Need recommendation for good starter lens

[johnastovall]

Learning "the lens" is far more important and difficult than learning the camera. The lens not the camera is the key.

[venchka]

Robert,

At this stage you really don't know what questions to ask. Lenses make photos. Cameras only help.

I see Mr. Stovall beat me to the answer.

[LuckyDucker]

I understand what ya'll are saying. I guess I assumed that since this new camera will have a lot more manual settings than I'm used it, it would take some time to figure it out. I realize the lens is the most important part though.

[texkam]

Green box = bad. Manual = good.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by LuckyDucker

I understand what ya'll are saying. I guess I assumed that since this new camera will have a lot more manual settings than I'm used it, it would take some time to figure it out. I realize the lens is the most important part though.

A camera only has two manual settings, aperture and shutter speed.

[engstrom]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

A camera only has two manual settings, aperture and shutter speed.

Uhhhh, maybe those archaic cameras that need to be constantly fed that silver emulsion carrier, but the new fangled digital cameras also have ISO as a manual setting.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by engstrom

Uhhhh, maybe those archaic cameras that need to be constantly fed that silver emulsion carrier, but the new fangled digital cameras also have ISO as a manual setting.

Not needed for manual shooting. Just use your eyes and the Sunny 16 rule. Even works with my 1DsMkIII.
Setting the ISO is just like loading film, just do it once.

By the way my silver shooting M7 and SL2 have ISO settings.

[engstrom]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

By the way my silver shooting M7 and SL2 have ISO settings.

Yeah, certainly film cameras have ISO (or ASA since we're in the more "mature" category ) but I was talking about using the same ISO for a roll on a film camera but getting to set the ISO per shot on digital. You're pretty much limited to setting the same ISO for an entire roll of film (unless you can cut the roll and push/pull process a section of the roll) whereas with a DSLR you can go outside and shoot a picture at ISO 100 then walk indoor and shoot a shot at ISO 3200+.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by engstrom

Yeah, certainly film cameras have ISO (or ASA since we're in the more "mature" category ) but I was talking about using the same ISO for a roll on a film camera but getting to set the ISO per shot on digital. You're pretty much limited to setting the same ISO for an entire roll of film (unless you can cut the roll and push/pull process a section of the roll) whereas with a DSLR you can go outside and shoot a picture at ISO 100 then walk indoor and shoot a shot at ISO 3200+.

Interchangeable film backs?

Also not dialing up the ISO is good practice in learning just what you can do not what the equipment will do.

ASA, how about DIN?

[MT Stringer]

Well, I think that since you are new to the digital age, you should wait until you get the camera and play with it awhile. Then you will be able to make a more educated decision on what lens to buy. the 18-55 covers a nice range so use it to your advantage.

Do you even know what your subject matter will be and what type of photography you are interested in. Some folks like birds, some sports, some studio stuff, some nature and landscapes. And thee is no way you can cover it all so don't even try. Personally I like wildlife (birds) but mostly sports and my gear is matched to those two facets.

Good luck.
Mike

[toverman]

As mentioned by a few, my advice is to stick with the 18-55 for awhile before buying anything else just yet.

Now I'll say something bad about the 50 f/1.8: they are built crummy and break easy, are slow and inaccurate to autofocus, and the ring to focus manually is too small to be usable. Thanks, I needed to get that off my chest! A great lens for the money, and a great way to learn how awesome prime lenses are (esp. after you upgrade).

I think the main reason the 50 isn't offered as a kit lens is that for crop-sensor cameras, particularly entry-level models such as the Rebels, the limited field of view would frustrate many (and complete beginners wouldn't know why, other than they can't get wide-angle shots).

[venchka]

Originally Posted by toverman

...I think the main reason the 50 isn't offered as a kit lens is that for crop-sensor cameras, particularly entry-level models such as the Rebels, the limited field of view would frustrate many (and complete beginners wouldn't know why, other than they can't get wide-angle shots).

Look around at the questions asked here. Give rookies the 18-55 kit lens and they still don't know what a wide angle lens will do. The pickens are pretty slim when it comes to wide field of view on sensor challenged digital cameras.

[jsbraby]

On a crop body the 35mm f2 is about a 50mm equivalent for full frame.

Plus, the 35mm f2 from Canon is still the same design that they introduced way back with the EOS 650 so you get depth of field scales (sadly missing on the 50mm f1.8 mk II) and a significantly sturdier build than the 50mm f1.8 II.

Both of these lenses have relatively loud focus motors, and you have to flip the M/AF switch to manually focus.

The downside to the 35mm f2 is that it costs about $300 US new, while the 50mm f1.8 II can be found for less than $100.