Do I need to upgrade my kit lens?

[sofilmphoto]

I've had my camera for about a year and a half (Canon XSi) but already feel that my equipment is holding me back. My thought was to invest in an EF lens that I could use on the 5D II successor which I plan on buying once it's available. Is this a good game plan, or should I just stick it out with my kit lens until said successor comes out? As of now all I have is the 18-55 kit lens. I'm actually fairly happy with the versatility of the lens, I just wish the focus were sharper (at 100% even the focused areas lack clarity).

XSi 18-55 EF-S Zoom 1/60 at 5.6 400 iso


Pine Street Gate by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people

[KenJulio]

First, Welcome to Pixtus!

Second, what do you think may be holding you back from your existing lens? What is your budget?

I'm sure others will chime in with their questions as well.

[Killjoy]

Hi Sean, Welcome to the forum.

That kit lens, while it may have it's limitations, it actually a pretty great little lens when used correctly.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you've been doing it wrong, but try shooting at f/8 and see what you get.
Those lenses are usually pretty sharp right around there. I know mine is.

As for upgrading your glass, you certainly can't go wrong there.
When you do buy your next body (successor to the 5DII or whatever else) they will most likely offer that in a kit form as well.
However, I don't think you'll get the option of an 18-55. It will be more along the lines of a 24-105 f/4 L with IS. So if you are happy with your lens for a few more months, hang onto it, play and experiment with it, and see what Canon offers in the fall.

Edit: And lets see some more of your work.

[sofilmphoto]

Hey thanks for the responses. I was also wondering if it had more to do with the iso setting and f-stop than the lens (I've only taken one formal photography class at this point...so I often times find myself forgetting to think about those types of things when shooting). I'll have to try it at f/8 (my only concern there is that I won't get enough light in most situations without a tripod, I do mostly street photography).

And in terms of being held back, I attempted to get into contributing to stock photography websites (lots of philly cityscapes, animals, etc) and all of my photos were rejected due to lack of clarity at 100%. I understand that it's a tough business to get into...but I figured I could get at least one accepted.


Terrier Guard Dog In Park by crimsonclover624, on Flickr


Penn's Landing Waterfront Skyline by crimsonclover624, on Flickr

In terms of what I'm willing to spend, I'd say under $500, but at the same time I don't want to "cheap out" since this is a lens I'd like to work well with a full frame censor down the road.

[ChrisTX]

I would say go buy a prime. I think they are good to learn on, and are usually sharper than zooms. Plus, you can easily get a prime compatible with a full frame camera that you can still use now.

[Killjoy]

For $500, I'd jump on a 50mm f/1.4
Brand new from B&H Photo I think it'll run you $399. Then add a lens hood to it for about another $27.
Or you can buy an off brand for about $16.

The 50mm is a very versatile lens. It gives you the perspective of what the human eye sees.
It works fantastic on a full frame body, as well as being a fabulous portrait lens on a cropped body due to the multiplication factor. It shoots pretty close to an 80mm lens.
I believe a lot of portrait photographers who use full frame, shoot with an 85mm lens.

Also, my 50 f/1.4 is tack sharp even wide open.

[LadyShutterBug]

yes! a prime f/1.4. you will fall in love and never want to remove it from your camera.

[sofilmphoto]

Ok thanks, I was thinking maybe the 50mm prime but was concerned it wouldn't be a good investment for the full censor camera...but it sounds like that's not the case. Also I don't mind putting out the extra $250 or so for the 1.4 if I'm getting my money's worth, but is it definitely worth buying over the cheaper 1.8? Sorry for all the questions, just want to make sure I'm getting the most bang for my buck since I'm a broke student and lenses are EXPENSIVE! :)

[Killjoy]

Well, having had the luxury of shooting with all three of Canon's 50mm lenses.....

As I said, I have the 50 f/1.4 and I love that lens.
Someone let me use a Nifty Fifty (the 50 f/1.8) for a few weeks, and just yesterday I had the opportunity to play with the 50 f/1.2 L

The 50 1.8 is a plastic lens. Plastic body and a plastic mount. It's very light, but it's a great lens for the purchase price. If you only have $125 to spend, you can't go wrong with this lens.

The 50 1.4 is more robust. It's built like a tank compared to it's little brother.
The body of the lens is metal, and so is the mount. It's a hefty little piece of glass.

Both of these lenses use a macro focusing motor. With a lot of use (and I mean a LOT of use) the motor will eventually go bad, and you will have to send it to Canon for a replacement.
The 1.4 in my humble opinion is worth sending off for the minor work.
Again, IMHO, the 1.8 may not really be worth the cost of the surgery. If it's going to cost you (total speculation here on the cost) $75 for a motor, for a few dollars more you could have a new lens.

The 50 f/1.2 is a whole other story. It's huge. It's heavy. It has a full sized focusing motor in it. But it's over $1600.
I compared shots of the 1.2 to the 1.4.
On my 50D, I could not see any difference in the lenses all the way down to f/1.4.
I DID however notice that the 1.2 lens will only close down to f/16 where the 1.4 lens will close down to f/22.
The images were just as sharp at 1.4 from each of the lenses.
There was of course a fuzzier background on the 1.2 when pushed to it's limit of 1.2.
But if I hadn't even shot that wide open, I wouldn't have noticed.

Was there a difference between the two lenses? If you ask me, not $1200 worth.
Is there enough of a difference between the 1.4 to the 1.8 to justify the extra $275? I believe so.

Again, these are just my humble opinions. Others may have different views.

[rfortson]

I'll second/third the suggestion to get the 50mm, though I might cheap out and get the 50/1.8 for now.

One other suggestion is to check your focus adjustment. Does you camera have AF calibration? If so, check to see if your kit lens is calibrated correctly. Lens and cameras can be slightly off, which will show up as slightly soft images.

Even if you can't adjust it yourself, it would be worth it to check it and see if you're getting all you can out of the kit lens. Google AF calibration, there are lots of free and easy ways to check it quickly. Adjusting it may be a different issue if the function isn't built into your camera.

[bryanlindsey]

I'd get a used 50mm/1.8 to start. If you decide to go to the 50mm/1.4 later, you can sell the 1.8 for about what you paid for it. FWIW.

[lvolkjr]

I was there during those test with Killjoy. Killjoy forgot to tell you that on my 7D you could tell the difference between the two different lenses. The difference being sharpness, the 1.2 being better. Would I buy it? Not now, I have other priorities. I would rent it again. Maybe you should rent it, take it for test drive. Then decide for yourself. We all have different priorities and you should take everyone's advice (including mine) with a grain of salt. Your body may or may not show a difference.

I also checked, you have a different sensor and image processor as I have. I'm not sure if this would cause much of difference or not. It may be some other construction difference, I'm not an expert just an enthusiast. I guess what I'm saying is check every avenue before you make the purchase. Unless your a zillionaire, than just buy it! I hope this helps.

[Killjoy]

Yes, Lowell did not get the results I got.
If I had his camera and those two lenses in hand (as we did on Sunday morning) I would have looked into doing a micro adjust for the focusing.

I think the results we got out of my camera were a truer representation.
Sorry Lowell. Gotta call it like I see it. No more Giants tickets for me now, huh?

[lvolkjr]

Alan, I would like to know why you think you got a truer representation than I did.

[Killjoy]

Lowell, simply because my 50mm lens that has never caused me any issues, was fuzzy on your camera.
Even after you used my lens and handed it back to me, my images were still sharp.
So it was obviously not an issue with the lens. Hence my suggestion about the micro focus adjust in the camera body.

I know you returned the L lens, but we can still play with the micro adjust and see if we can get better results from your camera.