Camera pros...tell me why the kits lens are no good?

AmberK

AmberK

New member
So Im getting a new camera for Christmas. Was pretty much set on the T3i but Amazon has the T4i with the 18-55 lens for $599. They also have T4i plus the 18-135 lens for $799. Or the other option is the T3i bundle from Costco that has the 18-55 mm lens and a 55-200 mm lens for $729 or something like that. So I dont know what I want to do.

My main use of the camera is for taking pics of my kids inside the house, outdoors, and various activities they do. Ive had a prime lens before and I loved the pics it took but Im lazy and hated zooming with my feet. LOL. I guess until I learn to take really GOOD pictures that are NOT on auto I need to get the best bang for my buck. So tell me, why does the 18-55 lens get such a bad rap?
 
And now to make this even harder I can get the T4i with 18-55 mm lens PLUS the 55-200 lens in a package deal for $709
 
It's a good lens but the drawback is that you have to have really good light. At the lowest aperture of 4, it'll be hard to take a good shot indoors without the assistance of flash. I personally don't like using my pop up flash and if you must use a flash, it's best to get an external flash and learn to bounce the light.

Here is an example of why I recommend prime lens. The photos are much sharper and you get more light into the camera.

Here's an old photo of mine during Christmas with my 18-55 kit lens. There is good light but my aperture is not high enough. I also shot in auto which is compensating by lowering my shutter speed.
7646446186_c23524fe63_z.jpg


Here's a recent indoor shot with my 50mm 1.8 My son was moving all over the place in this shot and I still got a good photo in focus and no blur. I also switched to using manual instead of auto. It's not a perfect photo but it gives you an idea.
7415152446_1b21039c47_z.jpg


Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
ok so if I get a prime lens to shoot indoors in low light, then what would be a good lens for outdoor situations?
 
It's definitely easier to learn & use manual on a prime lens, IMO. Because with a variable aperture lens, it's just harder to quickly adjust each of the settings. I like the sharpness and bokeh that I can get from my prime lenses and the lens on the wider side (18) can have some distortion from being so wide. That said I have a wide angle lens in my stash and that distortion doesn't bother me.

I don't think you need to NOT have a zoom lens, there are plenty of photographers who use them, I just think the 18-55 one perhaps isn't the most high quality for manual use purposes.

(And of course, as always, I am totally not a pro and I have a LOT to learn, this is just what I've gleaned and how I've interpreted it.)
 
Oh AND if you're getting a prime lens to use for indoor pictures, I would highly recommend the 35mm 1.8 lens unless you have a lot of space. I find for my indoor pics, a 50mm lens crops it way too tight and I have a lot more room to compose an image with my 35mm. FWIW. :)
 
AmberK said:
ok so if I get a prime lens to shoot indoors in low light, then what would be a good lens for outdoor situations?
Click to expand...

It works for outdoor as well. My 50mm lives on my camera about 90-95% of the time. I also have a 75-300mm lens that is variable aperture but since I use that mostly outdoors for sports, it works for me. I don't use any other lens and have gotten used to zooming with my feet, crouching, laying on the ground, etc. to get a good shot :D

I have used my 75-300 outside for taking photos of my kids (so I'm not in their face) and it works. I don't use it indoors.

An example photo of my DD when I used my 75-300 lens.
7605332228_4fd7c1fe26_z.jpg
 
I KNEW you were going to say that! LOL. I had the 50 mm 1.8 and really did like the pics it took. But was just really lazy and did find that in tight spaces I couldnt get the picture I wanted with the 50 mm.

ok so here is another question- if you were going to say, Disneyworld, what type of lens would you use there?


navaja77 said:
It works for outdoor as well. My 50mm lives on my camera about 90-95% of the time. I also have a 75-300mm lens that is variable aperture but since I use that mostly outdoors for sports, it works for me. I don't use any other lens and have gotten used to zooming with my feet, crouching, laying on the ground, etc. to get a good shot :D
Click to expand...
 
misfitinmn said:
Oh AND if you're getting a prime lens to use for indoor pictures, I would highly recommend the 35mm 1.8 lens unless you have a lot of space. I find for my indoor pics, a 50mm lens crops it way too tight and I have a lot more room to compose an image with my 35mm. FWIW. :)
Click to expand...

I second a 35mm or the Sigma 30mm. However, the 50mm is cheaper at $100 but it will be tighter on the Canon t3i that you are looking at. I have a full frame camera so the 50 is perfect.
 
AmberK said:
I KNEW you were going to say that! LOL. I had the 50 mm 1.8 and really did like the pics it took. But was just really lazy and did find that in tight spaces I couldnt get the picture I wanted with the 50 mm.

ok so here is another question- if you were going to say, Disneyworld, what type of lens would you use there?
Click to expand...

Now for disneyland, I would get the zoom lens. You'll be outdoor most of the time and use flash indoors. I suggest the 18-135 in that case so that you can zoom in on closer shots of faraway stuff. That type of zoom lens is perfect as a walkaround lens.
 
I definitely dont understand the difference between full frame cameras and crop sensor cameras. Wish I could also understand all of the technical mumbo jumbo.
 
Outside or at my parents house, with their walls of windows and lots of lovely natural Florida sunlight flooding the place, I use my 18-55 kit lens most of the time. Inside in my own dark hovel that sees direct sunlight for 18 minutes a day from November through March, I use my 35mm prime lens.

But here's the thing about the prime lens & it's wonderful f1.8 - it's so picky about what it focuses on at that focal length, or at 2.2 or 3. I need those f stops to deal with the low light but I have to be clear across the room to get both my kids in focus doing something sometimes & then crop it later in Lightroom.

I have to spend a lot more time thinking about focus with the prime lens than I do with the 18-55, but depending on light levels I have to think more about lighting with the 18-55mm than I do with the 35mm.

I have a Light Scoop I attach to my built in flash & that seems to help with the 18-55 lens..
 
I got my 50mm prime lens about a month after I got my camera. I put it on my camera, forced myself to learn manual and forgot my kit lens even existed, lol. I'd say like ... 2 years later, I put my kit lens back on. I mean - I understood my camera now. Surely I could get decent pics out of it. I put it on, got all the settings right (even used my lightscoop to get good lighting) and took a couple pics. The quality of them were SO nasty that I all but threw away the lens!! They were grainy and of such low quality that I didn't even keep the photos. It was better to take a shot (without the zoom) on my 50mm, and just crop in close if I needed - it was much better quality!!

So that's been my experience - it's a "meh" lens that I doubt I will ever use again. Inside shots, I have a 28mm prime. And for right now, anything farther away I use my 50mm prime while I save up for an 85mm, or possibly 100mm prime :)

There are some great zoom lenses that are affordable (ish lol) - but I've found that unless the fstop goes down below ... oh around 3, then it's not a lens I want. I prefer to keep my fstop around 2.8 to 3.2, so I need a lens that can get that :) If it says 4.5 as it's fstop (or around there) I won't even think about getting it :)
 
Im thinking of just going for the T4i with the kit lens and the 55-200 for now. I will use the kit lens for everyday pics of my boys until I have more money for a prime lens. Then will get that and learns to use it and learn manual. :)
 
navaja77 said:
Here's an old photo of mine during Christmas with my 18-55 kit lens. There is good light but my aperture is not high enough. I also shot in auto which is compensating by lowering my shutter speed.
7646446186_c23524fe63_z.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL, that's what 75% of my indoor photos look like right now! I have a micro four thirds camera with the kit lens (14-42 mm, f3.5-5.6) and a further zoom (40-150 mm, f 4.0-5.6) When I bought the camera I didn't understand what the f-stop numbers meant and thought based on the zooms that that would be it, I'd be covered for lenses for all situations. Only 3 months later, I've started saving for a prime lens. Unfortunately, micro four thirds lenses seem to be a lot more expensive than dSLR lenses. (A lens somewhere between 25 and 35 mm with an f stop under 2 runs $300-500.)

With my camera, there was no choice of kit lens. The second lens was a great deal ($100) when purchased with the camera. I'm not sorry I added the 2nd zoom lens, because for outdoor activities like the playground and sports it's that or nothing for me. I won't be able to afford 2 good prime lenses or a prime and a better zoom, and I've gotten some good shots with the 40-150 zoom. Missed a lot too, of course. So I think in part the question of which kit to buy depends on what you think you'll be able to purchase later.
 
AmberK said:
Im thinking of just going for the T4i with the kit lens and the 55-200 for now. I will use the kit lens for everyday pics of my boys until I have more money for a prime lens. Then will get that and learns to use it and learn manual. :)
Click to expand...

The Canon 50mm 1.8 is only $100. If you can, get the body by itself, buy the 50mm separately and then save up money to buy a zoom lens that's better for low light. For example, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has the equivalent zoom factor that the 18-55mm does but you can keep it at 2.8. Your aperture isn't variable. You can usually find a used one online for about $300. I had the Tamron and loved it. Sadly, I had to sell it when I got my Canon 5d. It wasn't compatible with the full frame.
 
Last edited:
I am another 50 mm prime lover. BUT I will say that I need to get a zoom, like desperately. I too hate zooming with my feet all the time. And it isn't just that - there are times when you are in a tight space and you want to take a picture of more than 2 people, and a 50 just makes it pretty impossible. It is the perfect portrait lens though. Of course if I had a grand to spare I'd grab a really nice fixed aperture zoom, but that isn't happening. I think that if you are looking for convenience with it, I'd go ahead and get the kit lens. If you are going to shoot manually, you can do it, just takes more adjustment if you zoom. If you have a flash then you will have enough light. I agree the pics won't be as awesome, but sometimes that doesn't matter as long as you can get the shot.
 
navaja77 said:
The Canon 50mm 1.8 is only $100. If you can, get the body by itself, buy the 50mm separately and then save up money to buy a zoom lens that's better for low light. For example, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has the equivalent zoom factor that the 18-55mm does but you can keep it at 2.8. Your aperture isn't variable. You can usually find a used one online for about $300. I had the Tamron and loved it. Sadly, I had to sell it when I got my Canon 5d. It wasn't compatible with the full frame.
Click to expand...

This was my plan for a very long time and then at the last minute I went with the 28mm and decided to save for a 85/100mm. I'm a little bummed I didn't get the Tamron lens, but I think once I finally have a bigger mm lens, I'll be okay with it :)
 
Jen22 said:
This was my plan for a very long time and then at the last minute I went with the 28mm and decided to save for a 85/100mm. I'm a little bummed I didn't get the Tamron lens, but I think once I finally have a bigger mm lens, I'll be okay with it :)
Click to expand...

I'm wanting the 85 or 100mm as well. I haven't really wanted a zoom lens except for the 70-200 but that one is gonna take a long time to save for!
 
If you can buy the body only...get that and the 50mm lens. Then buy a used zoom lens if you HAVE to have one. I am sure you can find a million o them out there from people who bought the package deal!! Even your everyday photos deserve to be not grainy and well exposed! There is a reason they practically give those kit lenses away...they are cheap and they expect you to want to upgrade and they make more $$$.
 
I love my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens. It's got a fixed aperture (meaning that the maximum opening doesn't change with focal length). I found myself shooting at f/2.8 with my nifty 50 all the time anyway, and I haven't pulled out my 50 since I got it.

If you felt your 50mm was too zoomed in inside, then the 50-200 will be just as zoomed in if not more. I love having the wider angles for inside as my kids are running at me. I got mine used at a really reasonable price.
 
Does Tamron make the 50 mm lenses?

Oh and I just looked- the body only is $599 and the body plus the 18-55 mm lens is the same stinkin price. I guess I will do it with the kit lens since my husband will use this camera and doesnt want the prime lens.

And Megan- the 50-200 is more for outside shots for the kids at sporting events things like that. :)
 
Last edited:
AmberK said:
Does Tamron make the 50 mm lenses?
Click to expand...

No they don't. Tamron typically has only zoom lens. The 17-50 2.8 and 28-75 2.8 are the one that people typically buy.

AmberK said:
Oh and I just looked- the body only is $599 and the body plus the 18-55 mm lens is the same stinkin price:). I guess I will do it with the kit lens since my husband will use this camera and doesnt want the prime lens.
Click to expand...

I think the body with kit lens is $100 more (just checked amazon). The body is $599. The Canon 50 1.8 is about $100. It's the least expensive prime lens that you can get.
 
That went up since yesterday or because it was showing the same price for the body and the body+kit lens.

navaja77 said:
I think the body with kit lens is $100 more (just checked amazon). The body is $599. The Canon 50 1.8 is about $100. It's the least expensive prime lens that you can get.
Click to expand...
 
ok so here is another question. If I go body only and skip the kit lens would it be better to just go ahead and get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and not mess with the 50 mm?
 
AmberK said:
ok so here is another question. If I go body only and skip the kit lens would it be better to just go ahead and get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and not mess with the 50 mm?
Click to expand...

This would be my vote - to go with a low aperture zoom lens. Since you already know you didn't like "zooming with your feet" I think you'd be really really unhappy with only the 50mm and you need a zoom that will work indoors if you don't want a prime lens.
 
Oh, and just so you know, the Tamron lens are heavier than the Canon 50mm. It may not matter but it will make the camera plus lens alot heavier to hold. I rented the 28-75 and realized how heavy it was. The 17-50 is lighter but still heavier than the 50mm.

But, if you really don't like zooming with your feet, then definitely get the Tamron zoom lens :)
 
I agree about getting the Tamron zoom lens. It will be what I get if I ever decide to add a non-prime lens to my collection :) I'm not sure which one you should choose - I suppose the cheaper one maybe ... I'd probably go with the 28-75 - that way I'd be able to zoom farther (50mm isn't far enough for me - that's why I'm saving up for the 85 to 100mm lens).
 
You know, I was pretty impressed with the photos that my DH took at a school concert this evening with the kit 55-200. He was all the way in the back of the auditorium and let me tell you, I was impressed! But he's got experience using SLR cameras. I'm sure he'll eventually want a better lens, but I'm pretty happy that we got that lens now. As much as we would like more and better lenses, we had to really think about what we could afford. Meanwhile, I am learning A LOT about the variety of lenses available and their quality from this thread, so I am going to go back to munching popcorn and listening now. :)
 
Okay so I have a question, I currently have the very first SDR that Canon made the Rebel. I am looking to upgrade do I go with the T4i or a different model, I already have the 18x55 kit lens and the 75-300 lens, I want to just get a body and then a good lens to go with it for inside shots.
 
livyryan said:
Okay so I have a question, I currently have the very first SDR that Canon made the Rebel. I am looking to upgrade do I go with the T4i or a different model, I already have the 18x55 kit lens and the 75-300 lens, I want to just get a body and then a good lens to go with it for inside shots.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you want from the camera and your intended use. The T4i is more than capable for everyday photos and such. It's small and easier to carry. I'm not too familiar with it though so hopefully T4i users chime in.

I myself outgrew my Rebel and now have a Canon 5d classic but again, it fits my needs. My next planned upgrade is to get a 5d Mark ii or Mark iii. Photography is my passion and I'm always learning new things so that's why I want to upgrade.
 
I havent used the T4i so I cant comment on how different it is than my Rebel Xsi. I do know that it has video mode and a flip out screen. I also had an original DRebel and the screen on that this was sooo teeny tiny. The newer models have AMAZING viewing screens. Right now, Amazon has the T4i body for $599 which is an excellent price.
 
Well I ended up getting a T4i, with an 18x55 kit lens for 599 then got a rebate to get the 55x200 lens for 100 instead of 255, then I got a nifty 50mm on its way to me now, should be on my front step when I get home, so excited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2026 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top