How much different from kit lens? Is this a much better lens than the kit lens, or about the same
1820404
I agree - I got this lens and have been completely happy with it.Sure - it isn't a $1500 lens, but on the other hand I'm not out $1500 either...
1820405
I'm still shooting with the xt I bought in May 2005. I shot with the kit lens for 6 months and then purchased this $70 50mm lens. I use this lens all the time and it's my primary portrait lens. I own several L lenses now and I still use this inexpensive lens all the time. Eventually I'll replace it with the 1.4 or the L version but until then, I can not say enough good things about this lens. Negatives are that the auto-focus hunts in very low light, it's noisy and it's built like a toy. On the other hand, I've taken it around the world twice and been shooting with it for 3 years and it still works like a champ. I'm still shooting with the xt I bought in May 2005. I shot with the kit lens for 6 months and then purchased this $70 50mm lens. I use this lens all the time and it's my primary portrait lens. I own several L lenses now and I still use this inexpensive lens all the time. Eventually I'll replace it with the 1.4 or the L version but until then, I can not say enough good things about this lens. Negatives are that the auto-focus hunts in very low light, it's noisy and it's built like a toy. On the other hand, I've taken it around the world twice and been shooting with it for 3 years and... » Read More I'm still shooting with the xt I bought in May 2005. I shot with the kit lens for 6 months and then purchased this $70 50mm lens. I use this lens all the time and it's my primary portrait lens. I own several L lenses now and I still use this inexpensive lens all the time. Eventually I'll replace it with the 1.4 or the L version but until then, I can not say enough good things about this lens. Negatives are that the auto-focus hunts in very low light, it's noisy and it's built like a toy. On the other hand, I've taken it around the world twice and been shooting with it for 3 years and it still works like a champ. « Show Less
1820406
This is my walkaround lens, and it's almost always on my XTi. I'd say my lens usage breaks down like this:1. 50mm f/1.8: 90% of the time2. 70mm-210mm f/4: 7% (sports, closeups, weddings, etc.)3. XTi kit lens: 3% (I use it for landscapes, at the wide end only). What the 50mm lacks in zoom, it makes up for in sharpness and depth of field. I love bokeh; I hate using a flash. For these reasons, the 50mm is perfect for me. I love it when I take pictures of people at a party, and they say "Take another one . . . the flash didn't go off!" Then they look and see how good this lens performs in low light, and they're usually amazed! This is my walkaround lens, and it's almost always on my XTi. I'd say my lens usage breaks down like this:1. 50mm f/1.8: 90% of the time2. 70mm-210mm f/4: 7% (sports, closeups, weddings, etc.)3. XTi kit lens: 3% (I use it for landscapes, at the wide end only). What the 50mm lacks in zoom, it makes up for in sharpness and depth of field. I love bokeh; I hate using a flash. For these reasons, the 50mm is perfect for me. I love it when I take pictures of people at a party, and they say "Take another one . . . the flash didn't go off!" Then they... » Read More This is my walkaround lens, and it's almost always on my XTi. I'd say my lens usage breaks down like this:1. 50mm f/1.8: 90% of the time2. 70mm-210mm f/4: 7% (sports, closeups, weddings, etc.)3. XTi kit lens: 3% (I use it for landscapes, at the wide end only). What the 50mm lacks in zoom, it makes up for in sharpness and depth of field. I love bokeh; I hate using a flash. For these reasons, the 50mm is perfect for me. I love it when I take pictures of people at a party, and they say "Take another one . . . the flash didn't go off!" Then they look and see how good this lens performs in low light, and they're usually amazed! « Show Less
1820407
Get the EF 50mm f/1.4 for a few hundred bucks. Give the kit lens to a friend, or if you haven't bought your camera yet, just buy the body like I did. The 50mm is the MUST HAVE LENS. Every professional photographer will tell you this. You can practically take pictures in the dark without a flash. There's tons of information online about the 50mm lens. If you get one, you will never put the kit lens back on your camera. Prime lenses take amazing pictures. I have a 28-135 that I wish I hadn't bought. Go for shorter ranges in zooms and buy primes. If your rich, try some L glass out.
1820408
Ian,Do you mean one can use this 50mm lens for portrait as well as nature/landscape photography? What I can understand from your post is that this lens can be used as a walk around lens. Correct?Thanks.
1820409
You are correct. This lens is equivalent of 80mm lens for APS-C sensor. Canon XS, XT, XTI, etc.. have APS-C sensor (1.6 x crop factor).
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. :)
1820411
I have a question along these lines. The two big criticisms of this lens tend to be the construction and the focus noise. Many people with these criticisms seem to tend to own $800 lenses, so I don't know what these are in comparison to.How do the focus noise and construction compare to the XSi kit lens - the 18-55 IS 3.5-5.6 lens? As far as I can tell that lens is made of plastic and it isn't USM, but I wouldn't consider it slow at focus or loud or poor construction, but I can see how it could be better. Is the 50mm 1.8 lens comparable to the 18-55 IS, or is it of inferior quality? I have a question along these lines. The two big criticisms of this lens tend to be the construction and the focus noise. Many people with these criticisms seem to tend to own $800 lenses, so I don't know what these are in comparison to.How do the focus noise and construction compare to the XSi kit lens - the 18-55 IS 3.5-5.6 lens? As far as I can tell that lens is made of plastic and it isn't USM, but I wouldn't consider it slow at focus or loud or poor construction, but I can see how it could be better. Is the 50mm 1.8 lens comparable to the 18-55 IS, or is it of inferior... » Read More I have a question along these lines. The two big criticisms of this lens tend to be the construction and the focus noise. Many people with these criticisms seem to tend to own $800 lenses, so I don't know what these are in comparison to.How do the focus noise and construction compare to the XSi kit lens - the 18-55 IS 3.5-5.6 lens? As far as I can tell that lens is made of plastic and it isn't USM, but I wouldn't consider it slow at focus or loud or poor construction, but I can see how it could be better. Is the 50mm 1.8 lens comparable to the 18-55 IS, or is it of inferior quality? « Show Less
1820412
The 1.8 is similar in build quality to the kit lens--probably a slight bit below the XSI kit. If you're happy with the kit lens, you should be happy with the 1.8.There's a reason why 93% of the reviews here are 4 or 5 stars--this lens takes great pictures. For $80, what do you have to lose?
1820413
The 50mm does produce focus noise and is constructed of plastic. But these two things are not an issue for me. Who cares if the lens is constructed of plastic. My $600 xsi is constructed of plastic! I haven't taken the 50mm of my camera since i have purchased it. It's the best $80 i've ever spent on photo gear.
2097655
The kit lens is a weather sealed 12-50mm with macro capabilities. Due to the crop factor the lens effectively becomes a 24-100mm equivalent for a standard 35mm sensor.
543325
No comparison! This lens even out performs Canon's 1.4 in most areas! One area it really blows a lot 50mm out of the water in is bokeh quality! It has 9 round blades that make a heck of difference and give it it's quality D.O.F. and bokeh. Some have compared it's build quality and performance more closer to Canon's 50mm 1.2L. I'm a fashion and beauty photographer and use this lens quite often, and I can confidently stand behind this glass! If you can buy it, buy it! To see some of the photos I've taken with this lens visit my site: www.richardanthonyevans.com.
998314
I have an a6000 with the same kit lens. The SELP1650 max apperture @ 16mm F3.5 is sharper than the SEL16F28 @ F3.5. I think the kit lens OSS is helping give sharper results while the the SEL16F28 is just horrible at F2.8 to F5.0. I'm dissappointed with this lens. Stick with the kit lens otherwise maybe the Sony 20mm F2.8 is better.
392884
OK, well here are my thoughts on the kit lens. It is lighter, so for backpacking orhiking it could be a really good thing. As you say, it is only an extra $75 or so,so there isn't much wrong with having it along with a truly fine lens, unless $75makes or breaks your budget. Get the kit lens AND as many other lenses asyou can justify.
865044
I came so close to getting the Sigma, and so grateful I didn't. I've been using this lens for a year, and have never regretted it for a second. The kit lens has been gathering dust (or its storage bag has been, anyway) and it hadn't occurred to me to look for any other lens until now - I'd like a nice zoom eventually for outdoors.
189737
Lighter weight. Better image. Works in a lot less light. The 50 is very inexpensive. I use the 85mm 1.8 quite a bit. Great lens, older metal version or newer plastic one.
907554
This lens is top quality like a primary lens. The image is brighter and with more detail. The telephoto range is broader of course. I found that I no longer need or use the kit lens 105MM that I ordered with my Nex5.
1250348
It is, better than the kit lens for sure. I also bought 35mm prime lens so I use that for portraits now.
1244806
I think you are underestimating the quality of the "old kitzoom" lens. By any rational standard, this is a very good lens. The Olympus tradition or providing a good kit lens up to the standards of the body it is sold with continues with this lens, I think. I would remind you that the legendary Zuiko DSLR lens, the 14-55 mm f2.8/f3.5 started out as a kit lens for the original 4/3s camera the E1.
582400
i found its a better piece of glass and you will only need one lens for all scenarios. I was constantly switching from one kit lens to the other, now I ack one lens and im good to go in most scenarios. I sold my kit lenses and got a nice 50m 1.8 for portraits and use this 18-200 for all other instances.
1983279
Yes. It's a very sharp lens. Better range than the 16-50mm kit lens though certainly heftier.
1794211
I actually compared the two a little bit, doing some research on them and looking at reviews (both individually and compared to each other). The general consensus that I found was that even though they each have their specific pros and cons, the Tokina suited my needs better, and at a better price point. I felt that in most regards it was superior lens; but considering the price difference it was the clear choice for me. I use a Canon 7D (crop sensor) and that's what the Tokina is made for; the downside is that I couldn't use it if I decided to step up to a full frame camera (that's an advantage of the Canon). But for now this is the lens I wanted for capturing landscapes (both photo and at some point video from an r/c quadcopter), as well as night photography - and it works great!
423139
The kit lens is pretty cheap and probably the best Rebel kit lens to date. Plus its optically stabilized and, as you note, it'll help you get an idea what lens you'd like next so why not?
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
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).
1253597
Strictly image quality, Nothing a non professional would notice. The lens is much more sturdy and the IS has saved me on more than one occasion, especially in low light. The IS version is worth it IMHO