also changing camera systems and thus had no lenses available. But in the long run, it won't get used much once I cover its focal length with better glass. I think if you get the 17-40, you'll find the same holds true.