Canon for my beginner sister

[annbryan]

Hey, my sister has come asking me about DSLR's and she's comparing the Digital

Rebel XTi and the D40x. I have a D80 and love it but I think the Canon might be

a better fit for her. As a new Canon DSLR owner, what would be a good, sharp,

lens to start out with. I recommended she doesn't buy the kit lenses. I'd love

to research all this stuff myself but with only 3 weeks to my wedding I really

don't have any free time at all!

Thanks for the help and suggestions!

-bryan

[carnagex_carnagex]

Try a prime lens, such as the Canon 28mm 2.8 its cheap ($180), sharp when stopped down a

hair, and for a beginner its perfect, (with the 1.6x factor it will act more like a standard

49mm lens), this will help her to compose her shots, instead of standing in one spot

zooming in and zooming out. (I never recommend zooms for starters, it makes shooters

lazy).

[shambrick007]

"I recommended she doesn't buy the kit lenses." - Why not? It's a $100 lens and at least it's a wide to normal zoom. Let her play w/it then figure out what types of shots she likes to take. If she's new to DSLRs, and SLRs in general, the kit lens will be the LEAST of her limiting factors.

[mike_kim]

I think Rebel XTi with the kit lens is a great way to start for a beginner. It's dirt cheap (cost-wise), very flexible, and fairly light weight. For most beginngers, having fun and enjoying the picture taking process are very important in my humble opinion. If they are bogged down by fairly heavy and not-so convinient equipment, such as heavier zooms and fixed focal length (prime) lenses, they may not enjoy the picture taking process. Frankly, if she ever decided to be serious about picture taking, she can get better quality zooms or prime lenses later. I would also recommend adding Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens as an option so that she can experiment with a DOF and faster shutter speed (available light photography) for mere $70 bucks. It makes a very good portrait lens with 1.6x cropping factor.

[andrew robertson]

"If she's new to DSLRs, and SLRs in general, the kit lens will be the LEAST of her limiting

factors."

 

Exactly. A kit zoom is a great tool for figuring out which focal lengths you like. And for

$100 you can't go wrong!

[davebell]

Another vote for the kit lens, it isn't as bad as some people make out and for a beginner it is perfect. I would definitely not go for a prime lens for a beginner, they will be very frustrated they cannot zoom.

[rainer_t]

-- "I recommended she doesn't buy the kit lenses."

 

Why did you. The kitlens is a good lens for a beginner to start with.

[William Michael]

>>> As a new Canon DSLR owner, what would be a good, sharp, lens to start out with. I recommended she doesn't buy the kit lenses. I'd love to research all this stuff myself but with only 3 weeks to my wedding I really don't have any free time at all <<<

 

The 28mm F1.8.

 

I am not entering the debate about the kit lens, mine is fine.

 

You must have a reason for recommending against she NOT get it; even though you time is limited, perhaps an hint as to the reason for your recommendation would allow more precise research to be done and answers provided on your behalf.

 

WW

[keith_lubow]

"If she's new to DSLRs, and SLRs in general, the kit lens will be the LEAST of her limiting factors."

 

I disagree. The lens on your first camera will determine a WHOLE lot about your approach later on, and make a big difference in how well you learn. Making things easy on beginners sounds like a real nice idea, but I don't think it will provide the best education. Too many DSLR users make what I feel is the large conceptual flaw of recommending things to beginners that will produce the easiest and "best" RESULTS. What a beginner need is the equipment that will produce the best PROCESS.

 

Keith

[keith_lubow]

All this ranting, and I forgot to answer the question.

 

If it must be digital, the Rebel is a great camera, although quite an expensive tool for a beginner. As for lenses, something fast...anything fast, preferably with a standard field of view on that camera. 28mm lenses fit the bill nicely. The 2.8 is cheap and frustratingly slow for a beginner who does not know how to deal with the limitations of a slow lens. I would have been so frustrated if I had not started on a 50mm f/1.4 lens. It allowed me to shoot in almost any situation without flash. About $400 is probably your minimum for anything worthwhile in the lens department.

 

You are looking at about a $1,000 set up here...pretty pricey. Even if you got it with the kit lens, it would be pricey.

 

A film Rebel, OTOH, is dirt cheap brand new, leaving plenty of budget for a good lens.

 

Or...dare I say it...A Nikon F or the like. I love my Canon FD stuff, but if I was starting over knowing what i know now, I would go Nikon instead, so I could use the lenses on my new Canon digitals.

 

Keith

 

Keith

[William Michael]

>>> A film Rebel, OTOH, is dirt cheap brand new, leaving plenty of budget for a good lens. <<<

 

And how does one reconcile of the comparative high cost of film and processing and the relative slow speed of feedback to the student in this equation?

 

WW

[keith_lubow]

Since one has had the ability to slow the heck down and not be in such a rush...

 

heh heh...forgot that no one has that ability any longer.

 

But seriously...who is in a rush when they are learning? If they are...well, they need to find a new hobby. Photography is not for the impatient. You can't put a time limit on learning. Any who is going to understand it at all will get it just as well (if not better) from using film and reading a text than they will by taking a shot, looking at an LCD, and fiddling with buttons until it looks right. The instant gratification of the LCD is an utter disaster to the photographic learning process, IMHO.

 

Processing is extremely cheap if you do it yourself. $5 for a bottle of Kodafix. $5 for a package of D-76, and you have 50 rolls-worth of chemicals. For color, about $50 gives you 60 rolls. Even if you take your stuff in, it is a spread-out cost, so doesn't hit you nearly as hard as shelling out the bux up front...Especially if you are a beginner and don't know how long you're going to stick with it. I can't recommend $1,000 worth of equipment to any beginner.

 

Keith

[William Michael]

>>> [. . .] they will by taking a shot, looking at an LCD, and fiddling with buttons until it looks right. The instant gratification of the LCD is an utter disaster to the photographic learning process, IMHO. <<<

 

I was more thinking of the (almost) immediate analysis using `unprocessed` JPEG files and EXIF data: compared to exposure notes (yes I know what they are) and analysis of the image a few days later.

 

Granted it takes diligence NOT to have a play and be sidetracked with the fuzzy wah wah computer stuff.

 

But I think it is dreaming in cloud cuckoo land to drive for a resurgence of film in the classroom, at least for the next few years: then it might be specialist subject.

 

The high school, where I teach an extra curricular photography class, dismantled the (my) darkroom two years ago: insurance / chemicals / teenagers / too difficult.

 

Sad, but true.

 

So maybe I am attempting to see the cup half full, but it is a reality, I think, just like everyone wanting a zoom lens.

 

WW

[jim_larson1]

I humbly disagree STRONGLY with much of the advice in this thread.

 

But first: Short Answer: Canon XTi with kit lens (18-55) and 430EX flash. Money better spent buying a 430EX flash than by getting better glass. If you opt for better glass, go with the 17-85/IS.

 

BTW: If she can share YOUR lenses and flash units.. .then go Nikon.

 

Long Answer:

 

Ok. . learning with a cheap film camera and a normal prime may have been the formula back in 1992. . but that time has LONG passed.

 

Today, unless you shoot digital you will learn NOTHING. Developing film yourself is a pain and a non-starter. Developing film in a Lab only teaches you how good the lab is. Last roll of film I sent to a lab, I had some shots "exposure bracketted". All the images came back identical: The friendly lab corrected the mildly under/over exposed shots.

 

Shooting digital shows IMMEDIATE feedback on basic Aperture, Shutter, ISO tradeoffs. Subtleties can be studied on a computer with camera EXIF information onscreen. Using a flash REQUIRES that feedback to have a clue what is going on . . and to understand how FEC works.

 

GO DIGITAL FOR LEARNING.

 

As for lens: A prime? Are you all NUTS? What good is starting out with a prime? Sure, you can learn more. BUT. . you want to be able to USE the camera. If you want to actually USE the camera, the prime route requires at least TWO if not THREE lenses. (24/2.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 come to mind). With a THREE PRIME kit. . .then you can really learn. All a single prime will teach you is frustration.

 

BTW: This thread has been ASSUMING that we are taling about someone taking up a photography hobby. I read nothing like that into the original question. The poster could be asking about just getting a "Decent" camera that has "potential for better shots". Someone with a P&S mentality, but willing to spend a bit more for better results.

 

In this case; the recommendation is the same: BUY A XTi with Kit Lens and 430EX flash.

[wandern]

You don't mention a budget, but she could get a refurbished Rebel XT from Adorama for $450 that includes a kit lens.

 

If she decides she needs something better and faster than the kit lens (as many people quickly do), she can sell it and pick up a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or similar lens for under $400.

 

That's the route I'd go if she's budget sensitive.

[arie_vandervelden1]

I recommend a Linhof 8x10 view camera for capturing kids running around in the yard.

[William Michael]

>>> As for lens: A prime? Are you all NUTS? <<<

 

I agree with everything Mr Larson wrote, except this sentence.

 

I make this comment, and my former posts in relation to the ORIGINAL question, op cit:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Lx2D

 

The original question is quite specific: `a new Canon DSLR owner, what would be a good, sharp, lens to start out with. I recommended she doesn't buy the kit lenses.`

 

With no budget indicated the 28mm F1.8 seems a good option to me. Otherwise the 17 to 55mmF2.8IS, would be suitable, but it is more expensive and still only F2.8.

 

I too would recommend the kit lens, but that had been ruled out by the question.

 

You will note I commented about the lack of information in the original question, in that regard it seemed appropriate to recommend the less expensive lens of two I fancied..

 

WW

[Andy Collins]

You have Nikon, but you think "Canon might be a better fit for her"...what does that mean?

[jim_larson1]

William; "Op cit". Wow. I had to look that one up.

 

Yeah, I think we have similar views. I maintain, however, that digital will PROMOTE learning, rather than BYPASSING it. From my viewpoint, learning about light on a computer screen is just as effective as learning with chemicals. Because the lesson plays *faster*, more learning can be achieved while still holding a day job.

 

All of the darkroom techniques come into play when post processing happy pics from a weekend of shooting; Colour correction. "Hot/cold" vs "tint". Exposure over/under. Blowing out detail. Dealing with low contrast by changing the tone curver. Dodging and burning to correct an underexposed foreground. All the good stuff.

 

Of course, in your high school, I doubt they replaced the lab full of chemicals with 10 computers loaded with photoshop, eh?

 

- - -

 

Regarding lenses. . .don't get me wrong. I *like primes*. I have 4. I carry two in my current day bag. My view is that a $1000 camera is not just a learning instrument; it needs to be used for parties and live events! When used for everyday "stuff", a single prime lens just isn't adequate. You need several.

 

In the 18-55 kit lens range; I could (and did for a long time) use the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8. Great combo. I used it in conjunction with a 70-200/4L zoom. When walking about town, I kept one prime in my pocket and one on the camera. Swapping was easy.

 

But a single lens ALONE would be woefully inadequate. A 28/1.8 and 50/1.8 would be a good pair.

[William Michael]

`Op cit`, was just to grab your attention. Great answer, thanks for making the effort.

 

Regards,

 

WW

[keith_lubow]

I guess it really depends on what you want to shoot. I think I would still be able to do most of what I do it everything but my normal lenses were taken from me. Saying that people need other lenses is not giving them enough credit. I still use the normal lens for 90% of what I shoot, because I love the straight and bland way that it renders depth, and they are usually simple and fast high-quality glass no matter what manufacturer. It is the most versatile and least restrictive of any lens, as I see it. As for learning, I suggest film because I think it is important not to initially establish the connection to and realization of the physical process. I think that having a piece of film to look through is about the greatest learning tool there is. I don't see speed having an impact on learning at all. Do people learn the alphabet and how to read on a computer? (If so, it may account for the horrid command of the language that most kids have these days.)

 

I am a purist and an elitist, though, so I am coming from a different place. I like people to strive for knowledge of their craft, not just for results. If you really want to know how I feel.....If I ran a photography school, everyone would be shooting large format for the first year, except for a short beginning theory class on 35mm transparencies. Holy smokes...that's the way it is done at Art Center, and most private photo schools. I am not arguing for a "return" to wet darkrooms, as they are nowhere close to going away in schools.

 

Keith

[keith_lubow]

"I think it is important not to initially establish the connection to and realization of the physical process"

 

Ooops.....Take out the word "not". heh heh. Freudian slip....

 

Lubow

[freelance]

I like the 28 mm and the kit 18-55 as well. For its price (normally it is cheaper when you purchase it with the camera) to buy the second as well it is worth it. You never know when you are going to need it. For interior, groups, etc.. the 18 is very useful.

 

You can see a comparison between both here:

 

 

I have two shots in every mode. Just in case.

[freelance]

You can compare the 18 of the kit with the expensive primer Canon 15 mm

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/axarquia/807721598/in/set-72157600046754605/

 

and