Help me in buying my first lens

[Alwaysramu]

Hi,

Help me in deciding my first lens.
I have decided to buy Canon 600d dslr.
It is available with two kit lenses...18-55mm and 18-135mm.
I leaned towards canon 18-135mm kit lens.
I gave a thought towards the price difference between
600d body only (Rs43000=~ 860 USD ) and
with 18-135mm kit lens (Rs64000=~1300 USD).

It was a difference of 440 USD.

I want to know if any other lens (third party lenses like sigma,tamaron etc)
around the price of 450 to 500 USD which are similar type zoom lenses
(18-135mm/200mm) are better than canon kit lens 18-135mm?
I use mostly for photography and little for videos.

I'm new to Dslr world. Help me decide . Thanks...

[MrMicah]

I think that the 'quality' of lenses is often determined by how 'fast' they are, in terms of the lowest 'f' stop rating. Under f 2.0 is 'fast', I think, which means it performs relatively well in low light. The f-stop ranges for the lenses would help people answer better, but I guess they are the standard Canon 'kit' lenses which some people on here may know.

Your choice of lens length is a bit dictated by the types of photos or video you want to take. If you take vista landscapes, a wider angle lens (less than 50mm) is probably useful. If you shoot sports from the 25th row of the stadium, the 200mm lens is going to be handy and you may want to go longer.

Zoom lenses on a DSLR (if used for photography) teach you discipline of setting the lens to a particular length and taking a photo at that length, after paying attention to composition, aperture, ISO etc. A 18-135 zoom should be thought of as having something like the equivalent of 5 seperate fixed length lenses (eg 18mm, 30mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm). I think its a good discipline even if they are used for video.

If you get a zoom like the 18-135, you might also consider a fixed length 'prime' lens. I think Canon has an affordable f1.8 50mm and a more expensive f1.4 50mm. The fixed length (or 'prime') lenses are usually 'dollar for dollar' better quality lenses than zoom lenses that cover the same focal length. (Once again depends on the type of things you want to shoot. A 50mm may be of no use to you if you are sitting in the stadium)

In 35mm film camera's (back to my brief flirtation with them as a boy), I think 50mm was considered a 'normal' lens, roughly equivalent to a human's field of vision. A 135mm was a classic 'portrait' lens, good for head and shoulders portraiture in a studio setting.

I seem to recall that both Tamron and Sigma made acceptable quality back then. I assume they are still OK as they are still in business. I was never a lens 'snob'.

A bit off topic of your query:

The 600D has smaller 'sensor size?' (APS-C format?) than a 35mm film camera, so a 50mm lens on the 600D is equivalent to something like an 85mm on a film camera (the experts can clarify if I got this conversion correct). Knowing this, it seems curious that the 50mm lens still seems to be thought of as the most essential 'prime' lens in the age of APS-C sensors etc, because it does not represent a 'normal' field of vision. But I guess the lenses can be used on full frame digital camera's and the legacy of 50mm being THE lens has carried over from film days.

This might mean that a 135mm lens on a 600D is a bigger zoom than used for portraits and a 18mm lense is not as wide a view as on a film camera. It also probably means that a 'normal' lense for a 600D is something closer to 35-40mm lens, not a 50mm lens. Once again, I'm sure the experts can improve on my superficial answer which is based on old fim knowledge very roughly converted to the digital world.

[Bif]

The 600D often comes with an 18-55mm "kit" lens, an inexpensive one that covers a "workhorse" wide angle to portrait perspective telephoto. All in all a most useful general purpose range.

The telephoto zoom range you might need could easily be covered by the inexpensive (under $300) EF-S 55-250mm f4 - f5.6.

Those two will give you a good "starter" kit. From there if you could afford it the EF 28mm f1.8 is an outstanding performer as a "normal" perspective lens and is my most used one for video. The EF 50mm f1.8 at around $125 or less is a "no brainer".

The 18-135 and longer are compromises in quality. I would look at what is described above.

Bruce Foreman

[cgbier]

From there if you could afford it the EF 28mm f1.8 is an outstanding performer as a "normal" perspective lens and is my most used one for video.

Oh, you are also a fan of the old Leica "40mm is normal" paradigm?

[cgbier]

Micah, 135mm is already too long for portraits. The standard was between 80-105. There's a lot of beautiful glass available in that segment.

[MrMicah]

Micah, 135mm is already too long for portraits. The standard was between 80-105. There's a lot of beautiful glass available in that segment.

Hmmmmm ... 105mm does ring a bell for portraits in my teflon coated memory ... I knew I was rusty. I'll brush up on my theory again as I'm keen to start taking more photo's and video's.

Michael.

[cgbier]

Yeah, you get a plethora of 105/2.8 lenses for about every mount. Most of them are also dubbed "macro". Therefore, these lens have a pretty flat field without distortion, and are very sharp.

[Janke]

I personally like my old Tamron 90 mm / f 2.5 - it's the sharpest lens I have, and it gives a nice bokeh, too.

They have a new, autofocus version of it, 90 mm / f 2.8, IIRC.