Canon XSi...What are my prime lens options?

[mendel_leisk]

<p>It's been mentioned multiple times, but: another vote for the Canon 35 f2.0. Overdue for a remake, slightly long on 1.6 crop factor (slightly telephoto), very sharper in the middle, so-so in the corners, funky bokeh with the pentagram aperture, but still a very decent, albeit over priced "standard" lens for 1.6 crop.</p>

<p>Benefits: very compact, good close focus (min focus distance around 200mm).</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Most people feel the image stabilized (IS) version of the 18-55 is superior optically to the older non-imaged stabilized version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also do believe this: I have two versions of this lens – one older NON IS and the other the FIRST version of the IS. I would expect that Angela might have a newer version of the IS model than I.</p>

<p>+++</p>

<blockquote>

<p>William's point was that the non-IS version (which you don't have) is better than most people give it credit, and I must say his images are somewhat convincing, at least at the focal length shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. 100% correct.<br />And the example I’ve posted in my portfolio was set at FL=18mm and with the lens wide open specifically to show the wide end of the lens - ‘at its worst’.</p>

<p>+++</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or perhaps his point was that your lens is even better than the lens whose images he showed you, so it must be pretty sharp. I agree.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. 100% correct, also.<br />That’s why I choose the oldest version of the kit lens: the ‘worst lens I have’ to make the point that Angela’s lens will be very sharp, in contrast to mine.</p>

<p>+++</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, William's point WAS NOT that you should set your lens to 50mm and only use that focal length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct.<br />I was suggesting that Angela could use her zoom lens <strong><em>for an exercise,</em></strong>to assist her in finding out what Focal Length Prime Lens, she might like to buy.<br />During that exercise use it only at 50mm – that exercise would mimic her having a 50mm Prime Lens; then do the same exercise using the kit lens set at 35mm and that would mimic her using a 35mm Prime Lens.<br />One object of the exercises is to get to understand what it is like using only ONE Focal Length. The reason I suggested to make so many Photos, is that the more photos one makes at one Focal Length the more one understands the difficulties and the nuances of using a Prime Lens.<br />Another object of the exercises is to get a better understanding of WHAT Prime Lens, Angela might want to buy (for example a 35mm or a 50mm – or neither.</p>

<p>+++</p>

<p><a href="../photo/12526152&size=lg">Here is an example of the (older NON IS) Kit Lens used at 33mm at F/5.6.</a></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12526152-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /> <br /><strong>Li Cunxin (Mao’s Last Dancer), Sydney 2005.</strong><br />20D + EF-S 18 to 55F/3.5~5.6<br />F/5.6 @ 1/40s @ ISO1600, Hand Held, Manual Exposure; Manual WB</p>

<p>+++</p>

<p>On the matter of mentioning ‘bokeh’:<br />The point was to provide the understanding that 'bokeh' is nicer or worse – a subjective matter and it is not ‘more bokeh’ or ‘less bokeh (quantitative).<br />If one reads the whole paragraph in context one will note to also that Bokeh (subjective) is different to Subject Separation, which is basically quantitative - and that was the point.<br />Of course I understood what Angela meant when she wrote “more bokeh” – the response was for a specific and professional reason, as bokeh is often represented as or confused with Subject Separation.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><a href="../photo/9899178&size=lg">Here is an example of the (native) bokeh of the EF35F/2, used on an APS-C Format Camera:</a><br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9899178-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="485" /><br />20D + EF35F/2<br />F/2 @ 1/40s @ ISO100, Hand Held, Manual Mode, AWB</p>

<p>+++</p>

<p><a href="../photo/12776013&size=lg">Here is an example of the EF35/F2 used on a 400D as a ‘Normal Lens’ and being used as a ‘Fast Prime Lens’ for capture in low light, where Flash is not allowed</a> (scroll to the right to see an enlargement):<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12776013-lg.jpg" alt="" width="690" height="460" /></p>

<p>I mention scrolling to the right to see the enlargement, at the image in my portfolio, because this photo was made with a 400D at ISO1600: and the 400D is similar to Angela's camera (450D). Many new Photogarhers do not understand how well their camera is able to perform at the higher ISO's</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[angela_collins]

<blockquote>I was suggesting that Angela could use her zoom lens <strong><em>for an exercise,</em></strong>to assist her in finding out what Focal Length Prime Lens, she might like to buy</blockquote>

<p>I competely understand what you meant by it, William W. I am to set my focal length at 50mm, leave it there and take upwards of 500 pictures of anything and everything, and then try again with my focal lenght at 35mm and do the same. So that I can figure out which focal length I prefer to shoot at.<br>

As for the "bokeh" and how to properly use the term, I appreciate your technical answer. As a beginner, I would think that it's best to know the proper usage of the word rather than looking like I have no clue what I'm talking about :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>it's best to know the proper usage of the word</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, and it's also important, but difficult, for people who know <em>too much</em> to try to communicate a clearly as possible. Sometimes jargon is unavoidable, but not always.</p>

<p>In any case, you sound like an intelligent and good person. Stick with us here on P.net, the gods know we need more people like you to keep us honest. ;)</p>

<p>Welcome to the site, you've passed your test, so to speak. ;)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sarah Fox wisely wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"One last note: I think I'm reading a bit of frustration on your end from all the technical stuff. <strong>If you were to hang out on this forum long enough, you'd come to believe the technical stuff is what photography is all about</strong>. However, people arguing technical stuff here fall mostly into two camps -- those with cutting-edge equipment demands (for instance people producing wall-sized prints) and equipment geeks who simply enjoy the technical details of their equipment.<br>

"<strong>However, my advice to you would be simply to start shooting pictures and enjoy the fruits of our optical advancements to date</strong>. Don't worry about <strong>chasing the best or sharpest</strong>, as that <strong>is usually a false pursuit</strong>. Instead, wo<strong>rry about photographing what you want to photograph</strong>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Yes. And super, double, extra, yes. Especially on things I marked in bold type!</p>

<p>Dan</p>