Rebel With a Lens

Anouilh

I have spent the last year learning how to use the Canon EOS 400d (Digital Rebel). The kit lens is one of the most negatively reviewed piece of photographic equipment I have ever come across and I now wonder if it may not be time to rehabilitate this light and easy to use lens?

Taking into account that I am an amateur whose idea of image perfection is anything clearer than a bw print out of a Kodak Brownie, I think this is a useful lens for flower macros, especially if you use a 4+ diopter. It takes a bit of study, but I have managed to take some photos that are quite good and one even got into the Flickr Explore rank.

Knowing what the strengths and weaknesses of one's lenses are seems to be the first step in becoming a more serious photographer.

This review is clear and explains the technical details of the EFS 18-50mm:

http://www.camerahacker.com/Canon/18-55mm.shtml

Does anybody else here use this lens and do they have tips on how to get the best out of it?
I don't know if it is good for portraits as I have not taken many and tend to be quite happy with simple mug shots.

challengemaster

It's not the kit that makes the photos good

It's the photographer

having good kit aids photographic skill, but isn't the sole reason for a good image

kgiller

challengemaster wrote: »

It's not the kit that makes the photos good

It's the photographer

having good kit aids photographic skill, but isn't the sole reason for a good image

Agree and disagree there. I have very little kit, and as such have to use the 18-55 kit lens a lot on the 400D. And i have to say that i i had a better lens, my pics would be far better. It just doesnt produce good image quality, except for the odd occassion, given the right circumstances.

Anouilh

(for Challengemaster)

That attitude always makes me laugh.
I know the theoretical situation where having a "good eye" is what makes a good photographer. However, I do think that equipment is important and that is why I posed the question.

When I started getting help on the internet from some excellent photographers, it was suggested that I should "feel" the subject. Frankly, at midnight in my bedroom, wielding a diopter filtered lens under tungsten lighting while I tried to capture the catkins on a Garrya elliptica was a moment of pain rather than any other feeling. Crawling round with a tripod causes knee cramps. I'm beginning to think I'm not the "feeling"type...

BTW Garrya is in full grandeur in Irish gardens at the moment and is a fabulous subject, if you look up close.

Ricky91t

kgiller wrote: »

Agree and disagree there. I have very little kit, and as such have to use the 18-55 kit lens a lot on the 400D. And i have to say that i i had a better lens, my pics would be far better. It just doesnt produce good image quality, except for the odd occassion, given the right circumstances.

Yeah but thats more the technical side of an image?Sharpness etc?

Only the photographer can improve his/her photos the camera is only there to capture them

A better lens may give a better DOF or nicer sharpness but its nothing that can be touched up in photoshop if you really feel your lens is letting you down

But it can't really produce a better image thats all down to how the learns about perspective and different angles to take shots at

Thats my two cents :pac:

Anouilh

kgiller wrote: »

It just doesnt produce good image quality, except for the odd occasion, given the right circumstances.

Describing what these circumstances are would help everybody improve work when using this lens. I got some nice shots of the winter sea around Dublin last January. However using a tripod helps to sharpen the image considerably. The ongoing criticism that this is a "soft" lens is constantly repeated.

Ricky91t

Anouilh wrote: »

(for Challengemaster)

That attitude always makes me laugh.
I know the theoretical situation where having a "good eye" is what makes a good photographer. However, I do think that equipment is important and that is why I posed the question.

When I started getting help on the internet from some excellent photographers, it was suggested that I should "feel" the subject. Frankly, at midnight in my bedroom, wielding a diopter filtered lens under tungsten lighting while I tried to capture the catkins on a Garrya elliptica was a moment of pain rather than any other feeling. Crawling round with a tripod causes knee cramps. I'm beginning to think I'm not the "feeling"type...

BTW Garrya is in full grandeur in Irish gardens at the moment and is a fabulous subject, if you look up close.

Cameras can only help so much,you could have €10,000 worth of gear but if you havn't got a clue about how to take photos your images will just be those kind of "point and shoot" photos you took when you first got interested in photography

Anouilh

Ricky91t wrote: »

Yeah but thats more the technical side of an image?Sharpness etc?

Only the photographer can improve his/her photos the camera is only there to capture them

A better lens may give a better DOF or nicer sharpness but its nothing that can be touched up in photoshop if you really feel your lens is letting you down

But it can't really produce a better image thats all down to how the learns about perspective and different angles to take shots at

Thats my two cents :pac:

Definitely there is technique and photographic expertise, which is separate from the equipment.

Basically, I thought that by focusing a bit on how to use a lens to the best of its capabilities might be a useful discussion.

Doubtless it has been done many times before, but since there are newcomers every day to the Forum, it might be worth bringing this sort of topic up again?

challengemaster

My first time in Charleville, I went with a 400D, 18-55 and 70-300.
I have A3 prints framed in my room of shots I got then that I was really, really pleased with.

I was back in charleville again recently with 400D, battery grip, 24-70L and 70-200L. I got a good few shots I was very happy with, maybe one or two I'd consider printing. It wasn't the new kit that made the pics any better. It was what I'd learned in the year (and a bit) between the trips, in my opinion.

My Poolbeg lighthouse shot, possibly the best photo I've taken, was on my 400D with 24-70L. Was it because of the 24-70L that it's the best photo I've taken? I don't really think so. I spent that week taking pics with Fajitas, and it was one of the most productive weeks ever for photography. I'd put it down to what I learned from him and when the oppertunity for that shot presented itself, I was able to get it.

Here's the camera settings..

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Exposure: 0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture: f/7.1
Focal Length: 32 mm
ISO Speed: 100

Nothing there that wouldn't have been able on my 18-55. I wasn't shooting at f/2.8

Anouilh

challengemaster wrote: »

It wasn't the new kit that made the pics any better. It was what I'd learned in the year (and a bit) between the trips, in my opinion./2.8

That is the sort of alarming admission that prevents me from buying another lens...

challengemaster

Anouilh wrote: »

That is the sort of alarming admission that prevents me from buying another lens...

When you find that your current gear is limiting your photography, that's the time to buy new lenses.

Ricky91t

Anouilh wrote: »

Definitely there is technique and photographic expertise, which is separate from the equipment.

Basically, I thought that by focusing a bit on how to use a lens to the best of its capabilities might be a useful discussion.

Doubtless it has been done many times before, but since there are newcomers every day to the Forum, it might be worth bringing this sort of topic up again?

It will be handy for newbies but when alot of people begin photography the kit lens is quickly replaced by a more specific lens or the 50mm f/1.8.So although it may be handy people just seem to move away from the kits lens soon after getting a DSLR

Anouilh

Ricky91t wrote: »

A better lens may give a better DOF or nicer sharpness but its nothing that can be touched up in photoshop if you really feel your lens is letting you down

This would make an excellent new thread.
Rescuing images is an important part of the learning curve.

For anybody who has bought the Digital Rebel,
this is a very helpful review, with technical details clearly explained.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xt-review/

Many people do not get the best out of their digital cameras because they fail to investigate the menu possibilities.

Although it is presented as a hobbyist's starter camera, I think it is very good.

ThOnda

The kit lense is given into the box with new camera just for those people, who don't know. The lense is brilliant that it offers good range of focal lengths and allows everybody to learn and reach the limits of the lense.
It could be focal range, aperture, image quality, bookeh, distorsion, vignetting...
You should know after reaching some point in the lense life, that there is a time for another lense. But on the other hand, 50/1.8 is always the lense to get to at least see the difference in image quality and to begin thinking if the kit lense would allow you to capture the picture you would like to produce.

Anouilh

Everybody seems to think that the 50mm f1.8 is the next step. However, I wonder if something with a bit of zoom might not do just as well. Everything I would really like seems to start at 1000 Euro. However I did get a Sigma 70-300 dg apo macro and like it very well.

I started with the idea of photographing flowers and trees, but it seems that the camera has taken over...

ThOnda

If you know what would you like to capture and what would you need for that - even better! If you know, that you would use longer lenses, zooms included, that would be completely different discussion. Not "what lense", but "which of theses lenses". (But the nifty for the money is just steal.)

Calina

Ah, the much maligned 18-55mm kit of the 350D and 400D. I had one once, but sold it on with the now regretted 350D.

Lens behaved really nicely for me; could never understand the generalised whinging about its quality. It's lovely at f8 if you can get the light to play with at that aperture or have a tripod handy to avoid having to hand hold longish exposures.

I would, however, say, that the first step in becoming a more serious photographer has little to do with the mass of metal and plastic in your hands and a lot more with knowing what you want to achieve as an end product.

In terms of deciding what lenses to buy, the 50mm was the most recent lens purchase, and it was bought for specific purposes. I don't believe in buying lenses for the sake of buying lenses - every single lens I ever bought was because I had created a shot in my head for it that I could not use any of the lenses I already owned for.

If you can't justify a lens or equipment purchase in terms of the photographs you know you're going to take with it, then I am not sure there is any real justification for said purchase.

Anouilh

I am in full agreement with these posts.

Apart from the expense, it's silly to buy equipment that one will not use.

I know that the 50mm will give very good bokeh and is excellent for portraits. The extra light admitted onto the sensor causes images to be clear and sharp. I just wonder that, if I'm not really interested in portraiture, it might be a bit of a luxury, even though it is not expensive.

I saw the documentary about Annie Leibovitz where she dances round in front of people with a prime lens almost brushing off the end of their noses. Truly scary.

sheesh

Anouilh wrote: »

I have spent the last year learning how to use the Canon EOS 400d (Digital Rebel). The kit lens is one of the most negatively reviewed piece of photographic equipment I have ever come across and I now wonder if it may not be time to rehabilitate this light and easy to use lens?

I'm really not sure about what is so wrong with this lens I took this picture with it


this is the most popular of my flickr pictures
yes it is slow but It is probably an ok lens the picture above was taken in blinding sunlight. I suppose you are restricted to well lit situations or failing that use a tripod or rest the camera on something for longer exposure.
it should be good enough for landscape and general photography.

if you want a fast cheap lens get a 'nifty 50' off the internet that will be good enough for alot of low light situations

basically with lenses speed with zoom costs alot most people starting out, like you and I, will have to compromise and go for prime lenses and 'zoom with you feet'
another good prime is the sigma 30 mm f1.4 new it costs about €400 but I have seen it second hand for around STG£200 so keep an eye out.

I love landscapes and nature when ever I get a chance gig photography. these can both be done with 50 mm f1.8.

kgiller

kgiller wrote:

Agree and disagree there. I have very little kit, and as such have to use the 18-55 kit lens a lot on the 400D. And i have to say that i i had a better lens, my pics would be far better. It just doesnt produce good image quality, except for the odd occassion, given the right circumstances.

Anouilh wrote:

That attitude always makes me laugh.
I know the theoretical situation where having a "good eye" is what makes a good photographer. However, I do think that equipment is important and that is why I posed the question.

Up until September I've been using the 18-55mm as the main lens on my 400D.I've used it for landscapes,macros,wildlife,portraits etc. and although it has it's limits I have absolutely no complaints with the lens.

People complain about the softness/quality of it but imo this isn't going to become apparent unless you print extremely large.Perhaps this is just an issue for people who are regularly doing exhibitions/large prints and need the extra detail at an increased size.However this is not going to be a major problem for most hobby photographers like myself.

I ended up upgrading to the Sigma 10-20 because 18mm just wasn't wide enough for me.Since getting the Sigma has the quality of my photography improved? God no! It's just opened up possibilities for different images because of the wider angle.My favourite photo(still not great,but my favourite),the one I submitted to the boards photo book was taken with a god damn point and shoot.This talk about kit improving the quality of your photography is ridiculous,all it does is open up new possibilities.

ThOnda

Remind me next time when you see me and we'll put the nifty on your camera to enjoy it. It is not only for portraits. It is wonderful walkaround lense.

kgiller

The 18-55mm does what it says on the tin. Its a good started kit lens. But in terms of sharpness/softness, colour, speed, autofocus etc ... i find it holds me back.

I completely agree with arguments about photographers being the main element of good photography in that sense. And i also agree with the comments about paying €€€ for lenses that you dont use or cant REALLY see the difference between.
BUT
I feel that there is a huge gap between the picture quality of the 18-55 and the next step up on the list, in sharpness, speed, reliability and so on.

Just my 2 cents

Fionn

the long haul of this is: peeps have too much fookin money and no wherewhital do do what they should be doing
which is
starving and living like a pauper etc..
photography is a elitist rich persons passtime
for a lot of peeps!!

Anouilh

If you read my posts carefully you will see that the reason I ask so many questions about gear is that I do not have money to burn.

ThOnda

I have spent more money on non-photography related education last year than on photography. And I prefered spending money on photography than on holidays.
Just talking (sober) for myself.

Anouilh

ThOnda wrote: »

Remind me next time when you see me and we'll put the nifty on your camera to enjoy it. It is not only for portraits. It is wonderful walkaround lense.

A thread with the best 50mm shots might be an idea?

I don't have any, but would be interested to see what is possible.

Anouilh

It may be worth mentioning that Canon improved the kit lens since I bought my camera. The most recent version has IS (image stabilization) and is considered to be a great improvement on what I bought.

Is it still the case that this lens is only available with the camera body and cannot be bought separately? By now, there must be quite a few available second-hand... useful for beginners.

Borderfox

Check here
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522

Anouilh

Excellent. Thank you.

TheNorthBank

kgiller wrote: »

BUT
I feel that there is a huge gap between the picture quality of the 18-55 and the next step up on the list, in sharpness, speed, reliability and so on.

Just my 2 cents

Out of curiosity, what is the next step up on the list? The 17-55 or 17-85 maybe?

Anouilh wrote: »

It may be worth mentioning that Canon improved the kit lens since I bought my camera. The most recent version has IS (image stabilization) and is considered to be a great improvement on what I bought.

Is it still the case that this lens is only available with the camera body and cannot be bought separately? By now, there must be quite a few available second-hand... useful for beginners.

When I bought my 400D last year I got it through my job (Canon related) so I was able to get the 60mm Macro lens with it, so obviousy I wanted to buy a cheap versitile everyday lens as well. I actually bought the IS version of the 18-55 in Argos so they're definately available to buy seperatly.