File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What does /p/ recommend for a lens? I have a Rebel XT with the stock 18-55mm lens and a Sigma 70-300mm lens for telezoom. I've heard good things about prime lenses, especially since they have very low apertures.
>> Macheath
The one you posted is a good yet inexpensive one. I plan on picking one up as well.

You don't seem to have qualms with buying Third Party lenses, so I'd suggest looking at the Tamron f/2.8 17-50 lens as a future upgrade to the kit lens. Apart from that, it looks like you have a good range of focal lengths covered, so the only other think you might want to look at are macro lenses. I'd go with the Canon EF-S F/2.8 60mm or Tamron SP f/2.8 90mm.
>> Macheath
Forgot to mention... I don't own any of the lenses I mentioned (though I hope to change that very soon). It wouldn't hurt to check out photozone.de or fredmiranda if you want to read lens reviews on your own.
>> Anonymous
I'm not too big on Macro shots. I prefer more urban/commercial photography, though an extra lens wouldn't hurt. You think there's a noticable difference between f/1.8 ($80) and f/1.4 ($300)?
>> Anonymous
>>61661
I only own the 1.8 but from what I've read there is a noticeable difference between the two but what it really boils down to is what you can afford to buy.
The main difference is that the 1.4 has better bokeh, USM for focusing, and the obvious 1.4 instead of 1.8. If you have the money to blow get the 1.4 otherwise a 1.8 is fine too, you'll likely love either one no matter which one you pick.
>> Macheath
>>61661
If I'm not mistaken, f/1.8 is only a half stop slower than f/1.4. However, the build quality is much better on the f/1.4. Like anon above me, I'd say go for the f/1.4 if you have the cash to drop, but if not, an f/1.8 is fine too.
>> BalleSaque !!gA7JZaCZdKK
Like the above posters have said...
The 50mm f/1.8 isn't a very well built lens. For a DSLR without a full frame sensor you won't likely notice much of a difference from the f/1.4 and the money to upgrade to the next one probably isn't worth it. IF you stop the lenses down to say, f/4.0 you really won't notice much at all.

On the other hand, the f/1.8 feels like a toy made of cheap plastic. It features a plastic lens mount and slow/noisy autofocus. The build quality of the f/1.4 is superior in every way. Additionally, if you're going to use these lenses on a full frame digital or a film camera, the f/1.4 wins because the light falloff towards the edges isn't as bad.

If you can spend the money, go with the f/1.4 because if you upgrade your camera body in the future to something like the 5D, you won't regret the purchase and won't be stuck upgrading the lens.
>> Anonymous
>>61672
Thanks. How about a non-prime lens? Is upgrading the kit lens worth it and will I see a noticeable difference? What would you recommend for urban photography? Perhaps something that borders on fish-eye.
>> BalleSaque !!gA7JZaCZdKK
>>61674

That depends on what you mean by urban photography. If you're going to be doing architecture then yeah, a wide angle lens is probably a good idea. On the other hand, if you meant urban photography, then maybe a medium length telephoto is the way to go? Every street photographer has his own style and it'll be up to you to find yours. Some of the photographers from the Magnum photo group would be very bold and used fast 50mm lenses while going right up to the subject and snapping the photo.
>> BalleSaque !!bsO6AEEdlFg
>>61674

Whoops, I forgot to answer your question. Yes, upgrading the kit lens will lead to an improvement. The kit lens is very low quality and next to worthless. I mean, it does the job but it isn't really a serious lens. It's very likely extremely slow and can distort the images at the wide apertures. That sigma 70-300 you mentioned though also isn't a good lens.

If you want an exceptional telephoto lens, canon makes a 70-200 in 4 different configurations. The cheapest one is the 70-200 f/4 without image stabilization and can be had quite cheaply. This is probably the best way to introduce yourself to the world of Canon L series lenses.
>> Davis
Haha. You have the same setup as I did. I first got a 70-300 and then bought the 50 f1.8 I love my 50, the DOF is so thin.
>> Anonymous
>>61682
Really? My photos always come out pretty clear, clearer on the Sigma than the stock 18-55mm. I never actually thought that they aren't as clear as they can be, probably due to a cheap camera. Looks like I need to overhaul my entire lens arsenal. How many lenses do I require to cover the entire focal distance?
>> Anonymous
>>61658
Take a look through the pictures you've taken, and try to find what focal length you use most often. There's some free programs you can get that'll do this. There's no point spending the cash until you know what you need.

The EF50/1.8II is cheap and awesome, though. There's no reason not to get one. If you're looking for a general-purpose low-light lens, look at the Sigma 30/1.4HSM. It's a more normal field of view.
>> Anonymous
>>61674
the kit lens really does suck but I personally think its a great learning tool because its such an sucky average lens in all regards that when you use it if you're serious about your photography and you start hating it (and figure out why you hate it) you'll figure out what you really want out of a lens and hopefully you'll be able to pick your next lens based on what you actually need/want

regardless though the kit lens's focal lengths are pretty good (esp since its for a cropped camera) so if you don't want to risk it you can grab one of the other lenses that are about that range, sigma and tamron make 17-55ish f/2.8's lenses that are supposed to be great for the money(around 400-500ish) and canon makes a 17-55 f/2.8 IS that is whoa expensive (1000ish) but really good for low light situations if you don't want to carry a tripod

(Personally my canon 17-55 is in the mail xD can't wait till friday)
>> Anonymous
Bump
>> Anonymous
DEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDE
ADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEAD
NIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNI
GGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGG
ERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGER
LENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSDEADNIGGERLENSV
>> Anonymous !4X8vLLNDE2
fujifilm.
>> Anonymous
The 1.4 version also has a metal mount, instead of the flimsy 1.8 II. If you can find a 1.8 I, buy that instead of the 1.4. If you want to spend $2,500 get a 50mm f/1.0.