Industrial Deals Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7, starting at $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Photography forum

Canon T3i body vs. Kit

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 34 posts in this discussion
Posted on Aug 27, 2012, 12:53:32 AM PDT
k. sandmann says:
Oh and you may find help full JaredPolin YouTube stuff he does a lot of concerts.

Posted on Aug 27, 2012, 12:24:21 AM PDT
k. sandmann says:
Concerts can be challenging. 2.8 70-200 i.s. or fast primes. The 70-200 is expensive but its a great workhorse.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012, 11:21:43 PM PDT
A. Berry says:
"What do you like to photograph? That'll dictate what focal lengths you should consider.

Maybe you could help me out even further...Like I said, I mainly shoot video. But I love taking concert photos in dark venues and there's normally some kind of stage lighting (reds, blues, greens). A like getting really close shots of the musicians, but I can't just walk on the stage, so what lens would you recommend?

I shoot with a Canon T3i

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012, 11:17:05 PM PDT
A. Berry says:
Thank you so much for posting such an intelligent response. This really helps me because I'm a beginning film student. So, please keep posting good answers for others like me Lol!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2012, 5:33:30 PM PDT
My 70-300 usm IS is just as sharp <<<<<< in bright daylight >>>>>>>> as my 18-135 but in heavy overcast skies or the first hint of evening forget about it - long tripod mounted exposures are fine but hand held I must crank the ISO way to high. In the same weakening light the 18-135 still delivers viable photos.

I suspect you're encountering the second old (35mm/full-frame) rule-of-thumb.

To hand-hold a lens requires the shutter speed to be 1/focal_length. With APS-C, that becomes 1/effective_focal_length (marked focal length * Field-of-View factor: 1.5 for Nikon/Sonly, 1.6 for Canon)... I don't trust the purported claims for image stabilization -- I'd maybe chance half the claimed stabilization range (if the lens claims a 4 stop stabilization I'd limit myself to two stops slower than 1/efl). At the 300mm end, 1/efl [rounding to nearest common number) is 1/500. Two stops slower is 1/125 -- which just happens to be the Sunny-16 guideline for ISO 125. Light haze would be f11, overcast no firm shadows would be f8, approaching stormy would be f5.6...

Posted on Mar 27, 2012, 12:31:17 PM PDT
k. sandmann says:
I found my 18-135 lenses were always sharper than my 55-250 so much so that the difference in length (mm) made little difference. The 18-135 photos I found were much sharper thus they could be cropped or printed at a sized that usually surpassed that of the 55-250. Since that was the case with my copies I had no reason to use the 50-250 but perhaps my 50-250 copy was substandard....

My 70-300 usm IS is just as sharp <<<<<< in bright daylight >>>>>>>> as my 18-135 but in heavy overcast skies or the first hint of evening forget about it - long tripod mounted exposures are fine but hand held I must crank the ISO way to high. In the same weakening light the 18-135 still delivers viable photos.

Of course my 17-50 2.8 loves twilight and stays sharp.

Well that's how some of my glass performs.
Hope it helps.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2012, 7:36:37 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
There are so very many attributes of lenses... in what way do you find it to be inadequate? Are you just looking at the ability to make distant subject appear closer (shoot at longer focal lengths)?

The 18-135 is more versatile as a "walk around" lens because it offers a wide angle through reasonable decent telephoto focal length.

There are some lenses that collect more light. There are lenses that offer better contrast and resolution, control flare, control chromatic aberration (aka "fringing"), etc. etc.

You'll find that there is no "best" lens and that they're all trade-offs (although there are some lenses that compromise less... but they usually cost quite a bit more). As such... the notion that you *can* swap lenses turns out to be a big advantage. You don't have to settle for the qualities of just one lens.

Posted on Mar 26, 2012, 4:10:58 PM PDT
DSLR Novice says:
Since my last input, I have taken a lot of pictures. On further thought, I believe the 18-55mm kit lens is not adequate. For my general use, I find I can use the 55-250mm for more things. I am still talking kit lenses. After reading the many suggestions here, I would probably try to get the 18-135mm lens. It would be more useful in more places.
With that said, and realizing I am a novice, I still think the kits are fine for someone not having a lot to spend and wanting to get some good experience. Everyone, including the photography group I am in, feels that the pictures are pretty good. They may not be the quality of a professional (although with the T3i, they really look good to me) but I am not a professional.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2012, 4:18:40 AM PDT
Neo Lee says:
@Eric Dahlin

You're pathetic. Stop spamming about the book you authored. It's not even related. Geez...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2012, 3:57:14 AM PDT
RogerC says:
I think this is a sensible advice. I bought Canon 500D with the kit lens and it was fine for a while but the quality is not as good as better lens ie; Sigma 17mm-50/70mm F2.8 or Canon 50mm F2.5 Macro.

Buy the body and buy a Canon 50mm F2.5 Macro then decide if you want to go for a zoom. Sigma lenses are good and alot cheaper than Canon. Quality of pictures are very, very good and for the price, you can't go wrong unless you intend to go into a "serious mode".

Then body and lenses will increase significantly.... Good Luck! Start having fun first - save your $100 on kit lens and go for a better standard lens or Sigma/Tamron lenses - pictures are a lot better than kit lens.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2012, 7:01:19 AM PDT
It would be wise if you buy the kit with the 18-55 mm or the kit with 18-135 mm kit. Canon T3i is also capable of taking video clips so it,s yes for choosing it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2012, 6:01:26 AM PDT
Tom Martin says:
@ Sandman - I agree given the current Canon T3i pricing the 18-135 kit lens is the way to go. But, it is still a kit lens, and the whole concept that you should never buy a kit lens is in my mind bad advice.

Posted on Mar 24, 2012, 8:11:07 PM PDT
k. sandmann says:
Okay I guess I'll just say something opinionated - feel free to take it as a overbearing opinionated remark. For your first lens based on your desire to shoot :-( rug rats in quality get the 18-135 its the best overall compromise.

If you list more or different requirements my recommendation will likely change.

I own more than a couple of lenses, I bought a refurbished 18-135 for my t2i and got another with my 60D. Both are great lenses. While not my best glass I think they are very fine lenses and a very good value and perhaps the best value.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2012, 7:24:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2012, 7:27:12 PM PDT
OTOH, spending $1000 on, say, the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, only to discover that 90% of one's preferred shooting needs either a shorter lens, or a longer lens.

The standard 18-55 kit lens at least lets one find out what focal length lens one really wants for the first "good lens". It spans the range from "just" wide angle to "just" portrait. If one finds they mostly do portraits, then something like a 28-75mm f2.8 would be a candidate. OTOH, if one favors large landscapes, a 12-24 (or even the shorter ultrawides) would be something to buy.

After all, everyone now paeans the ubiquitous 50mm f1.8 lens... 30 years ago, THAT lens was "the kit lens" on new cameras -- with the cheaper lens coatings yet (Canon SC coating rather than SSC).

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2012, 5:50:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2012, 5:53:54 PM PDT
Nicole K. says:
You seem to have a lot of opinions already, but I thought I'd put in my two cents. In general the kit lenses are pretty bad in comparison to most other lenses available to you. For an amateur simply looking to take a step-up from point & shoots they'll absolutely work. But you are far better off investing in a better lens. As one other reviewer mentioned, the more items in a kit, the worse the quality is.
If you're on a budget, its always better to splurge on lenses and save on bodies. The lens you're using is much more important than the body. Also, if you're going to be shooting children outdoors I would suggest a longer lens than the 18-55mm, or at least one with more range. And I don't think anyone else mentioned that you should get yourself a fast SD card for those quick children. You may miss some fantastic shots if you're waiting for a slow card to write.
Enjoy your new DSLR!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2012, 5:43:40 PM PDT
While it is true that it is better than the older version, it is in no way better than the other lenses available. If you have the choice, purchase a better lens. If not, then it will suit, but it will not compare to the other eos lenses. If you have never used anything other than kit lenses, it is true, you don't notice a difference, however, if you have used other lenses, you will notice kit lenses don't compare.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2012, 5:06:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2012, 7:49:15 AM PDT
Tom Martin says:
With advice like that, now I know NOT to buy your e-book. Since you just seem to be regurgitating the same old line that may have applied to the early EOS kit lenses, but is no longer valid.

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II SLR Lens - Mark II has been refined 3 times since it was introduced.

Especially in the wide angle to normal focal range its IQ properties are on par with any other Canon consumer grade lens. As has already been mentioned here, it lacks USM, internal focusing, internal zoom, and has a variable aperture those are its negatives. But, for the most part image quality is not one of its negatives.

In addition to my other larger and heavier cameras and lenses, I wanted a small light camera and lens that I can take anywhere. So I bought a Rebel and a kit lens. For a small, light, lens with a nice zoom range for an APS-C camera, the kit lens can't be beat. I certainly don't regret having one on my Rebel.

Posted on Mar 24, 2012, 3:20:49 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2012, 1:47:46 PM PDT
Basically, the more stuff they toss in with the shop kit, the worse the value.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2012, 10:52:53 AM PDT
k. sandmann says:
Totally agree - with one little exception.

Adorama basic kit - sometimes **not always! ** you will find the kit ( filter & cleaning kit) is $9.99 or even ends up being free. It could be a glitch in their catalogue system.

If you don't already have a filter and or lens cloth and brush its much better than nothing and if you can find it when the kit is the same price as just the lens alone - well then that is a no brainer.

Posted on Mar 24, 2012, 9:39:52 AM PDT
T. Campbell says:
There are two different things that are referred to as "kits".

The camera companies will offer any given DSLR camera body either with or without a lens. Without a lens they call it a "body only" (even though you also get the battery, software, cables, ... basically everything you need except a memory card and lens). If the lens is included then the manufacturer calls it a "kit".

There are sellers, however, who will bundle in all sorts of other things... filters, tripods, bags, etc. and they call those "kits" as well.

The "kit" that the manufacturer sells is usually a good value considering it's everything you really need to start shooting (except a memory card... they typically don't include a memory card). The "kit" that 3rd party sellers offer is usually a BAD value. It's not that having filters and tripods are a bad idea... they're a good idea. But the 3rd party sellers generally bundle rock-bottom trash quality accessories.

As a generalization:
Manufacturer kit = good value
3rd party seller kit = bad value

Posted on Mar 23, 2012, 9:20:12 PM PDT
DSLR Novice says:
I just recently purchased the T3i with both the 15-55 and the 55-250 kit lenses. They are adequate as I did not want to spend a lot without understanding more. By purchasing some filters for close up work and for outdoor use I have been having a lot of fun and getting a lot of experience. My brother-in-law had a Sigma 100-400mm lens which I have been using for wildlife and landscapes (c.$1300 to $1600) for one like it. I also just borrowed a 50mm 1.4 Canon lens which really does make a difference with the light over the kit lens. But for overall usefullness in starting out I still like the idea of the kits. It is real easy to spend a lot of money. Be sure you know what you want to do and GET MORE information about how each step changes what you have.

Good luck and enjoy.

Posted on Mar 22, 2012, 10:47:13 AM PDT
k. sandmann says:
Yes yes yes the kit lenses are a great value if you get a package deal. They are good deal for an average consumer your not getting anything professional snazzy or what not but you are gettin a good bang for your buck.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2012, 10:03:46 AM PDT
T. Campbell says:
"the kit lens on t3i is a joke"

Not really. Lenses are always a game of trade-offs.

The kit lens is designed to offer reasonably good quality (and it actually is reasonably good quality) for a very affordable price. It doesn't have USM focusing motors, internal focusing, internal zoom, nor is it parfocal and it has a variable aperture (as all but the most expensive zooms do) and the body construction is plastic (although I've never heard of one actually breaking... so it's not cheap plastic). BUT... if you were using a point & shoot and trying to afford a DSLR without breaking the bank, then a body with that particular kit lens will be a huge upgrade over any results you would have been getting from a point & shoot... and it's the starting point to a world of lens options where you can spend anywhere from $100 to $14000 on your next lens.

If manufacturers refused to offer a consumer grade lens option and forced everyone to buy the lens with the best possible focusing motor, internal focus and zoom, constant focal ratio, weather sealing, metal body construction, etc. etc. then suddenly the first lens becomes a minimum $1000 part and the cost of entry goes from $500... to $1500. There are a LOT of consumers for whom a $1500 camera is just not an option.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2012, 4:01:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2012, 4:01:23 AM PDT
Neo Lee says:
The kit lens is about $120 new. If you're upgrading to Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 for example, you can sell it on eBay. Everyone and his dog will jump on it if it's on sale at half the price.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Photography forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Photography forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  34
Initial post:  Mar 21, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 27, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers