Lens confusion

[NCC-2893]

I'm right at the point of buying my first dslr camera.Just an entry level canon 550D. But I'm a little concerned about the quality and or functionality of the standard "twin pack lens kit" ie the EF-S 18-55mm II f3.5-5.6 IS Lens, and the EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS. I've read that they are not up to scratch for astro work. I also read somewhere that a cheap body and expensive glass will win over expensive body and cheap glass. I think that makes sense and figure that buying the body alone will save me a couple hundred anyway so could put another 2 or 3 hundy into a decent lens. I guess thats why so many second hand cameras are sold body only. cause people keep their lenses. That leads me to the big question then, what lens? A single wide or a zoom. I'd like to do nebula shots at some stage so does that mean zoom required? I thank you for any advise.

[Learjet]

I've read that they are not up to scratch for astro work.

Zooms are a good all round lens. Sure there are better for astrophotography. There's always something better, perhaps wider aperture and less edge distortion but to start out with I think they are fine.

Here's Eta Carina with an "all rounder" 18-200mm cheap Sigma zoom at 200mm f6.3 wide open. It's a very basic shot, just 2 frames of 120 seconds each at ISO 1600 and photoshop for the levels. It's not that bad is it? Nebula wise it's a bit lacking but that's more due to my unmodded camera not picking up Ha very well. The pic could be a lot lot better with more time and frames.

ngc3372_200mm_B.jpg

[Rik]

Hi, those kit lenses give you a good range for wide field and (relatively) narrow, and being kit lenses they are likely to be good value when bought as a kit. I'd be happy with them starting out. Maybe move to a longer zoom or one that doesn't start at 55mm for better quality in time
-you won't need the IS, by the way-turn it off or you'll get shaky pics on a tripod- this could help keep the cost down, assuming you only want the lens for astro work.
Going much longer than 300-400mm will start costing the earth and you'll start to benefit from using a small scope, not a lens

[Phil Leigh]

Unfortunately this can turn into one of those "you get what you pay for" situations...

For widefield work on a Canon APS-C camera the EFS17-55 IS F2.8 is hard to beat. This is a (relatively) expensive, fast, heavy, L-quality optics lens that is great for astro work. If I could only buy 1 APS-C astro lens it would be this one as it is top quality and flexible. This lens won't work on full-frame professional cameras like the 5D or 1D...

The 70-200 F4L is also a great lens. It is a lot lighter (but one stop slower) than the F2.8 version. It can be used with a Canon converter (expensive) to become a very good 280 or 400mm f5.6 (at which point you are into small refractor territory IMO). Remember these Canon lenses are top quality with superb coatings and optics. Their image quality is much higher than the kit lenses - as is their price!. They are also superb when used for serious terrestrial photography - which is why Pro's use them. The 70-200 F4 L is a great bargain right now as everyone wants the IS version for terrestrial sports/nature work so the non-IS version (same optics) can be picked up relatively cheaply. As stated earlier, you don't need IS for tripod/astro work - it needs to be turned OFF.

Other "widefield" bargains are the 50mm f1.8 (aka "nifty fifty") which has great optics for the price (although build quality is "basic") and the 28mm F1.8 which is a top quality item at a reasonable price. I use this latter lens as my standard indoor low light/high ISO/no flash lens on my 7D - it takes great portraits.

Don't forget with an APS-C camera to multiply all of the focal length numbers above by the 1.6 "crop factor"...

[NCC-2893]

Yes ,I think I'll go with the kit. As you say you get what you pay for but at least the lenses will get me up and running. I can save up for a good lens in the meantime. Good tip on the "IS" had no idea. Thanks. Buy the way Phil, funny you mentioning the "nifty fifty", I was in the local camera shop today and he showed me that same lens in action. Well I couldn't believe what I saw in the lcd. The sharpness,wow. Not to mention depth of field.Only about 2 inches between sharp and blurry. Very light lens too. After only having used point and shoots my whole life this was a new experience for me. Cant wait. ps. would the 50mm lens be alright for general wide field? They were going quite cheap.

[drummerguy]

I was going to recommend a website for renting lenses until I saw you were in New Zealand, so I had to do a bit more searching. I found this one and it might help out a little. This way you could try a lens for much cheaper than buying it and see if it works out for what you want.


Topic Camera Rentals

[Phil Leigh]

Yeah the 50mm on an APS-C camera is equivalent to an 80mm on a full frame camera. I guess it depends on how wide a field you are interested in. I have a 10-22mm F3.5 that I use for terrestrial landscape work - that's about as wide as you can get. I also have an F1.8 28mm which I use for general snapshots - it is as fast as the nifty fifty, very nearly as sharp and gives the same field of view as a 45mm on a full frame camera - so it's pretty much 1:1 with the human eye. The 50mm is a great medium portrait lens!!.

[NCC-2893]

Thanks phil. Sounds like I'd be stupid not to buy the nifty at the price anyway if only for another option in the camera bag as it were. I'm sure it'll do for some nice milkyways. Cheers.
Edit: I see there's even a nifty fifty group on flikr. They take some seriously nice pics.