Kit lens worth it?

Ryguy920

Ryguy920

Member
Whatsup NS, I just wanted to ask your opinion on this. THIS ISNT A WHAT CAMERA THREAD. I'm looking to pick up a t2i, and I was wondering if it would be good to get the body with the kit lens, or get the body only and then a lense. If I was to do option two, what lense would be good and versatile for a lot of situations, and also filming?

Thanks NS
 
well total like 800, so the body only refurbished is like 500 so 300 i guess... yeah i know not a whole lot to work with
 
The kitlens gets WAY too much hate on here. Assuming you're going to shoot video it matters even less. The kitlens is a perfectly capable lens.
 
i would argue that in some ways it matters even more for video.

its lower speed (f/3.5-5.6) makes it harder to shoot video in low light, and the shitty build quality makes pulling focus while shooting more difficult.
 
True that, but I'm just talking IQ here. As far as that goes the kitlens performs very well for it's price. Invest in primes rather than a Tamron 17-50 if you ask me...
 
i have the 55-250 if your interested i literally have never used it still have the box and everything and id let it go for supper cheap if you might want it

 
yeah i'll agree on the IQ. i only used mine for like a month after i got my T2i, but in that time i was pretty surprised by it
 
psh, why buy the kit lens and 55-250 from separate buyers when I have them both...

Quite honestly I'd just get two primes.
 
Buy the body and then save a little more for the 17-50. It will outperform the kit lens in every way, you be glad you got it in the long run.
 
it gets some good reviews and retails for about 200 + shipping id let mine go for 115 shipped just an offerhttp://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=543923&Q=&is=GREY&A=details
 
what does everyone mean by "primes"? also, this tamron 17-50 is expensive! would that do well as an all around lens? sorry if these are kinda stupid questions
 
Probably, if you learn how to use them and aren't relying on auto exposure. you will also have to learn how to find focus, which isn't bad when you are learning. Just one more thing to think about.

The Tamron is pricey, but pretty cheap considering how much other quality lenses cost. The most important part of your camera set-up for producing a good image is good glass (lenses).

A prime is a lens that doesn't zoom in or out, so to change your composition you have to move closer or further away. They are easy to build, so they are generally sharper, also have fewer other problems
 
^dang thanks! ok haha now another question, do i get the camera, kit lens, and 55-250 or should i get the body and then the tamron?
 
the kit lens and the 55-250 are both terrible lenses compared to the Tamron. Get the body and the Tamron. you'll have your first lens in a good zoom quiver, the mid-range zoom, which is one of the lenses I use more than any other. It's better to get a lens you will keep now than two you will want to toss once you get more into photo or video.

You can get an UWA (ultra wide angle) and a tele (one that zooms more, like the 55-250) if you decide you want to spend the money depending on how into shooting videos or photos you get.
 
i don't have experience with it, but i usually try to avoid lenses with a big range like that. as a general rule, longer zoom range is going to lead to worse image quality. if i were getting a zoom that went higher than 100mm, i would rather have a 70-200 (or something similar) than an 18-200.
 
also, is there really THAT big of a difference between these lenses, or is everyone just really picky? Like is the extra quality even worth it to a 17 year old on a budget?
 
Let's say you buy the kit lens, 55-250, 18-200 or any other crap consumer lens.

It won't matter for the first year or so, depending on how into it you get. If you drop the t2i as a hobby after that, you'll never know the difference.

If you actually find yourself interested, buying new gear that performs better and produces better images, trying to better yourself as a photographer or filmer, there will come a day that your heart will sink when you realize that you wasted time and money on bad glass that may or may not even be worth half of what you paid for it when you try to sell it to somebody else that doesn't know the difference.

That's what happened to me. Now I do without a lens until I can save up and get the exact one I want.

 
It would be more affordable to get a T3 and the tamron lense, and ive heard that the glass is more important than the body. Would that be a better option? Thanks for all the help guys, I truely appreciate it
 
Not to be "that guy" but maybe you should do a little research before investing in a DSLR.

I know when I bought my 60d, I was not even hesitating with glass, I knew "L" lenses would perform the best so I picked up a 24-105 as my first lens. Its a perfect all around lens, I used that until I had enough money to buy an 11-16 witch is amazing for follows and just wide stuff in general.

Im not trying to be a dick, I just want to help you out! Bottom line, dont buy the kit lens. Sure you can get stuff done but you will regret it in the future.

Yes, the 17-50 is an "adjustable zoom" as well as the 24-105 and 11-16.

 
yeah i worded that weird i guess... i kinda know something, but not a whole lot, and that is my problem! IDK if its worth it to me or not to put a ton of money in to a good lense!
 
dude if youre looking for video just buy my panadonic sd100 400 and its yours, 450 and ill throw in a shit ton of goodies, before you invest a crazy amount of money pick this up to learn composition, framing... check my threads for it, and youll have enough cash to get a pretty nice tripod and head left over
 
No, don't buy eBay kits. But from what I've seen in this thread, make sure you do some more research and be positive a DSLR is the right camera for you. Not being a dick, just trying to help you out so you don't make a mistake.
 
that's determined by the focal length. the first number is how wide the lens can be, and the second is how zoomed in it can be. those are the focal lengths. since both can zoom in to 200mm, it means they both zoom the same amount. however, the 18-200 has a larger zoom range since its widest focal length is 18mm (which is a wide focal length), whereas the widest focal length of the 70-200 is 70mm, which is a telephoto focal length and more zoomed in than 18mm. so you'll be able to see as far away with the 70-200 as with the 18-200, but the 70-200 won't get as wide. since the range is smaller though, it's a higher quality lens.

and yes, i think you should go for just the body and the tamron 17-50.
 
And to clarify further, zoom refers to how much it can zoom.

The 18-200mm is a: 200/18 = 11.1% zoom lens, whereas 70-200 = 2.85% zoom lens.

Zoom refers to the ability to zoom in and out and is written as a percentage of how many times the shortest focal length (FL) fits in the longest end.
 
even 250mm on a crop body isn't that "zoomy", i know what you're thinking and coming from the world of point and shoots, where you can digitally zoom and don't give a shit about quality, you're going to be disappointed with the reach.

the tamron is quite cheap and if you feel that is too expensive then maybe it's too early for a dslr. i recommend a used canon g11 or something to get you started in PHOTOGRAPHY. once you develop the interest, then spending 800+ on a lens doesn't seem quite as ludicrous as it does now

lens reviewshttp://www.photozone.de/Reviews

 
well guys I think Im just going to save more and see if I really want to invest in this stuff. Thanks for the help
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top