Probably getting the Canon 50D - with kit lens or without?

jennievii

Before this afternoon, I was leaning toward a Nikon 300D, so I wasn't even thinking of the possibility of a kit lens. I used the 18-200 kit lens on the Canon and was relatively happy with it and was impressed by the image stabilization. However, I currently have a Digital Rebel and have seen what a huge difference there is in quality between the kit lens and the 50mm/1.8 lens that I have. I kind of like the idea of getting the less expensive lens with the camera to give me a wide zoom range, but am not sure how annoying the variable aperture is going to be (3.5-5.6). Originally, I wanted a lens with f/2.8, but that will hurt the pocketbook a lot more and I was also very happy with how great both cameras are in low light, so f/5.6 doesn't seem as bad anymore. :dunno

I also hadn't realized that there are a few different kit lenses to choose from. So, should I just get the body and a separate lens? Or go with a kit lens? If so, which one do you recommend?

ziggy53

If you do go body only, Tamron has a couple of very nice general purpose lenses:

Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Neither is horribly expensive and both are pretty good alternatives to the best lenses available. The 17-50mm would be my first choice for a crop camera.

Richard

ziggy53 wrote:

If you do go body only, Tamron has a couple of very nice general purpose lenses:

Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Neither is horribly expensive and both are pretty good alternatives to the best lenses available. The 17-50mm would be my first choice for a crop camera.

These two lenses deliver great value for the price and are far superior to the kit lens offerings. I bought a Canon 20D with a kit 17-55, but it was so inferior to the Tammy 28-75 that I have hardly used it.

Toshido

Go body only and look into a lens you actually want, not one that comes forced on you with the camera. I survived quite some time with only the 50 f/1.4 on a rebel.

I agree with Ziggy that a 17-50 mm range of lens, especially with the 2.8 aperture would be great. My preference would be the 17-55 though to get a bit wider.
Of course I don't have those lenses and my wife will not let me get any EF-S or crop only lenses. Just in case full frame is in my distant future

paddler4

I have a 50D, with both the 17-85 kit lens (I think rated higher than the one you mention) and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which I had before I bought the 50D. The Tamron has great IQ, especially for the price, but in the short time (6 weeks) I have had the 50D, I have rarely used it. I keep the 17-85 on the camera as a walk-around lens. I use the Tamron when I need the extra few stops, which is less often than I had expected because of the IS on the kit lens. Tests show that the Tamron has slightly better IQ, and the EF-S17-85 has some barrel distortion at its widest focal length. However, I rarely notice the barrel distortion, and it is easily corrected. What keeps the 17-85 on my camera is the incredibly useful range for a walk-around lens. I recently went up to the Tetons and only took that and the lightweight EF-S 55-250. And when I bought my 50D, the price difference between the body and the kit was small.

samdodson

I also own a Canon 50D. I originally bought the kit, and then ended up giving the lens away. Lesson learned, buy the body only and invest in a lens you'd actually buy.

Candid Arts

This seems like it's getting to be the same post as your other one.

As other's have suggested here, most certainly get Body Only. Kit lenses are...not the greatest. They tend to offer a more "desirable" focal length, but lack in IQ. You just can't get everything in one lens, this is why there are so many lens choices out there.

Again, quickly, I will suggest my top choices.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

The 24-105 is a GREAT walk around lens, but loves the light. The 17-55 is a bit wider but doesn't reach as far, but can shoot in a lot lower light. Both have GREAT IQ, both have IS...Both right about the same price. Figure out what you shoot, which focal lengths are best for you, if you shoot in bright light, low light, etc... and pick the lens that covers most of what you do...

HeatherWB

Let me throw a Sigma into the mix!
How about a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5? It has a great walkaround range, good IQ, and also has a good closeup feature (1:2.3). Because of it's utility, this is the lens that stays on my Pentax K20D the most. On my last vacation, I would say that the 17-70 stayed on my camera 80-85% of the time. It can be had for under $400 new. Here are a couple of samples from my last vacation:





HTH,
Heather