Total beginner here, looking to buy my first camera and looking for a lens that would be able to deal with the widest range of situations (a zoom one) all in one package. I’ve got about 600usd to spend on it and I’m fully aware it’s not much, but I want to get a good start.
I can’t buy used ones where I live (even from online platforms around the world), so it’d have to be new.
At the moment my goal is to take photos of pretty much everything: nature (apart from moving animals), landscapes, streets, portraits, objects (large and small), architecture, and I also plan to film videos quite a bit. Nothing fast moving and no sports though.
I’d love to shoot in close-up macro, too, but I understand it’s not possible within one lens.
What could you recommend?
Sadly versatile zoom + high quality is easily $2k USD I’ve looked even used is like $1.5k unless they are buddies who will give you a bigger discount. If you go primes then you can do quality and fits your price range as new or used.
So is the RF-S 18–150mm f/3.5–6.3 IS STM ‘bad quality’? Is it worse than the kit lens? How much worse is it than the $2k lenses?
The “RF-S” lenses are the budget lenses of Canon RF lenses.
This scheme started with the EF mount and EF-S lenses.
This is not to say that RF-S lenses or even EF-S lenses are terrible, but they are built down to a price.
An RF-S lens will be perfectly servicable for the vast majority of usecases.
Look for reviews on the lens you are interested in and look at the sample shots (ignore any review that does not supply full resolution sample shots).
When I started doing photography, I had a Canon EOS 400D with the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens, it was fine, I sometimes go back and look at some photos taken with that camera, and they still hold up, granted I don’t pixel peep, but they are fine.
With regards to your question about what type of lens you should get, since I don’t know the market where you are I will simply not comment directly on price.
The lens with the largest reach I have ever had is my 14-140mm zoom lens for my GX80 m43 camera, it is a brilliant lens, the range makes it work with just about anything.
The RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM seems like a fine budget lens.
I skimmed several reviews, and saw several 4/5 grades, with one mentioning “mediocre image quallity”, which I personally wouldn’t put a lot of stock into, it is difficult to judge a budget lens fairly is you are used to the top of the line.
Look at the sample shots and decide for your self, there is no perfect lens or camera, and at the start you will usually start at the lower levels.
It’s not so much as bad, it’s more a culmination of things that may or may not matter to you. First and foremost, what are you doing photography for? Is it to capture scenes or moments or is it about achieving technical perfection? There are plenty of great photos out there that were captured on “crap” gear.
Here’s a quick rundown
Etc etc. generally speaking, but not always obvious, more expensive glass tends to exhibit less of the above.
Primes are generally easier to pull off, so they can be better at a lower price point, but they obviously are fixed focal length.
Thanks, great insights. Could you recommend one or a few prime lenses for 600usd or so? For R50. And is it worth upgrading to a full frame camera or would R50 be great for a long time in photography in general?
No problem!
I did so in another post, there are a few decent options. If I had to choose one for you, it would be the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary, although that might not be wide enough for your needs. Go check out the other reply.
I used crop-sensor DSLRs for 10 years before moving to full frame when I went to a mirrorless setup. Why did I move? Low light performance, a touch more subject isolation, and not having such a limited budget. That and most lenses these days being made for full frame sensors. You can use these lenses on a crop-body, but you’re not getting any size/weight savings out of it beyond the extra focal length thanks to the crop factor (eg I would probably have a 70-300 lens instead of the bigger and heavier 150-500 I have now). The standout exception here is Fujifilm, since all they make are crop bodies, but their autofocus just wasn’t as good as Sony/Canon. If it was more reliable than i would very likely be talking to you as a Fuji owner.
Full frame also comes with some downsides: more expensive bodies, more expensive lenses, shallower depth of field can work against you if you want more light, etc.
I would personally stick with the R50 while you learn. You’re very unlikely to hit a wall on it any time soon and the “need” of full frame just isn’t there for 80-90% of scenarios.
I’ve come to a conclusion that I’m either getting the stock lens (the RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM) or this sigma one (the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary).
But as a beginner, I’d still love to ask you: It’s five times the price of the stock lens, but does the quality improve proportionally? Would the pictures generally also be about 5x better, in some way at least?
5x better? My initial reaction would be no. The only exception would be if you’re going to be doing a lot of low light photography. On the wide side, the Sigma gathers 1.5x more light. On the narrow side, the Sigma gathers 3x more light. That could be the difference between getting or not getting a shot.
The Sigma will give you better subject isolation, better image quality/rendering, and better feel in hand. I suggest googling both lenses and looking at sample image galleries.
Wether or not this is worth the extra cost is your call.