limitations of a kit lens

J

jack.bauer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6
Edit My Images
No
hi, i guess its no secret that a kit lens has its limitations and you quickly outgrow it. I purchased my 600D with the 18-55mm. I have no background in using an SLR, this is my first dab. I'm mainly shooting indoors, under what you call tungsten lighting and taking portraits of new born, toddler, family gatherings, birthdays etc..

In AV mode the kit lens is ok i guess. to get me used to the concept of shooting with an SLR. but now that im moving to manual mode, I find it really hinders my learning. I cant set an aperture to my liking because of the variable nature of the aperture size vs focal length. Now say I want a shallow depth of field in my portrait, I want to open up the aperture as much as possible (f/3.6 in my case) but since I can only get that at the widest focal length 18mm, I find myself having to walk right up to the subject to get what I want. not practical.

I've started playing around with a 50mm f/1.8 II which is much much better for the kind of shots im trying to achieve. In fact I have this on more than the kit lens. How did others in my position approach this scenario?
 
As time goes by you get to know the limitations of your kit.
That is the time to upgrade, the canon 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens, costly but well worth the money, if you are on a budget then look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, a very good lens for the money, it will give you 2.8 right through the focal length.

There are many other lens to choose r=from but the canon I know well from experience f having one.

spike
 
That's it. Use the kit lens until you find its limitations, then upgrade.
 
The limitation of the kit lens is the variable aperture, cheap build and lack of general quality.

However - these are only limitations if you let them be. It's capable of excellent results if you stay within it's happy place.

I know you think the wider aperture is required for the shallow DoF, but you'll find the effect is probably better at 55mm at 5.6 than at the wider focal length.

However - you already have your answer, the 50mm is a much better lens for what you're trying to achieve.

When you feel you need all that zoom though, there are alternatives, either for better focussing, wider apertures or maybe a better range with better optics. Depending on your priorities, a Canon 15-85 could be the next lens on your list, or a 2.8 zoom? the Tamron and Sigma are great performers but they don't have the focus ability of the Canon 17-55.
 
yep the canon 17-55, sigma 17-50 HSM, tamron 17-50 VC are indeed the ones ive been looking at. im leaning towards the sigma, mainly because the canon is way too expensive for someone of my calibre and the tamron i understand is noisy and has as slower AF than the other two.

but right now i guess i was trying to provoke a discussion more around is it really as much a limitation i think it is. and as Phil mentioned, it is only if i let it be. i should be able to take some great shots, infact, I have taken some good shots, with very good shallow Dof with the kit lens. my first batch, which impressed all my friends (4 of which keen shooters) were taken with the kit lens. but i had to walk up really close to the subject.

Phil, i struggled to get any nice examples of shallow DoF at 55mm f/5.6. but i am shooting indoors i.e living room or bedroom and so i dont have much distance between the subject (human usually) and the background. which i understand is a factor in achieving that shot

so at the moment, im really trying to justify getting shot of the kit lens only 1 month in. im trying to convince myself that i cant have exhausted the potential of this lens already and theres maybe more learning to do to realise i can take perfect shallow DoF shots at 55mm f/5.6 as Phil says
 
If a perfect (to you) shallow DoF shot requires less than 5.6 at 55 then your lens will never be able to do it. Question of physics rather than your skill.

However, the kit lens may still be good and do the job when you are outside and using the 18 end without the need for super shallow DoF so you may not have outgrown it, it is just not best suited to the photography you are using it for currently.
 
To go for the shallow DoF just use the 50mm 1.8, it's the right tool for the job.
 
ernesto said:
If a perfect (to you) shallow DoF shot requires less than 5.6 at 55 then your lens will never be able to do it. Question of physics rather than your skill.

However, the kit lens may still be good and do the job when you are outside and using the 18 end without the need for super shallow DoF so you may not have outgrown it, it is just not best suited to the photography you are using it for currently.
Click to expand...

yes fair point. gona keep holding back on the sigma upgrade for now!
as phil says, use the 50mm for the current shots im doing and combine with the kit as you say when outdoors
 
50mm can be an awkward focal length on a crop body. For a bit more money, see if you can get hold of a 35mm f/2.0. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is also an excellent lens for indoor photography.
 
highpriest said:
50mm can be an awkward focal length on a crop body. For a bit more money, see if you can get hold of a 35mm f/2.0. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is also an excellent lens for indoor photography.
Click to expand...

jargon buster...by crop body you mean an APS-C body?
 
Last edited:
highpriest said:
50mm can be an awkward focal length on a crop body.
Click to expand...

You say akward, others may say challenging! ;)

I do agree though that it can be a bit close for some indoor shots but i wouldnt let that put anyone off getting one.
 
While a 50 on crop can be awkward for indoor shots it is not awkward (to me) for outdoor shots, just down to personal preference. A 50 fits my needs very well, sometimes I could do with it being wider, other time longer but that is the compromise with any prime.
 
you just need to zoom with your feet. :)

i looked through the view finder, figured out 35mm is more practical than 50mm for me, so i went for a 35mm as my low light lens.

f2.8 lenses would be a good compromise between zooming and low light abilities. but personally for their price, i don't think they are worth it compared to 1 or 2 primes.
 
wuyanxu said:
you just need to zoom with your feet. :)
Click to expand...

That is sort of difficult when indoors, unless you either live in a house with huge rooms or move outside and shoot through the window :)
 
ernesto said:
If a perfect (to you) shallow DoF shot requires less than 5.6 at 55 then your lens will never be able to do it. Question of physics rather than your skill.
Click to expand...

DOF effect can be altered be changing the distances involved between the camera, subject and BG. :D
 
That sort of assumes you can move the subject from the background, which is never the case with any shots I take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top