Is it really an upgrade?

Drake · Sep 6, 2008

I've finally got some cash to spend on photography. Not much really, but well, there won't be more till next holidays probably. I am really desperate to get something sharper than my 18-55 kit lens from the XTi. I've been looking at the canon's new kit lens, 18-55 IS, reading some reviews, comparing. Turns out it really is way sharper than the old one, the difference is pretty amazing. The IS is also a nice bonus. But... then I would be changing my kit lens for another kit lens...

The other lens I could afford is also the 50 1.8. I'd love to have it, but I don't shoot a lot of portraits and that's why I think a standard zoom is more important for me. Any thoughts?

Overread · Sep 6, 2008

Kit lenses are kit lenses - as the cameras get newer the kit lenses get better, but it is still a kit lens. Better is getting you hands on truly better lenses.
The 50mm is more than a portrate lens - it is often considered a good prime as it mimics closest the view of the human eye on a full frame camera - however on a crop sensor it is a little further off in zoom.
Best adivice I can give is take your current lens and set it to 50mm on the zoom and shooot it like a prime (don't zoom at all) for a week or more and see how it feels

Samriel · Sep 6, 2008

Can you afford a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8? Extremely good lens for the price. Some reviews mention problems with moderate field curvature, but I can only say good things about it. And it's SHARP. If only it was weather sealed... and it still is about 3.5x more expensive than the 50mm F1.8.

Drake · Sep 6, 2008

Money is the problem here... I wouldn't heasitate and get a proper standard lens otherwise...

prodigy2k7 · Sep 6, 2008

If you want good image quality... 50m F/1.8 is the way to go! It will be incredibly sharp, not to mention you can let in a lot of light F/1.8 compared to F/3.5 or F/4

Drake · Sep 6, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
not to mention you can let in a lot of light F/1.8 compared to F/3.5 or F/4

I'd say yes and not. You need more or less the same amount of light to shoot a sharp photo at 18mm f3.5 and 50mm f1.8, of course when you can and want to get closer to your subject

I am still thinking more about the 18-55 is though, I also love the fact that it's got IS, it could help a lot. I know it shouldn't be compared to $500+ lens, but for $150 it seems like a pretty good deal.

prodigy2k7 · Sep 6, 2008

Drake said:
I'd say yes and not. You need more or less the same amount of light to shoot a sharp photo at 18mm f3.5 and 50mm f1.8, of course when you can and want to get closer to your subject

I am still thinking more about the 18-55 is though, I also love the fact that it's got IS, it could help a lot. I know it shouldn't be compared to $500+ lens, but for $150 it seems like a pretty good deal.

I meant if you need to, you can get more light than the kit lens can...In a darker situation...

Drake · Sep 7, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
you can get more light than the kit lens can...In a darker situation...

You can get more light, but you have to use a faster shutter to compensate the focal length difference ;]

JerryPH · Sep 7, 2008

In your case, where cash is the issue, there are no real solutions... except the good-ole nifty-fifty.

IS will NOT make your pictures sharper which is what you are looking for. The el-cheapo 50mm F/1.8s are very well known for being very affordable (in your price range), and VERY sharp.

Another advantge is that in lower light situations where your F/3.5 lens cannot give you acceptable shutter speeds in low light, the 50mm will just shine. It will also be tons sharper EVERYWHERE than your kit lens.

Other than that... keep saving. I feel the other lens you are looking at would be a simple waste of money. It is no sharper than what you have now.

Samriel · Sep 7, 2008

I agree with JerryPH. The nifty-fifty is the only optio - I don't think it's worth paying $150 for a marginal upgrade which the new kit lens offers.

Drake · Sep 7, 2008

JerryPH said:
IS will NOT make your pictures sharper which is what you are looking for.

It won't, but it will often help reach the lens maximum resolution at lower shutter speed. And the resolution, according to Photozone seems to be pretty good, not only for it's price. And it's very sharp even wide open. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=1

Anyway, thanks for your advices, now I am more leaning towards the fifty.

Do'Urden's Eyes · Sep 7, 2008

Well with the 50mm F1.8 you will get quick shutter speeds even in low light because of the wide opening, thus eliminating your problem of a lower quality image at slower speeds. my vote is also with the nifty fifty.

prodigy2k7 · Sep 7, 2008

Drake said:
You can get more light, but you have to use a faster shutter to compensate the focal length difference ;]

Umm, what is your point? Thats a good thing for a faster shutter speed.... So you can get non blurry images if you want in lower light..

prodigy2k7 · Sep 7, 2008

Drake said:
It won't, but it will often help reach the lens maximum resolution at lower shutter speed. And the resolution, according to Photozone seems to be pretty good, not only for it's price. And it's very sharp even wide open. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=1

Anyway, thanks for your advices, now I am more leaning towards the fifty.

Um, the 50mm F/1.8 is 3 and 1/3 stops faster at 50mm on the 18-55, since im assuming at 50 the aperture is at F/5.6 as comapred to F/1.8 on the 50mm prime.

What do you mean the lens maximum resolution?

"Wide Open" isnt very "wide" referring to "And it's very sharp even wide open."

Id take the 50mm anyway over the 18-55

I have the 50mm F/1.4 and I love it much more than my 18-55, granted its quality isnt nearly as great as the IS version...

And the 50mm F/1.8 is better quality image (99% sure) than the 18-55 for a lesser price...

I think the 50mm beats the 18-55 on all levels except that it doesnt have zoom...IS isnt really an issue for this lens, except in low light, but the 50mm compensates for the IS with its huge aperture....

When compared for low light (not price wise), bigger aperture > IS , biogger aperture is better because you can use lower shutter speeds, where the IS you cant, since you get the same amount of light...