Please tell me if this 1 more expensive lens could be used to obtain the similar quality images than 3 less expensive lenses that I am looking at -- 35mm prime f/2.4, 50mm prime f/1.8, the kit 18-55mm lens. I am on a budget and new to SLRs...thanks in...
306198
All of these are on the low-end of lenses and so I don't know if you'll see an appreciable difference in image quality, especially on a budget (D)SLR. The most direct comparison that can be made is to the kit lens. Assuming you've already decided that a zoom lens is necessary, both will have similar image quality, but the advantage of this model is that the widest aperture does not change with zoom - it will stay at f/2.8 over the entire length. Moreover, this has a wider maximum aperture than the kit, enabling for shallower depth of field and more light reaching the sensor. The question becomes, are these aspects necessary/important to you? If image quality is more important than the ability to zoom, then, in general, prime lenses tend to produce sharper images than budget zoom lenses.
1927445
Jen, I don't recommend this lens. I owned it for a short while when I was new to photography, and was disappointed with its IQ. Zoom lenses that cover this long of a focal length generally sacrifice image integrity to do so. This lens was no exception with heavy barrel distortion on the wide end, and it was very soft when zoomed even when stopped down. I would recommend getting a lens that does less, but does it better. This lens would not be any better than your kit lens. I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for its value and IQ.
1818662
Or the 35mm F1.8 AF-S which is closer in price to this lens. (I have the 35mm and its fantastic for what that is worth).
840152
Thank you guys, really appreciate you help. I was in confused state in selecting sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 macro, but after a week study i have selected this sigma 50-150mm which is exactly in my budget. Once again thank you guys.
36984
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses. UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
518863
I have this lens, I used it for several months before upgrading to the 75-300 IS USM. If you don't want blurry pictures then you will have to spend the money on better tools. I take a lot of bird pictures and was able to track them using the non IS lens but it was very difficult and unless the pools where the competitions are held are in bright light you won't get sharp pictures. I did try using this one at our dance hall, (poor light for pictures) I eventually had to go to a 50 mm 1.4 that does great in low light. You wanting telephoto though, for the money the 75-300 IS at about $450 was the way that I decided to go and I really like what I get now. I have had my t2i for nearly two and a half years. Hope this helps you a little bit. If you want to see a few of my shots with the IS lens. My flickr page is lightninrod49.
312927
I've recently purchased a Sony A6000. I've added, in this order, the 16mm-70mm zoom, and the 12mm, 32mm Touit lenses. The 16mm-70mm impressed me so much that I decided that the Touit prime lenses would probably offer even better picture quality. I can only say that I have not been disappointed. I do find that the 12mm and the 32mm do sometimes "hunt" a little on focusing. I understand that they do not take full advantage of the Sony A6000's focusing technology. There have been some long term promises that firmware upgrades would be coming, but from what I understand Zeiss has not come up with any. The 16mm-70mm does not "hunt" on focusing nearly as much. From the many e-mount reviews I have read there are of course less expensive options by sticking with Sony brand, or Sigma brand lenses. I suppose it all depends how deep your pocket is, and what kind of photography you are pursuing. All I can say that the pictures I've taken with the three Zeiss or Zeiss/Sony (16-70mm) have great contrast and sharpness. If the kit lens is satisfactory then of course stick with that. But, for me I probably would have just stuck with my Fujifilm X20 or new X30 as the standard lens on those cameras do a great job and offer decent speed and photo quality.
2256733
I usually think of zooms for versatility, but if you were just interested in a prime, I'd say this one was the best combination. 14mm is too wide. 35mm a bit too close (remember it's actually closer to 50mm when you take into account the cropped sensor). 23mm is a bit more flexible as well as being a great lens.
759248
We thank everyone for there suggestions. We went to the 50 1.4 for a fast lens. Having not used our 17-40 that often, no need to spend mucho money on the 16-35.
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
2186824
Notr much. I have not tried the kit lens but the 24-70 was not up to the Zeiss quality standard. The 16-35 and the 35/2 will have much more image quality.
2103071
Hi,Both are super sharp lenses. My recomendation for street photos would be the 18-35mm, rather than the prime 35. With the first one you have more options zooming in and out with a lens so sharp in every step that it feels more like a prime. A would recommend you to take a look to the review from this site which I trust a lot: http://m.dpreview.com/articles/7613711074/dpreview-top-picks-stand-out-third-party-lenses
2152800
Great，I use the sigma 30mm f2.8 lens, it's just approximate 1 pound. I bought it cost $449 with 18-55 and sigma 30mm lens is 120 dollar~
1264580
Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's... » Read More Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! « Show Less
1907928
I am sorry - I did not even investigate the kit lens. I had a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 which I was going to use with the camera. (But I opted for the 24-70 2.8 rather than the f4 because I do a lot of indoor work (I am NOT a pro), and am VERY happy. I recently shot at a conference with high ISO and both these lenses, without a flash. Very pleased with the results).
1907925
Anytime you can get a Canon L-Series lens, you are probably going to do pretty well. I noticed a lot of the "answers" didn't really address your question, just stated they already HAD lenses. I had NON-L series lenses before buying this camera, and when I had the chance to get the camera with an L-series lens, I definitely went for it. I have not been disappointed. The only lenses I have used that have ever been sharper than this one are the L-series Prime lenses. Otherwise, the kit lens is quick, sharp, has a nice bokeh to the pictures at the low F-stops, all in all, a nice lens. Anytime you can get a Canon L-Series lens, you are probably going to do pretty well. I noticed a lot of the "answers" didn't really address your question, just stated they already HAD lenses. I had NON-L series lenses before buying this camera, and when I had the chance to get the camera with an L-series lens, I definitely went for it. I have not been disappointed. The only lenses I have used that have ever been sharper than this one are the L-series Prime lenses. Otherwise, the kit lens is quick, sharp, has a nice bokeh to the pictures at the low F-stops, all in all, a nice lens.
1135872
I use a prime lens as my carry around lens all the time. I find the quality of the glass and the low light capability very useful. However you have to get used to not being able to zoom in and out. You have to get better at framing your subject. I'd say this is a good lens for some landscapes and small group photos as well a portraits. If you need to shoot in small rooms or in tight situations like a restaurant you may need the room to back up (to 8 feet) or so to take a photo of a group of 3. The best trial is to use the kit lens for a day on 50mm and see if that works for you.