Reading mode: Light Dark

Do we give the wrong advice?

Go to last post
Oilman

Oilman

Senior Member
Messages
3,375
Solutions
1
Reaction score
507
Location
Houston, TX, US
I think we commonly give the wrong advice. One of the most common questions on this forum from new DSLR owners is: What lens should I buy? They just bought their brand new camera and expect their pictures to look like something out of National Geographic. After all, that’s what the salesperson told them. So they take a few pictures and they look like…..the same as their pictures from their old P&S, maybe worse.

Well, it has to be the lens right? After all, everyone knows that the kit lens sucks right. So what lens should I buy to make my pictures look magic? Most of us, INCLUDING ME, commonly respond with recommendations for higher cost lenses that we use and enjoy. We do it sincerely. The lenses we recommend are very good. But that is usually the wrong answer. The correct answer is:

e) None of the above.

The kit lens is actually very good and there is not a lens out there that makes pictures look magic. Only a photographer can do that. I think that in most cases we should discourage – not encourage new owners to buy lenses other than the kit lens and the 55-250mm. Instead we should encourage them to learn about their camera and about photographic composition. We should encourage them to buy Lightroom or PSE and learn how to post-process. We should encourage them to shoot RAW.

Learning all of these things will make their pictures look better. A new lens, without that knowledge, will not, no matter how expensive it is. There is a huge misapprehension out there. That is, if you spend enough money, all you have to do is go click and your pictures will look like Ansel Adams’. All of us who have been on this forum for a while know that this is not true.

If the goal of this forum is to help new photographers perhaps we should be telling them to save their money by buying a $30.00 book on photography instead of a $1000 lens.

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small

http://www.flickr.com/geofiz
 
As a new photographer (got my 500D in Oct), I tend to agree with this. "Understanding Exposure" was really helpful for me, more than any of my new equipment. LR3 was SO important I still can't believe it.

That being said, I think EVERYONE should buy a 50mm 1.8 ASAP after they get their camera. The shallow DOF of 1.8 gives that "pro" look right out of the box. Even though the construction, autofocus, and plastic mount suck hard, the IQ is great and at about 100 bucks, is the best value of everything I have purchased.

In 6 months, I haven't outgrown my 18-55 IS. Yeah, the colors are kinda flat, and the contrast is kind of missing, but some total newb PP helps bring a lot of that back. Not to mention, IS is clutch.

a 17-55 2.8 is over 1000 bucks. For 600 you can get a speedlite 430exII, a 50 1.8, and the 55-250. For a couple hundred more (or less than 100 if you are a student :) ) you can get LR. The best part is at no point in this plan do you REPLACE any of your equipment, you only ADD to what you can do.

When I look at the giants on this forum and elsewhere, I know their superior equipment helps. But not nearly as much as their experience. I am with you - practice, even with cheaper stuff, is FAR more important than new equipment.

I just wish it would warm up a bit so I can go out and get some practice of my own :)
 
I always think of the Kit + nifty fifty + 55-250 IS combo as a learning rig. For some its all the rig they need, but in my opinion it is the minimum cost lens combo that will allow you to explore most genres of photography enough to figure out if and when you wish to invest more in them.

These lenses have enough magnification to get near-macro magnification, the kit lens does great landscapes (yes actually great ones as long as you correct the chromatic aberration later), the 55-250 is a very good telephoto lens, and the 50mm f/1.8 teaches bokeh and portrature and the compositional challenges and rewards of prime-lens photography.

Yes a flash should be in there too, but that's a little harder to explain to someone until they have tried and failed with natural light and the built-in flash.
 
I don't think they get a wrong answer. I think it's the question that many times is too general.
Oilman said:
Instead we should encourage them to learn about their camera and about photographic composition. We should encourage them to buy Lightroom or PSE and learn how to post-process. We should encourage them to shoot RAW.
Click to expand...
One thing new users have to figure out, before going for the "best" lens, is what it is they will be photographing. Not everyone needs the best tele, if their interest is mostly landscapes. And the guy/gal who is interested in sports, may not need the fancy wide angle.

Today's new user is very lucky. With the 18-55 and 55-250, they can start out without a major lens expense and they can take their time figuring out what it is that they want to accomplish.
--
Olga
 
Nobody wants to hear that the nut behind the camera is the problem, not the photographhy equipment.

The story is classic and it applies to me too. I purchased my 300D and thought it would solve all my photography problems. I took it on a once in a lifetime trip and the results were... mediocre. Choice, accept that the camera was a dud, or that the dud behind the camera did't have a clue. A few photoraphy books later and a whole lot of practice and I conclude that the rebels are dang fine cameras, even with a kit lens.

Often when people ask about what lens or camera they should buy, I respond with another question, What does your current gear not do for you?

Sometimes the thought process is worth it, sometimes not.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
I can make pan cakes for my kids and they love them, and can make scrambled eggs no problem. And I can grill a steak and cook a baked potato. But I sure as hell couldn’t make a gourmet meal even with a kitchen full of $ 100,000 worth of cookware, unless I practiced with a recipe book, and had somebody from which to learn from….the operative words here are practice and learn. That often requires a fair amount of personal effort, patience, and investment of time and energy.

So it comes down to this- it isn’t necessarily the $100,000 pots-n-pans and the fancy stove that makes the wonderful meal…although they certainly are a factor and certainly contribute to the end product; but the wonderful meal is ultimately the product of a good chef who has a lot of experience from a lot of practice, trial and error.

And so with photography, even a $10,000 camera/lens combo, and a $50,000 lighting kit won’t do diddly in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand the basics of “cooking”, like reading a recipe, preparing ahead of time….as with photography, understanding the basics of exposure and lighting, and composition. It's the person behind the lens making the calls and taking the shots.

I know where you are coming from. I always get a big-ol-smile on my face when I see the posts like:
  • "Gotta wedding next month, it's my first one, somebody recommend a lens other than the kits lens". or
  • "Somebody, convince me why I should buy the 70-200L".
But in the end, I think it’s perfectly OK to recommend certain hardware to people, but just with the caveats like….
  • YOU need to understand what your end goal is,
  • YOU should read this reference,
  • YOU need to practice this technique,
  • YOU really should try this approach,
  • YOU need to consider these other options,
  • YOU haven't thought about this, etc
We're all human, and we get excited about things, and want to jump right into the fire a lot of the times. Been there, done that. :D

Best Regards, Mike

--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)

 
I think Olga might be on to something here. In that the question is wrong. I think what should I do next vs, what lens should I buy next.

The first thing I did was to get a book on my camera and photography in general. I spent a TON of time shooting the camera to learn it. 50% of my shots the first month were of my lamp or a corner in my room, playing with settings, learning what settings makes what changes to my shots.

The next thing I did was I bought a 50mm 1.4 USM and BORROWED my buddies 430 EX II. And I shot a friends kids birthday party. I learned so freakin' much from doing that it wasn't funny. I might just be lucky in that where I worked there were so many photographers that I could play with gear and ask questions of. I worked for Apple for a while and we had a good crew of artistic people.

Renting and borrowing gear can save a lot of money in the long run for getting to play with stuff. My biggest issue is I HATE buying something twice. I avoided the nifty fifty and got the 1.4 instead because in some cases it got better reviews than the 1.2L. For me buying a cheap lens isnt an option. So I go a long time without but then I pop on a 24-70 2.8L.

I guess, the biggest advice I can give is to never stop shooting. Its the wonder of digital. I can shot for 3 hours, throw away every photo. And im out the cost it takes me to charge the batter lol. No thrown away film. Shoot stupid stuff, shoot stuff you think has no point having a picture of. You'd be surprised what you can learn and what sometimes comes out to a really cool shot.
 
Some good answers to your question here. And yes, there are people who like to spend other people's money. "Buy this..." "Get that..."

However, somewhere in many of the "I'm a newb, what should I buy ..." type threads, there is eventually a post (or two) that offers some of the more sound advice being suggested here.

Seems I've been seeing more of a trend toward that lately, especially when some of the "old timers" post. That's a good thing. Maybe it should just happen more often.

Of course I don't have time to read all the threads/posts that come thru the forum so I can't say it's truly a trend. But I do see some of these good ideas come through. Guess it's up to the OP what advice he/she takes.

Good thought stimulaton Oilman.

Nick
--
photography -- a compatible blend of tech and art --
 
Port Royal Dad said:
  • "Somebody, convince me why I should buy the 70-200L".
Click to expand...
I love it when someone posts that. It is an awesome lens that takes super pictures even if you are a stunningly bad photographer. However, it's a total waste of $2700 if you are not a professional. It's also big enough that you could use it to club seal pups to death.

Most of my best pictures were taken with the kit lens on a $350 Panasonic LX3 compact camera.



 
CityLights said:
The story is classic and it applies to me too. I purchased my 300D and thought it would solve all my photography problems. I took it on a once in a lifetime trip and the results were... mediocre.
Click to expand...
I think the only thing that saved me from the same fate was the fact that compact cameras at the time were incredibly limited. I came from the Canon A70 which could produce acceptable results, but only in a very narrow window of lighting conditions. To me, even getting a WB-ed shot indoors without a flash was a major revelation, each modest success inspired me to push forward (and make no doubt about it, the photos I managed then are recycle-bin worthy from a 2011 vantage point). Compared to compacts like the s90 or the G11 these days... going to a DSLR would be a major letdown (and shock) to see how much better off the camera was at deciding for me.

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな
 
Well, yes and no.
The old kit lens was poor and to upgrade it was the correct answer IMHO.
The new one is very good and this is not true anymore.
The same for 55-250 IS

The best answer I read here in the old times was: Stay with the kit lens, until you know, where to go next: another FL (wide, tele) , more speed, macro etc. Buy then, be patient. That is a valid reason for me, not IQ only.

I was so often convinced here, that 50 1.8 is a MUST HAVE, that I bought it ASAP and later recognized, that it is so unable to AF in low light that it's useless for dancing or sports and unreliable in the rest of shooting.

As to books and learning, you are absolutely true, but this is at common not the answer people appreciate. (as CityLights well said). Pity.

As to RAW shooting, I think it brings too much difficulties to the beginners learning curve and might support beginners disappointment. I would postpone this advice.

As to P&S comparison I tell everytime: try it at night or indoors or sports This becomes less true nowadays too, sensors are much better, esp on 4/3 etc.

P.S After I installed LR3 in summer, my pics wait in queue, I still didn't get used to that organizer, despite I like the editing module. But it's probably my fault.
Oilman said:
I think we commonly give the wrong advice. One of the most common questions on this forum from new DSLR owners is: What lens should I buy? They just bought their brand new camera and expect their pictures to look like something out of National Geographic. After all, that’s what the salesperson told them. So they take a few pictures and they look like…..the same as their pictures from their old P&S, maybe worse.

Well, it has to be the lens right? After all, everyone knows that the kit lens sucks right. So what lens should I buy to make my pictures look magic? Most of us, INCLUDING ME, commonly respond with recommendations for higher cost lenses that we use and enjoy. We do it sincerely. The lenses we recommend are very good. But that is usually the wrong answer. The correct answer is:

e) None of the above.

The kit lens is actually very good and there is not a lens out there that makes pictures look magic. Only a photographer can do that. I think that in most cases we should discourage – not encourage new owners to buy lenses other than the kit lens and the 55-250mm. Instead we should encourage them to learn about their camera and about photographic composition. We should encourage them to buy Lightroom or PSE and learn how to post-process. We should encourage them to shoot RAW.

Learning all of these things will make their pictures look better. A new lens, without that knowledge, will not, no matter how expensive it is. There is a huge misapprehension out there. That is, if you spend enough money, all you have to do is go click and your pictures will look like Ansel Adams’. All of us who have been on this forum for a while know that this is not true.

If the goal of this forum is to help new photographers perhaps we should be telling them to save their money by buying a $30.00 book on photography instead of a $1000 lens.

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small

http://www.flickr.com/geofiz
Click to expand...
 
guinness2 said:
As to books and learning, you are absolutely true, but this is at common not the answer people appreciate. (as CityLights well said). Pity.
Click to expand...
I agree that people should spend some time learning from books and or photographers they might know.

When friends ask me what to buy when they see my DSLR I often end up advising a good P&S camera.

I feel sad to see so many people with (entry) level DSLR's only using the damn green auto button with the awfull internal flash popping up all the time.

If it is to me they remove the auto option and discourage the use of JPG.
Member said:
As to RAW shooting, I think it brings too much difficulties to the beginners learning curve and might support beginners disappointment. I would postpone this advice.
Click to expand...
I think if beginners take some effort in LR3 learn about the benefits of RAW, then they prolly never want to use JPG again.

I only use JPG on my 450D when I want to continuousy shoot 20 pics or so. Buffer for RAW is only 4 sadly enough.
 
A lot of the time here it is hard to figure out exactly what a poster is wanting from the few lines of text they give us - we have no real idea if the person asking for the new lens is a complete beginner getting distracted by other speaking about better and more shiny things, or someone who knows how to handle the camera, but just isn't as experienced with the lens lineup or the general opinions of the different pieces.

With nothing more to go on than 'I want a new lens' we do the obvious and point them in the direction of said new lenses.

At the same time I have participated in more than enough threads where the poster has explained more fully and we can give more reliable advice, whether that is 'stick with the basic kit and learn' or 'go, spend and be happy'. I am not a salesman for Canon, so I want people to get the best experience and the best value from their hobby, and yes, a lot of the time the best advice is 'use the kit lens, do some reading and get practising'.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com
 
When someone asks "Which lens I should buy...." or something along those lines, I think it is safe to assume that they've done the thinking part, the learning part and considered other options and finally decided that it is the lens they need and not something else.

This may not held true for all such questions, but you never know as there are people posting here from all walks of life. :)

--
http://sayshh.photoshop.com
 
And the 'wrong advice' factor also applies to the end product, the image, the photograph.

Folks buy and amass all the gear, and then are subtly encouraged when after posting very poor images the feedback from others is so misleading, as in 'great', and 'really shows up the abilities of that new camera/lens'.

A bad photo is of course a subjective thing, but no one is going to learn/improve when they for whatever reason(s) get accolades for producing crap, with their very advanced gear.

Thanks to Oilman for at least raising the consciousness about all this.
 
Road Lice said:
However, it's a total waste of $2700 if you are not a professional.
Click to expand...
Careful there. That is a slippery slope.

I suppose you are going to tell me that my Hummer, 28 foot speed boat, and 5th wheel RV is a total waste because I don't use them for a business? (I don't really own those, though I would like too.)

Let people have their expensive toys if they want them.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
Can't buy this combo in the local camera shop! :)

I love my 70-200L, and I'm not a professional shooter.....kinda/sorta. Took me almost three years to save up for it.

It would take 5,478 angry seal pups, and some other unsavory characters to pry it from my cold, dead hands. ;) :) :D



Best Regards, Mike
Road Lice said:
Road Lice said:
  • "Somebody, convince me why I should buy the 70-200L".
Click to expand...
I love it when someone posts that. It is an awesome lens that takes super pictures even if you are a stunningly bad photographer. However, it's a total waste of $2700 if you are not a professional. It's also big enough that you could use it to club seal pups to death.
Click to expand...
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)

 
I thought I was going to get flamed by at least someone. But instead, I am looking at eighteen well thought out responses. I like toys as well as anyone else. In fact part of the fun of any hobby, including photography, is buying the toys that go with it. There are clearly, posters who want advice on a lens who are knowledgeable. In fact when I decided to upgrade my kit lens I posed the question to the forum whether to buy the 17-55 or the 24-105L mm (I bought the 17-55mm). Finally, I have no objection to adding the 50 mm 1.8 to the list of new owner lenses

But until new DSLR owners post here, the only person that they have talked about DSLRs is likely to be a salesperson. It is also clear that for some of these owners, spending $600+ on a lens is not a causal expense. I suspect we have a wide variation of income levels in this forum, from wealthy to poor starving student. While a $1000.00 lens that never gets used may be no big deal to one poster it may represent real financial sacrifice to another

Olga makes the point that it is hard to tell from a three sentence post what the poster’s experience level is and I agree. So I have decided that I am going to risk being rude. When someone asks: what lens should I buy and I “think” they are new to photography? My answer is probably going to be…Don’t!

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small

http://www.flickr.com/geofiz
 
CityLights said:
CityLights said:
However, it's a total waste of $2700 if you are not a professional.
Click to expand...
Careful there. That is a slippery slope.

I suppose you are going to tell me that my Hummer, 28 foot speed boat, and 5th wheel RV is a total waste because I don't use them for a business? (I don't really own those, though I would like too.)

Let people have their expensive toys if they want them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what he said!

I've got about $20,000 tied up in guitars and amplifiers and I can barely play, so I call myself a "collector". :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top