If I already have the 16-50 kit zoom lens, is there any reason to get this one also? That is, at 16mm is so this one wider angle or something?
208232
No, not really, however if you have any plans to buy the wide angle attachment ring, or the fish eye attachment ring, you must have the 16mm lens. They are made to compliment those add on lenses. If you need a lens to work a very small room, (or think booth), you will need that lens. The 16mm mounts with the regular "E" mount, while the wide angles fit on a special lip that only the 16 comes equiped with. Good shooting.
208233
No, this is not something wider, but brighter and compact. f/2.8 gives a brighter view and as a prime lens it has a lower distorsion characteristics than 16-50.
208234
The SEL16F28 is not any wider angle than the stock 16-50 zoom lens, but there are a few differences. First off, the lowest f-stop on the stock 16-50 lens is 3.5 while this SEL16F28 goes to an f-stop of 2.8, which gives you a bit more control of your light. Another key difference is that if you want to use the ultra-wide angle or fish-eye attachments (both of which give a wider angle view) they connect to this SEL16F28 lens and not the stock zoom one. The biggest difference is that shooting with a prime, or non-zoom, lens is that it forces you to shoot differently and move yourself into position rather than relying on the zoom to get you there. All the Best, adam The SEL16F28 is not any wider angle than the stock 16-50 zoom lens, but there are a few differences. First off, the lowest f-stop on the stock 16-50 lens is 3.5 while this SEL16F28 goes to an f-stop of 2.8, which gives you a bit more control of your light. Another key difference is that if you want to use the ultra-wide angle or fish-eye attachments (both of which give a wider angle view) they connect to this SEL16F28 lens and not the stock zoom one. The biggest difference is that shooting with a prime, or non-zoom, lens is that it forces you to shoot differently and move yourself into... » Read More The SEL16F28 is not any wider angle than the stock 16-50 zoom lens, but there are a few differences. First off, the lowest f-stop on the stock 16-50 lens is 3.5 while this SEL16F28 goes to an f-stop of 2.8, which gives you a bit more control of your light. Another key difference is that if you want to use the ultra-wide angle or fish-eye attachments (both of which give a wider angle view) they connect to this SEL16F28 lens and not the stock zoom one. The biggest difference is that shooting with a prime, or non-zoom, lens is that it forces you to shoot differently and move yourself into position rather than relying on the zoom to get you there. All the Best, adam « Show Less
208235
The SEL16F28 is not any wider angle than the stock 16-50 zoom lens, but there are a few differences. First off, the lowest f-stop on the stock 16-50 lens is 3.5 while this SEL16F28 goes to an f-stop of 2.8, which gives you a bit more control of your light. Another key difference is that if you want to use the ultra-wide angle or fish-eye attachments (both of which give a wider angle view) they connect to this SEL16F28 lens and not the stock zoom one. The biggest difference is that shooting with a prime, or non-zoom, lens is that it forces you to shoot differently and move yourself into position rather than relying on the zoom to get you there. All the Best, adam
1150477
Is there a zoom lens in approximately the 17-80mm range that has good result shooting hoops? I have tried several, the last being Tamron's 17-50mm F2.8, and the results were not that impressive. Had good results using Canon's 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8, but would like to find a wider angle zoom that can deliver.
648858
It will look like a 65mm on your camera. Because of the cropped sensor. It's all up to your personal preference if you want a medium/tight lens or a wide one.
608750
i don't understand your question. i'm guessing that you want to know which one is the best choice. the best one will depend on what you do. i got the 17-70 because i notice that most of my photos will be shoot at between 18 and 80mm. i didn't want to switch between the kit lenses all the time.. also i wanted a bigger lens diameter for holding filters. i notice that that 17-50 is 77mm when my 17-70 is only 72mm.
1371876
The cheaper lens is a 40-150mm, the more expensive is 14-150, allowing wide angle shots through to approx 10 x zoom. It minimises lens changeovers, there's a better chance of having the "right" lens on the camera at any time.
1284799
I don't know what the kit lens is. I use an Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and it's fine, even hand held to about 1/40s. Those with a steadier hand could probably do better than me
1131002
I think it would be great for that purpose. If you already have the 16-50 kit zoom, that will work just fine at the 16mm setting, but you may need to use a tripod. You can buy a dandy tripod for much, much less than the cost of the SEL16F28.
1820410
This lens is entirely different from the kit lens. And we don't know what kit lens you are talking about. Of the 40D? of the XT? I got the XT and the 40D. Both came with a 17?-55mm and a 28-135mm IS. The 50mm lens is a different lens all together because it doesn't zoom so you'll be doing a lot of moving back and forward with your feet. The nice thing about this lens is that pictures are RAZOR SHARP. I mean I've never seen pictures sharper than what this lens has produced. I bought 2 of these lenses because I really love the pictures they take. Also, this lens can take pictures in a dark room about 10 times as easy as the kit lens on the 40D or the XT. The f/1.8 is amazing. The color, the light, the picture sharpness = worth $70 by far. GET IT. :)
370552
Since this 16 is no really a wide angle lens you can go with the 18-55 but you will not be able to zoom with this lens. It is mostly a 16-18 in the housing, you can't go out to 50. Works great and you can even get good close ups.
1418844
> D40kit with 18-55 lens PLUS the 55-200 VR lens - 578.40Where did you get the above kit at this price? Thanks.
369534
Actually I have the same question... However, based on the reviews I have seen so far, I think I will go for the 18-135mm. Everybody recomends the good range that it provides, and buying it individually it becomes an expensive lens. On the other hand the 18-55mm will force the need for having an extra zoom.
583552
This zoom lens is 110% better than the kit zoom lens. Basically Canon L glass is the top of the line glass. The quality of the shots taken with L glass is amazing. The construction is second to none, it's built like a tank and lasts for over 20 years with proper care. The resale value is usually high because of their quality. This was my first L glass from Canon and I never looked back. I don't know which zoom lens your talking about, the 75-300,55-250 or 70-300mm. My first ever zoom lens was the 70-300mm I still use this lens even though i upgraded to the L glass just because of the extra 100mm reach. But the only real shots i take with the 70-300 are shots of the moon. Other than that it's the 70-200mm F4 for me.
1065199
I don't like the 50mm 1.4. I do have the 35mm 1.4 and I love this one much better.
282260
I use the 28mm for more of a wide angle shot. I would recommend the 50 for family portraits. They both have a good bokeh effect but I found the 50mm was sharper
1061952
Yes it is, I love my 17-40, I just wish it was f/2.8 but other than that is my go to lens. If I need to use only one lens for my camera is always this one. One difference is that I have a full frame camera (6D) so for a crop sensor camera like yours I will also look into the 10-22 one, if you ever plan to go for full frame camera then get this one. Hope this helps.
354391
Hi Richard Yes it is a wider lens and very sharp minimal distortion. I use it a lot for landscapes etc. it's very small and light and for the price I think it's worth it
1196709
I suppose it also really depends on what you budget is now vs later down the line. You really cannot go wrong with a kit lens - especially if you don't have any MAJOR plans for upgrading or spending too much more money down the line. However, I will forever speak highly of the 50mm and the 35mm. They're prime lenses, so they're not as user-friendly to somebody, if just starting - but in reality, that also teaches you more manual-techniques, while still being an amazing lens, in general. I might be bias, though, as I no long have a kit lens, and only primarily use my prime lenses. But, maybe that means something? That I've sold most of my other lenses, and truly use my 50mm & 35mm on a daily-basis, and more frequently than my other four lenses, combined. The Tamron Tom mentioned - it's a great lens. And with the price where it currently is, it's most cost-efficient, as well; considering all the GREAT use you'd get out of it. He also mentioned the 85mm - this is another lens I have, and I love it very much. I just do not have as much wiggle-room when it comes to distance-from-subject very often. If you do have that wiggle-room - I would also very much recommend the 85mm. So really, it depends on what you're wanting to do and spend; both now and in the long-run.