[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

as for it's full capacity, it's maxed out on anything over 10-12 megapixels, however, if by capacity, you mean the shooters abilities, that's a different story.

I've had experience with that same kit lens and it almost put me off photography altogether.

Once i replaced it with something similar, everything changed, I went from throwing out about 60% of my pictures to throwing out maybe 20% after getting rid of it. it's a nightmare.

this is why i buy body only, i will never touch another kit lens again.

Yeah, I hear you, there's a reason all my lenses are L-series and I've got three times as much invested in lenses as bodies.

Here, I was talking about the shooter.

Dave

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Yeah, I hear you, there's a reason all my lenses are L-series and I've got three times as much invested in lenses as bodies.

Here, I was talking about the shooter.

Dave

cool, just wanted to clarify...

I'm in the same boat.... My cameras don't mean much next to my lenses as the majority are L series as well. It makes a world of difference. And lenses also show the weaknesses in camera bodies when you have a good lens.

I'm not too happy with how my 7D is shooting at 100ISO when compared to my 5D at even 400ISO, i'm thinking of sending it to canon for calibration. Something is up.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

...

I'm not too happy with how my 7D is shooting at 100ISO when compared to my 5D at even 400ISO, i'm thinking of sending it to canon for calibration. Something is up.

Take an image at ISO 100-800 with the 7D and take the same image with the 5D and same lens, now crop the 7D image 50% and crop the 5D image so that it's equivalent subject size. The 7D's image details will blow away the 5D. That's due to pixel-pitch more suited for details vs. noise.

I own the 5D2 and the 7D. I use the 5D2 whenever the subject will fill the frame and require little, if any, cropping. (Like scenics, street shooting, etc.). I use the 7D for wild-life, or whenever significant cropping is likely, even with 700mm worth of lens and TCs. I consider them different tools for different jobs.

Dave

[kred]

Originally Posted by dcstep

You're not listening.

There are a few pros here, but most of us do photography for fun. If your objective is to make good images, then you need to be self-critical and set goals for yourself. Seek honest criticism from more experienced photographers and strive for continuous improvement.

You're on a path, but you're only at the beginning. You said it about your editing, but it applies to everything that you do. Next time, grab the Crop tool, not the Saturation slider.

Why don't you reprocess the best of your GT3 images, but by cropping, getting contrast and color right and give us something stronger? Right now, you could buy a 50/1.8 and take just as bad an image as you do with your "kit" lens.

If you must buy a new lens, then cover some new territory, like a 70-200mm.

Dave

you can't give up can you? it was a FUN picture stop being so damn critical. the whole sarcastic "kit" lens thing you do is comical. i have about 6 different copies of that same photo that i edited in post..some cropped close, one black and white, and the saturation one you seem to love to hate, etc. being a beginner i am doing nothing but listening to people critique my photos but the GT3 picture was not intended to do so. i don't need to give you anything stronger because it was a stupid, silly edited picture that you can't seem to understand.

your so called "help" is not cutting it and is rather annoying. you think that because i am a beginner that i don't know anything. most likely you are judging by my flickr..which consists of about a whopping 8 or so images i've put together out of hundreds i have saved in iPhoto.

you're doing more harm than good but that's probably too hard to get through your thick skull.

[The1]

Originally Posted by kred

you can't give up can you? it was a FUN picture stop being so damn critical. the whole sarcastic "kit" lens thing you do is comical. i have about 6 different copies of that same photo that i edited in post..some cropped close, one black and white, and the saturation one you seem to love to hate, etc. being a beginner i am doing nothing but listening to people critique my photos but the GT3 picture was not intended to do so. i don't need to give you anything stronger because it was a stupid, silly edited picture that you can't seem to understand.

your so called "help" is not cutting it and is rather annoying. you think that because i am a beginner that i don't know anything. most likely you are judging by my flickr..which consists of about a whopping 8 or so images i've put together out of hundreds i have saved in iPhoto.

you're doing more harm than good but that's probably too hard to get through your thick skull.

he's trying to help you, not insult you.

when you say stuff like that back to people who are trying to help, you will alienate people on the boards and receive less and less help in the long run, if you don't like something someone says, ignor it and move on. but when you attack people for trying to help, "help" will be the last thing you get from people when you ask for it again.

[kred]

Originally Posted by The1

he's trying to help you, not insult you.

when you say stuff like that back to people who are trying to help, you will alienate people on the boards and receive less and less help in the long run, if you don't like something someone says, ignor it and move on. but when you attack people for trying to help, "help" will be the last thing you get from people when you ask for it again.

i know and i realize that. in all honesty, i feel like he isn't giving me the benefit of the doubt and is coming to conclusions far too quickly even after i explain myself over and over again.

[Chewy734]

If there is one thing you've learned from this conversation... I hope that it's that everyone's "go-to lens" is different because of what we shoot, our style, etc. Personally I've been using the 17-40mm f/4L, but I'm hoping to upgrade to the 24-70mm f/2.8L for a little more reach.

It all depends on what you shoot, how heavy of a lens you want to carry around, lighting conditions, affordability, etc. There are many factors you have to consider. If you can give us more info about the kind of uses you want out of it, price-range, etc then perhaps we can help you more in choosing appropriate lens(es) for you.

This is why I asked that question last time... Dave is right, "because it's a kit lens" isn't a good enough reason, imo (unless you have money to waste). There must be something you want that's missing with that lens (e.g. creamier bokeh, more reach, wider angle, more IQ, better low-light capabilities, etc).

[M_Six]

<Psst, hey kred, whatever you do, don't post a selective color shot. Prof. Rodi will be on you like one of DC's hawks.>

[The1]

Originally Posted by M_Six

<Psst, hey kred, whatever you do, don't post a selective color shot. Prof. Rodi will be on you like one of DC's hawks.>

lol, all i could picture while i was reading this was Elmer Fudd hunting for wabbits.


Kred what's your price range? do you want image stablization or not? and are you satisfied with the shots you're getting with the kit lens?

if you can answer all of those, it should give us a good indicator.

[kred]

Originally Posted by The1

lol, all i could picture while i was reading this was Elmer Fudd hunting for wabbits.


Kred what's your price range? do you want image stablization or not? and are you satisfied with the shots you're getting with the kit lens?

if you can answer all of those, it should give us a good indicator.

sub-500 for now. after narrowing down after literally hours of research in the past couple days i think at this point in time i'll either purchase a canon 28mm 1.8 or a sigma 30mm 1.4. from reviews i have read, people that get good sigmas (guess they sometimes turn out bad?) have sharper images than the canon. the sigma is also a little bit cheaper and comes with a lens hood.
i've also looked at the canon 50mm 1.8 and even the 1.4 (nifty fifty) but am a little worried about the closeness it can bring to portraits on a 1.6X sensor.

the next lens i would consider purchasing after that would be the canon 70-200 f4L. for the price of this L lens and the versatility it would be a great piece of glass to have.

[The1]

set your 17-55 at 50mm for a day and at 30mm for a day and see which one feels more comfortable for you.

yes, the 50 can seem a little "close" sometimes, but it's still a very usable range on the crop body. and if things get a little close, all you have to do is take 3 steps back if room permits.

the opposite can be the case with a 28-30mm lens, however, at lease with those you can crop to get the zoom you want. but it's better to just step forward and use the whole frame.


one more consideration, depending on what generation you are from, if you grew up using film, you might be more comfortable with a 28 or 30mm as they would be close to equivilent of what a 50mm was on a FF or film camera of days gone by. Might just feel more natureal.

[leemik]

Originally Posted by kred

sub-500 for now. after narrowing down after literally hours of research in the past couple days i think at this point in time i'll either purchase a canon 28mm 1.8 or a sigma 30mm 1.4. from reviews i have read, people that get good sigmas (guess they sometimes turn out bad?) have sharper images than the canon. the sigma is also a little bit cheaper and comes with a lens hood.
i've also looked at the canon 50mm 1.8 and even the 1.4 (nifty fifty) but am a little worried about the closeness it can bring to portraits on a 1.6X sensor.

the next lens i would consider purchasing after that would be the canon 70-200 f4L. for the price of this L lens and the versatility it would be a great piece of glass to have.

well since you still have the 18-55 you can just test out all the focal lengths yourself to see which one you are most comfortable with in a prime before U buy

EDIT: DOH The1 pretty much said the same thing =P

[InCityPhoto]

If you are going to go with the 10-22, I suggest getting the Tokina for Value / Quality.

For a everyday lens the 70-200 2.8 is something I use almost every time I turn my camera on.

[The1]

Originally Posted by InCityPhoto

For a everyday lens the 70-200 2.8 is something I use almost every time I turn my camera on.

Incredible lens, but sadly beyond what he was asking for price range.

[inabis]

Wow, people really defend their lens choices. Here's what's in my bag now (all Canon):

10-22
50 1.4
24-70L

Before I bought my L lens, I used the 50 1.4 the most. I was in the same boat as you before (I had an Xsi) but felt the kit lens was too slow and didn't give me enough bokeh. I bought a used 18-200mm (kit lens for the 50D-7D) but I had the same issues. The 50 1.4 solved that for me but it didn't have any zoom which kinda sucked.

I ended up selling my kit lens and the 18-200mm, saved for a while and got a 24-70L. The jump in image quality from the L lenses is phenomenal. The 24-70L and the 70-200L are both amazing lenses.


If you don't mind buying used, check Craigslist and here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

^I bought my Xsi and lenses from there. Same forum rules when buying!

The only advice I'll give you is pay the difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8, I think it's worth it. The 1.8 is made of cheaper materials and a lot of people have had them fall apart. The 1.4 is a great lens, if you buy it you'll probably end up keeping it. Low light conditions never go away

[adrean8j]

Originally Posted by InCityPhoto

If you are going to go with the 10-22, I suggest getting the Tokina for Value / Quality.

For a everyday lens the 70-200 2.8 is something I use almost every time I turn my camera on.

Tokina makes a 10-22? I know many reviews have said that the Tokina 11-16 is the best wideangle out there for APS-C Canons....gonna be my next lens in a few months.

Originally Posted by inabis

The only advice I'll give you is pay the difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8, I think it's worth it. The 1.8 is made of cheaper materials and a lot of people have had them fall apart. The 1.4 is a great lens, if you buy it you'll probably end up keeping it. Low light conditions never go away

I wonder about that....if a lot of people had them falling apart then they weren't taking car of their equipment IMHO...BTW Adorama (great place for kit BTW...took six days to get me stuff to Iraq of all places) did a comparison of nifty-fifty's and found that the 1.4 and 1.2's actually performed BELOW the 1.8......just food for thought...and there are various reasons given as to why it is happening....here is a link to the review: http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.a...out-f18-or-f14

[M_Six]

The Tokina is supposedly an awesome lens (never tried one), but good luck finding one. The 10-22 is a tad older, but it's more readily available and is a damn fine lens itself.

My "dream team" is as follows:

10-22mm
24-70mm f2.8 L
70-200mm f4 L

Plus my two primes. It's doable.

[adrean8j]

^^^I got you Mark...I was just confused as he mentioned a Tokina 10-22? I know Canon makes one, but Tokina?


Marc

[bosstones]

I love my 10-22. It was actually my walk-around lens since I tend to shoot wide most of the time (it's my thang/style, I suppose). Now it's my 16-35 since I'm full frame.

I just got back from a wedding in SF. I pretty much walked around w/:
1. 16-35 f2.8
2. 24-105 f4
3. 70-200 f2.8

I occasionally switched in a 85 f1.8 in lieu of the 24-105. I still used the 16-35 most of the time, though.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by kred

i know and i realize that. in all honesty, i feel like he isn't giving me the benefit of the doubt and is coming to conclusions far too quickly even after i explain myself over and over again.

Poor thing.

Go ahead, blow your money.