Basically, I am tired of using my crappy kit lens and my tamron 28-80mm. They were fun when learning, but I think I want something better, but with the same idea. I am finding it quite annoying to get the right light with those lenses without using a flash... or am I doing something wrong? I use a Canon Rebel XTI/400D. When I use ISO 1600, and a shutter at about 1/60 (or somewhere around there) I can get a decent (sort of) picture, except, using the highest ISO on my camera really brings in the noise. I have also tried the lowest F number, too, but it doesn't work for my liking. Can you blame me for wanting something better? I am sure there are lenses out there that I can use with a lower number of aperture?? Or maybe I'm just doing something wrong? I want to be able to not use the flash in some cases, because it ruins the effect of photos! I'd call it an "indoor lens" haha. Feel free to suggest some lenses out there... maybe there's one in the 500 dollar area that's fairly good.

prime lens

I am new to these, so basically that's a lens with a fixed focal length? Meaning it only has one F number?? Not sure I understand it.

Also, which prime lens? :S lol!

one focal lenght, you can change the f-number naturally.

What lens you want depends on the focal lenght your looking for, for a "normal" focal lenght lens on crop sensor canon 28mm 1.8 or sigma 30mm 1.4 are great

go with the 50mm f1.4 you can find it for 200 or so on eebay maybe cheaper if your lucky

35 f2 + 50 f1.8 = 300$ max
They are two awesome lens.
Or you can get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (also very good for the price).

Well if you haven't understood the explanation provided by Antichrist, the main difference between a prime and a zoom lens is that you can't zoom in on objects with a prime you have to move either closer or further away to get a better shot.
Though prime lenses are good for portraits and taking pictures of fixed objects but I am sure often you would find yourself having to move away or get closer to the object you are shooting especially when it's moving. Personally I would prefer a zoom lens because of the convenience and that I am into landscape photography. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens is a great lens and the very wide aperture allows you to take sharp pictures in low light without using a flash. The alternative to that lens would be the ef-s 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens which is the lens I am using. Though the maximum aperture (f-number) of that lens isn't as wide as the Tamron the IS (image stabilizer) would allow you to compensate that and if you hold your camera steady you could use shutter speed as slow as 1/5 secs. Well you have already seen some of my handheld night photos already lol and many of them turned out quite good thanks to IS lol. Don's photo had a sale on that lens a week or two ago and they were selling it for like 499 dollars and I am sure they will have a sale on that lens in the near future.

EDIT: here is a review I found on my lens
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-is-usm-lens-review.aspx

and a review on the Tamron lens
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

Just so you know the Tamron lens has a bit slower and louder autofocus motor than the Canon lens.



This post was edited by Futurama on Mar 19 2009 12:46pm

If u need more light in camera to use lower iso, fast shutterspeed or just shoot in dim light then you will need a prime lens, simply as that. Good is on zoom can let you use longer shutterspeed to shoot in darker, but it wont stop the movement in pic, it just takes off some hand shaking. Zooms are great for tele and wide angle, but for "normal" like 28mm on crop sensor you dont need zoom if you got wide angle lens(you had that 10-20 right?). Use that kit lens to look how meny mms you want for a prime lens.

Thanks for the information everyone... I am still just looking and will decide on this later.



What is mms? Yes, I do have the 10-20mm.

millimeters such as a 50mm 1.4