need advice with dslr purchase

[clumsyalex]

so I'm buying a dslr for the first time, and I've decided upon the t3i. I know that I can get it for cheaper elsewhere, but my situation forces me to buy it at my local best buy or costco (won't explain why). Anyways, I was wondering if the 18-55mm kit lens is worth replacing with the 50mm/1.8 lens.

I was going to pick up the 18-55mm+55-250mm kit at costco for 899, but I was wondering if it would be better to just buy the body alone+50mm/1.8 + 55-250mm all separately at bestbuy. Would this be a better idea? From what I've read, the 50mm is prettymuch a must for its price and most people end up upgrading from the 18-55 anyways. I do want the 55-250 for some distance shots however.

 

[radhak]

The 50mm prime is not an upgrade from the 18-55mm zoom. The zoom serves the purpose of a range of focal lengths that you will severely miss, particularly at the wider end (18mm) - like when taking group pictures, landscapes, indoors, etc. The 50mm is a nice lens, useful for low light, but if you mean to replace the zoom you will have to use your feet a lot (ie, you will need to move far away from your subject) to get the same effect, and that gets old pretty fast.

If anything, you need both the zooms in that kit, and you should get the prime later, once you get used to your DSLR.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

FWIW, I bought the D5100 bundle from Costco and quickly thereafter also bought the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. To be sure, the lens was an upgrade in performance and image quality from the 18-55, but it was definitely not a replacement.

 

[AkumaX]

FWIW, I bought the D5100 bundle from Costco and quickly thereafter also bought the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. To be sure, the lens was an upgrade in performance and image quality from the 18-55, but it was definitely not a replacement.

Did you get the AF-D 50mm f/1.8 or the AF-G version?

Also, have you considered an AF-S 35mm f/1.8?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

If I could do it over again (I still can I suppose)

canon Body
Used 18-135 from higher end kit since that is sold as kit lense. Can get cheap since sold as kit.
Buy 55-250 for longer distance.

The prime 50 mm is nice. I have it. But I used it to tinker with it when new and never used it since. Cheap, yes. But until you have a need for it, primes are pointless. Especially when you are getting your first SLR. I'd rather have a 30mm prime in hindsight but they get expensive.

The only thing I am missing is something like a 10-20 mm. I'd go after a 10-24 mm if I had the money laying around. The 10-24 would be awesome for indoor pictures.

NOTE:
People don't upgrade from the 18-55 to the 50. They get the 50 as an addition to the 18-55.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Did you get the AF-D 50mm f/1.8 or the AF-G version?

Also, have you considered an AF-S 35mm f/1.8?

I own the AF-S 50mm f/1.8. It's great, but I do sometimes think the 35mm would've been better suited to my crop sensor body.

I've since upgraded to the D7000 which has an in-body focus motor, so I might consider unloading the AF-S 50 and instead picking up an AF-D 35mm 1.8.

 

[Syborg1211]

In the end it will depend greatly on what you're shooting. I started with the 18-55 just like most people, and I bought the 35mm prime based on everyone saying you absolutely have to have a 35mm or 50mm prime. The prime performed amazing in low-light compared to the 18-55, and I ended up just using the prime most of the time because I was still just starting out and didn't fully understand why the prime was better. I was okay "zooming with my feet" for this short period. This was mainly for shooting portrait type shots of people on hikes and what not.

It wasn't until I was trying to capture this sunset over a very large bridge with this very fascinating tree in the foreground that I realized the limitations of using the prime. There was no amount of stepping back I could do to get the shot I wanted. I threw on the 18-55, and I ended up getting a decent shot at 18mm. This was when I realized two things - the flexibility offered by zooms offers shots not possible with foot zoom and that I was really much more of a landscape/ultra-wide kind of shooter. So I picked up an 11-16mm ultra-wide to really increase my landscape possibilities (as well as upgraded cameras but that's a whole other story).

The moral of the story is that you don't have to buy the 35mm or the 50mm or any other lens right off the bat. You can start with the kit lens and see where your shooting leads you.

As for 35mm versus 50mm, I'm not too much of a zoom person so I much prefer the 35mm to the 50mm. Once you get your kit lens, try putting it on 50mm/55mm and see if you like shooting only at that focal length. The aperture of the kit lens will definitely limit you, so ignore the picture quality aspects and just focus on the picture possibility aspects. If you find yourself always having to take several steps back to frame your shot at 50mm, then you know a 50mm prime is probably not ideal for you.

 

[Syborg1211]

Also, I forgot to mention that Costco is always the better option for purchasing electronics over Best Buy. Costco has a longer/more relaxed return policy, and they extend the warranty for you. Overall it's a better deal.

 

[clumsyalex]

Thanks for the response guys. I guess I'm set on the kit lens. Btw what is meant by "extending" the warranty from costco?

And also, is it realistic to use the highest zoom on a lense? As in if I were using the 18-55 and I actually zoomed at 55mm to take a shot. And where is exactly is the border of using 55mm( as in how many feet away max). At what point would I have to take off the 18-55 to take a shot with the 55-250 instead?

 

[AkumaX]

In the end it will depend greatly on what you're shooting. I started with the 18-55 just like most people, and I bought the 35mm prime based on everyone saying you absolutely have to have a 35mm or 50mm prime. The prime performed amazing in low-light compared to the 18-55, and I ended up just using the prime most of the time because I was still just starting out and didn't fully understand why the prime was better. I was okay "zooming with my feet" for this short period. This was mainly for shooting portrait type shots of people on hikes and what not.

It wasn't until I was trying to capture this sunset over a very large bridge with this very fascinating tree in the foreground that I realized the limitations of using the prime. There was no amount of stepping back I could do to get the shot I wanted. I threw on the 18-55, and I ended up getting a decent shot at 18mm. This was when I realized two things - the flexibility offered by zooms offers shots not possible with foot zoom and that I was really much more of a landscape/ultra-wide kind of shooter. So I picked up an 11-16mm ultra-wide to really increase my landscape possibilities (as well as upgraded cameras but that's a whole other story).

The moral of the story is that you don't have to buy the 35mm or the 50mm or any other lens right off the bat. You can start with the kit lens and see where your shooting leads you.

As for 35mm versus 50mm, I'm not too much of a zoom person so I much prefer the 35mm to the 50mm. Once you get your kit lens, try putting it on 50mm/55mm and see if you like shooting only at that focal length. The aperture of the kit lens will definitely limit you, so ignore the picture quality aspects and just focus on the picture possibility aspects. If you find yourself always having to take several steps back to frame your shot at 50mm, then you know a 50mm prime is probably not ideal for you.

The reason why you like the 35mm more than the 50mm is because since you're on an APS-C sensor, you end up getting something close to 52-56mm equivalent to a full frame. If you had a 50mm, you'd end up with the 75-80mm equivalent. People love the 50mm on full frame, so most people will like 30-35mm on APS-C

 

[Throckmorton]

Thanks for the response guys. I guess I'm set on the kit lens. Btw what is meant by "extending" the warranty from costco?

And also, is it realistic to use the highest zoom on a lense? As in if I were using the 18-55 and I actually zoomed at 55mm to take a shot. And where is exactly is the border of using 55mm( as in how many feet away max). At what point would I have to take off the 18-55 to take a shot with the 55-250 instead?

55mm will be like 3x zoom on a typical point and shoot.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Thanks for the response guys. I guess I'm set on the kit lens. Btw what is meant by "extending" the warranty from costco?

And also, is it realistic to use the highest zoom on a lense? As in if I were using the 18-55 and I actually zoomed at 55mm to take a shot. And where is exactly is the border of using 55mm( as in how many feet away max). At what point would I have to take off the 18-55 to take a shot with the 55-250 instead?

Indoors, you'd be using the 18-55 at 18 quite alot.

55 is for targets about 10 feet away. 55-250 is for things farther away then that.

So:
18mm -> people at a table and even then you'd need to be a few feet away from them (thus my comment about a 10-22 being nice indoors)
55mm -> Kids on a swing set type of distance
250mm -> Kids playing soccer like 50 feet from you. I got some awesome shots of my kids with the 250mm setting

I hate having an 18-55 and 55-250. It's better to have some overlap so you don't get stuck in a position that you need to switch lenses all the time. That's why I want to get the 18-135 to replace my 18-55. That way I'd get some overlap with my 55-250.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

<quote> And where is exactly is the border of using 55mm( as in how many feet away max). At what point would I have to take off the 18-55 to take a shot with the 55-250 instead?</quote>

It really depends on the situation, as much (or more) than the distance.

I've used a 17mm focal length to shoot a distorted portrait from a few inches away from someone's face, and I've used the exact same lens to shoot a person standing hundreds of feet away because I wanted to get the grand canyon in the background.

Depends on what you're looking for.

Don't think of the zoom as equivalent to "getting closer". The zoom noticeably changes the field of view, how objects appear and how the background frames into the shot.

Here is an image demonstrating the concept. You can keep the statue the same height by moving your feet back and using a longer zoom and you get a drastically different image.

If you simply use the zoom as a substitute for moving around, you limit your composition and your ability to make good photos.

That's why many people suggest learning with primes, because it reinforces this thought process, instead of the "zoom to get closer" mentality, which is the incorrect approach in many situations.

 

[clumsyalex]

but as soon as I start even approaching, lets say about 45 or 50mm with the 18-55, I should just use the 55-250 instead shouldnt I? because the aperture will be lower than that of the 55-250 at that level of zoom? This is kind of why I was trying to convince myself to get the prime lens I guess-I would be frustrated as to when I would have to switch lens. With the prime I feel that I would be less confused between the two.

 

[Throckmorton]

In reality you aren't going to be constantly switching lenses. You should consider getting an 18-270mm lens so you have a wide range to work with.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

but as soon as I start even approaching, lets say about 45 or 50mm with the 18-55, I should just use the 55-250 instead shouldnt I? because the aperture will be lower than that of the 55-250 at that level of zoom? This is kind of why I was trying to convince myself to get the prime lens I guess-I would be frustrated as to when I would have to switch lens. With the prime I feel that I would be less confused between the two.

I think it would help if you formulated a bit of a sense of purpose when you get your camera out. Decide what it is that you're going out to shoot, in a general way at least. Then you can decide which lens you're likely to have more use for.

Are you indoors or otherwise relatively close to your subject(s)? Then the 18-55 will probably keep you covered.

Are you going outdoors to shoot things that are likely to be far away (sports, animals, etc)? Then start with the 55-250.

Yeah, you might find yourself at a point when you've got your wide lens mounted and you want to take a telephoto shot, or vice-versa, but by "forecasting" what your settings are going to be like ahead of time, you can at least get off on the right foot.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

but as soon as I start even approaching, lets say about 45 or 50mm with the 18-55, I should just use the 55-250 instead shouldnt I? because the aperture will be lower than that of the 55-250 at that level of zoom? This is kind of why I was trying to convince myself to get the prime lens I guess-I would be frustrated as to when I would have to switch lens. With the prime I feel that I would be less confused between the two.

There are times (not often), where you want exactly 55mm. But the reality is that you want 45-75mm or some sort of range that centers at 55mm.

Those situations suck.

If you can afford it, I can not recomend it more.
18-135 and 55-250.
And if you have alot of cash
15-85 and 55-250

The 15-85 is very expensive though. I think somewhere in the $700 ballpark.

 

[lsman]

85 1.8 much better than 50 1.8..."I" Love it for portrait, great for indoor basketball.
In fact, go 100mm for portrait... anyway.
My point is you have to find your subject and style... and the only way to do it is go out and shot. (well, you can view others that you like and copy them at first)
You have to know what you are shooting. The most mounted lens on my 7D was 70-200, 100-400, 85 1.8 and .... MP-E 65. Of course I have use my 5D more than 7D.

For a starter, go with the kit...

 

[irse]

I own the AF-S 50mm f/1.8. It's great, but I do sometimes think the 35mm would've been better suited to my crop sensor body.

I've since upgraded to the D7000 which has an in-body focus motor, so I might consider unloading the AF-S 50 and instead picking up an AF-D 35mm 1.8.

There is no AF-D 35 1.8. Only a 2.0 which is a great lens but unless you're going to a full frame body, I would get the AF-S 35 1.8. Equal optically and the AF-S is slightly cheaper.