Digital Rebel Kit Vs. Body Only

[paulnj]

right you may be.......

but so is a 28-80 f3.5-f5.6 when compared to the lenses WE desire to own and use.

cheap and plasticy doesn't mean it will fall apart in NORMAL use ;)

In a perfect world we could all AFFORD to own a 16-35 L, 24-70 L, or a 70-200f2.8 L IS.... but some of us can't afford(nor do we need) a high quality L lens ;)

I do agree with your general assessment of this lens BTW, but was the image quality lacking in any way? having never even seen the 18-55 I have nothing to go on besides what others have said

hahaha. I am 1 closer to the 1000 post mark

[Dwimmerlaik]

Sean, are you talking about the 18-55mm kit lense, or the 28-80mm lense?

Is the 28-80mm a better lense?

Also, what do you think about this lense: Powershot.com EF 50mm F/1.8 II. The picture of the building on the page looks great.

[paulnj]

YOU WILL BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND A LENS SHARPER THAN THE 50F1.8 for under 8x that amount!!!!


the 50f1.8 OF CANON AND NIKON ARE AMAZING! I haven't used the others , so I can't comment on them

I do believe Sean was speaking of the 18-55 kit lens since he did own a Dreb before getting the 10D

[Michael Fanelli]

YOU WILL BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND A LENS SHARPER THAN THE 50F1.8 for under 8x that amount!!!!
the 50f1.8 OF CANON AND NIKON ARE AMAZING!

True but it's only useful if 50mm is a focal length you really and truly like to use.

[paulnj]

VERY good point Mike!!!!

50mm is a focal length I find BORING!!

but on a Dreb it becomes an 80mm which would be more appealing to my eye as a portrait/ people lens.

[yaronsh]

An 18-55 lens on a DSLR (assuming sensor size 1.6 times smaller than a 35mm frame) essentially gives you the *feel* of a 28-80 on a 35mm film cam.

28-80 is what people are generally used to on 35mm film cams. It's a decent general-purpose range, going from mild wide-angle to mild telephoto. P&S film cams used to be around that range; now they usually go longer (e.g., 28-135). The film Rebels come with a 28-80 or 28-90 lens. DP&S cams try to mimic that range.

So, the 18-55 kit lens basically gets you started with a decent-performing lens that gives you a feel that you're probably used to. If you put a 28-80 lens on a DSLR, you lose the wide angle and would probably find yourself wishing for it.

Besides, there's nothing really special about the Canon 28-80 lens. If you go for a non-kit lens, you might as well go for a longer/better one.

- Yaron

[Sean Dempsey]

I was referring to the 18-55

The pictures were noticably below what I wanted, others might not notice. I got the 17-40L to replace it /shrug.

It just figure unless you are absolutley saving every penny to get this camera and lens, why bother with a 80 dollar zoom? It is NOT a 50mm 1.8 II, costs are similar, but that's it.

I look at the lens as the cheapest zoom canon could provide. They would have packaged the Rebel with a 50mm 1.8, but they they'd lose the market of people who want to be able to "zooooooooom" their way to photographic bliss.

There's nothing wrong with the lens, it performs and acts just like it is supposed to. The question was asked "kit or body", and I cast my vote for body. Plus, I always assume that if someone is prepared to spend 600 dollars on a camera body, saving a few more Jacksons won't hurt them, the poverty stricken rarely enter the DSLR market =D I am not saying to buy L glass from 12 to 600mm, but a wise man once told me "always spend more on your glass than on your body". An image sensor only detects what you put in front of it.

[paulnj]

RIGHT YOU ARE !!!!! BODY plus a BETTER lens would be my route too,
though the buyer can always upgrade from the 18-55 with LESS $$ loss in the resale than with the generic 28-80 ;)

and thanks for the clarification on the issues with said lens