Moving on from kit lens.

[sensimilla]

I've been shooting with my 18-55 kit lens for too long now and I want to start exploring the world of better lenses but I'm not sure where to start.

I'm on a very tight budget and after having a look around I'm thinking of purchasing a 50mm lens.

I also had a look at the sigma DC HSM 18-50mm, found one for £50.

Would it be worth purchasing either of these lens' or does anyone having any better recommendations (I'm sure they are much better than mine)

Thanks in advance

 

[DSRay]

So what do you expect a 'better' lens to do for you that your kit lens doesn't?

 

[o hey tyler]

So what do you expect a 'better' lens to do for you that your kit lens doesn't?

They would probably expect a sharper lens when used closer to it's maximum aperture, a larger max aperture, a better focusing mechanism and build quality.

A 50mm prime is a good place to start, I personally would opt for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, and pass on the 50/1.8 II.

The sigma lens you mentioned does have a larger maximum aperture at 18mm, but it's not a constant maximum aperture. So much like your kit lens, the aperture will get smaller as you zoom in until it stops down to f/4.5.

 

[DSRay]

They would probably expect a sharper lens when used closer to it's maximum aperture, a larger max aperture, a better focusing mechanism and build quality.

And 90% of the people who upgrade will see no difference in their photos because they don't live on that ragged edge. Too often upgrading is a matter of 'knowing' they shouldn't be shooting a kit lens, which is a ridiculous notion in most cases. I have and use the Canon 18-55 kit lens, it's been a workhorse in my bag since 1996 which says something about build quality. True, it's not the sharpest lens in my bag but I do know something about the law of reciprocity so I am able to shoot in the sweet spot.

 

[o hey tyler]

They would probably expect a sharper lens when used closer to it's maximum aperture, a larger max aperture, a better focusing mechanism and build quality.

And 90% of the people who upgrade will see no difference in their photos because they don't live on that ragged edge. Too often upgrading is a matter of 'knowing' they shouldn't be shooting a kit lens, which is a ridiculous notion in most cases. I have and use the Canon 18-55 kit lens, it's been a workhorse in my bag since 1996 which says something about build quality. True, it's not the sharpest lens in my bag but I do know something about the law of reciprocity so I am able to shoot in the sweet spot.

Take a portrait with a kit lens at f/8 at 50mm (one stop down from wide open at that focal length), then pop a 50mm f/1.4 prime and shoot the same portrait on f/2.8 (two stops down from wide open). If you can't see a difference, you should probably see an optometrist.

I also think your 90% figure is not founded in reality.

You want to shoot inside with no flash? How's that variable f/3.5 - f/5.6 going to work in your favor? You want to isolate your subject with a shallow depth of field? Can't really do that either unless you're fully extended, and even then you have very little control over DoF at f/5.6 at APS-C framing distances.

There's numerous reasons to upgrade from a kit lens. Sure it can still be worth having in your bag, but it's not as versatile as some people desire.

 

[Derrel]

o hey tyler, you are going up against one of the biggest kit lens advocates on this forum in DSRay.

Long live f/5.6! Three cheers for f/3.5!

 

[goodguy]

18-55mm are very good lens, it always surprises me when I see people disrespecting kit lenses.
For their value they do a darn good job and I doubt in most cases you will see a huge improvemnt compared to lenses that will cost more then them.

50mm prime lens is a fantastic lens and has its advantages over the 18-55mm but it cant replace this lens.
Its good for low light situation and good for a nice bokeh in portraits but it doesnt have the flexibility of the kit zoom lens so get the 50mm prime and keep the 18-55mm becaus eI think you will use both of them.
Dont think that if you will pop the 50mm prime on your camera it will magically turn your pictures into a polizer prize quality pictures, it will not!!!
If your pictures are good with the kit lens they will be good with the prime and if they are so, so with the kit lens they will be so, so with the prime.
Lens are tools and while good lens will potentially make a big difference it all ends up at the person that presses the shutter botton and his/her skills.

 

[cynicaster]

OP, I think a 50mm prime is probably a good place to start if you want to try something with better optics that won't break the bank, so long as you understand it's most certainly not going to replace your kit lens.

I don't know what you like to shoot, but personally, I find the 18-55 range of focal lengths very functional and versatile; no 50mm fixed focal length lens could possibly replace it for general purpose use, especially on a crop-sensor camera. In fact, aside from the odd portrait, I don't use my 50mm all that often.

 

[cptkid]

35mm 1.8 if you're on a crop sensor.

 

[orb9220]

Yep unless I can define what I need more of with a zoom that the kit lens is not giving or lacking of.
Comes down knowing exactly why the kit lens isn't fulfilling my needs.

A great learning experience would be adding the 35mm or 50mm f1.8 to my kit.
As are faster and more usable in lower light situations. And think everyone should have at least one.

For upgrade path of kit lenses. For me was needing a faster zoom more usable in more lighting situations. And also the next step up in Image IQ. So opted for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to replace the slower 18-55. And was a step up in usability and results.

But don't let people negate what the kit lens is capable of. As they are great performers for their price point. And give outstanding results when used within their design envelope. I use another kit lens 55-200vr as my daily walkabout lens.

And at least half my Getty Stock Images are with that kit lens. So if it's good enough making monies from. Then is good enough for most kinds of photography. Barring a need of shallower depth of field and pleasing bokeh needs that a prime can give. Which a more expensive f2.8 or a prime can give. But at a higher price.

Again comes down to a definable need. Many think a more expensive lens = Better Images. That is only partially true and depending on the skill of the photographer to craft a compelling image that has that Wow factor and grabs attention. That is all about Understanding Composition & Light.
And there is no amount of money or lens that can compensate for lack of understanding.
.

 

[Gavjenks]

Kit lenses are usually just fine in terms of sharpness. The reason people don't like them that much is because they don't offer many FEATURES.

Things like:
1) quieter or faster focusing
2) larger apertures
3) more (or less) zoom range
4) lighter weight or conversely, stronger build quality
5) Better image stabilization (for instance, multimode options for tracking horizontally, etc. Or next gen IS)
etc.

As you can see, many of the things on that list are contradictory. You can't simultaneously have a wider zoom range than your kit and also a prime lens, for example. And you can't simultaneously have lighter weight and heavier weight.

Which means that there's not really any such thing as a lens that is "better" than the kit lens objectively along every dimension. There is almost certainly one better FOR YOU. But it depends on which of those various, and often conflicting variables you care about, and in which direction.

You have to ask yourself "what limitations do I feel I have due to using this kit lens, specifically?" If none, then don't bother with a new lens yet. But otherwise, get a lens that is specifically better in terms of whatever the biggest limitations were that you felt you had.

If you simply buy a more expensive one without asking yourself that question first, then you may end up with a lens that is WORSE for you than the kit lens. For example, if you were actually limited by brightness of the aperture, and you bought a lens that was more expensive due to having a wider zoom and better build quality, but perhaps even a smaller aperture than what you started with!



Also note that almost everything that I listed above is either directly advertised by the manufacturer, or is very easy to figure out objectively. For instance, you can look up how much it weighs. They tell you exactly what the aperture is. They tell you what the zoom range is, etc. So it is usually pretty easy to figure out what lens you need without much subjective opinions from the peanut gallery. It's just a straight up numbers game for almost all variables involved (with some minor exceptions. AF accuracy may be a tad subjective, but not much. Reviews on amazon are sufficient to figure that out)

 

[sensimilla]

Thanks for all the information guys very helpful indeed!

No I'm not upgrading simply because i am expecting better photographs, it is just that, being 17, I've never really had enough money to look at decent lenses and so ive found myself shooting with the 18-55 for like 5 years and I just desperate to move on and explore the use of different lenses, I wouln't sell my kit lens.

I suppose I should've mentioned this but I'm looking for a decent portrait lens, or a decent wide angle suitable for landscapes that wont break my none existent bank

 

[goodguy]

Well portrait lens are usually 50mm and preferably 85mm while for landscaping you want 35mm or smaller.

I guess with the 50mm you can do both but especially on crop sensor you can do more portrait then landscaping.

 

[Dao]

Thanks for all the information guys very helpful indeed!

No I'm not upgrading simply because i am expecting better photographs, it is just that, being 17, I've never really had enough money to look at decent lenses and so ive found myself shooting with the 18-55 for like 5 years and I just desperate to move on and explore the use of different lenses, I wouln't sell my kit lens.

I suppose I should've mentioned this but I'm looking for a decent portrait lens, or a decent wide angle suitable for landscapes that wont break my none existent bank

It is kind of hard to recommend a lens without a set budget. Low cost or cheap is a relative terms. Three hundred dollars or pounds could be a lot of money for someone, but there are people spend just that for dinner.

As for decent portrait lens or a decent wide angle lens, the kit lens is already a good tool for that. It may not be the best, but it is quite decent as long as you know the pros and cons. I have seen some great portrait shots from taken with kit lens in flickr (with great lighting of course)


As for the portrait lens, are you looking for taking a photo of a person in the way that subject is in focus while the background is out of focus? If the answer is yes, then you need to look for either a lens has a wider aperture (f/2.8 or lower ) or longer focal length or both. As for landscape photos, are you looking for a taking a photo with the angle of view wider than your kit lens? If yes, focus on lens that has focal length shorter than 18mm. i.e. 10-20mm

 

[manaheim]

Kit lenses are usually just fine in terms of sharpness. The reason people don't like them that much is because they don't offer many FEATURES.

Things like:
1) quieter or faster focusing
2) larger apertures
3) more (or less) zoom range
4) lighter weight or conversely, stronger build quality
5) Better image stabilization (for instance, multimode options for tracking horizontally, etc. Or next gen IS)
etc.

As you can see, many of the things on that list are contradictory. You can't simultaneously have a wider zoom range than your kit and also a prime lens, for example. And you can't simultaneously have lighter weight and heavier weight.

Which means that there's not really any such thing as a lens that is "better" than the kit lens objectively along every dimension. There is almost certainly one better FOR YOU. But it depends on which of those various, and often conflicting variables you care about, and in which direction.

You have to ask yourself "what limitations do I feel I have due to using this kit lens, specifically?" If none, then don't bother with a new lens yet. But otherwise, get a lens that is specifically better in terms of whatever the biggest limitations were that you felt you had.

If you simply buy a more expensive one without asking yourself that question first, then you may end up with a lens that is WORSE for you than the kit lens. For example, if you were actually limited by brightness of the aperture, and you bought a lens that was more expensive due to having a wider zoom and better build quality, but perhaps even a smaller aperture than what you started with!

I think this might be a little confusing for a reader.

I suppose you are referring to features like VR, tilt-shift, extreme zoom range, etc. And yes, each one of these features will add cost to a lens- kit lens or otherwise.

However, taking those things out of the equation, generally speaking a higher quality lens is going to be sharper than a kit lens by quite a lot... and what's more is it will tend to be sharper across the entire focal length of the lens (assuming a zoom). You can absolutely get sharp pictures out of almost any kit lens, you just have to be hyper-attentive to the lenses sweet spot... whereas in a higher end lens, you also want to be aware of the sweet spot, but the lens will be much more forgiving (to the point of being still VERY good- just not AS good) outside of that area than the kit lens would.

A great way to see this illustrated is to take a kit lens and put it at maximum aperture and shoot at the widest and tightest focal ranges on a roughly 24-70 kit lens (whatever you have closest to that). Then do likewise with a Nikkor or Canon 24-70 2.8. Even without pixel peeping you are going to see a notable difference.

Lenses are an interesting area where you do very much get what you pay for.