I am about to get a 60D and trying to decide which package to get at Best buy. I see they have some kits with the Stock Lens and also including an extra lens, the 50-250mm lens. However, i hear from some people that the stock lens is really bad. How so? Why everyone hating on it?
Another package has the camera body with 70-300mm Zoom Lens.
Should i really avoid the stock lens?

Well there's a few kit lenses available but I'll assume you're talking about the cheapest, the 18-55mm.

Like most kit lenses, it's ok as a general-use still photography lens, but it doesn't really have any strengths or specialities. It's not a very fast lens, meaning it's pretty useless in low light, and it's not a constant aperture zoom either which means that it gets even darker when not at full wide. The build quality is not very good either, and it doesn't have a proper focus ring, but instead just a little grip bit on the inner lens barrel.

If you're going to be using it for photography as well then it's an ok lens to start with because it covers a pretty useful zoom range and is small and light, but for video use it's not quite as usefull.

There's plenty of second hand glass available so it's not hard to quickly (and relatively cheaply) put a decent lens collection together if you if decide to buy body only.

I was talking about the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 image-stabilized lens included.

For lenses,
Is anything above f/3 poor in low light?
What f stop should i be looking for that would be good for video in low light?

What f stop should i be looking for that would be good for video in low light?

F2.0 or faster.

The problem is that "low light" is meaningless. It's like saying I need a long rope. How long a rope should I buy? Without knowing what the actual light levels are, we can only guess. I sometimes have to film in very dark conditions, and for that I have an F1.4 lens. It's usually fast enough, but I couldn't focus anything faster, so that's just the limit for me.

I also wonder if things can be compared to high fidelity sound systems. When you are first starting out you can't tell the difference because you don't have the eye/ear for it. As you get critical of your work you will be able to see the tiny differences in sharpness, micro-contrast, color, brokeh, the way the lens renders highlights, and changes from sharp to blur amounts. A good photographer/videographer should be able to do great work with crappy equipment because composition is a big part of the equation.

Another big benefit that has not been brought up is subject isolation. People love primes because you can completely blur out the background. You also want to differentiate yourself from the uncle bobs. If you buy the same equipment that uncle bob buys then you are not going to stand out if your composition skills are lacking. Put some zeiss glass on the camera and its hard to take a bad picture because the average person has not seen that type of quality in an exposure.

One thing I didn't learn early on is that you can get quality for cheap. You have years worth of glass at your disposal with the Canon system. Id recommend a fotodiox.com adapter to convert m42 to ef mount and on ebay, and bid on a helios 44m-6. This lens is a rip off of a German zeiss lens design that was stolen during wwII. Its a $3,000 for $25-40 and you get a feel for how different designs render your image differently (shoot at f2). Its great for video and it will introduce you to all the other options available to us video guys who can take advantage of manual focus glass.

if you target one of the many zoom lenses at 2.8 avaialble on the maket, you should be happy for cheap.
(going from 11 to 70 with Tokina, Tamron, Sigma and Canon L-lenses).
if you just shoot with plenty of light, any lens will fit.

Essentially, it ends up costing about $100 when bought in a kit. And that's about what it's worth. Biggest positive is the IS. Biggest negative for me was a lack of sharpness and it's a slow lens.

Positives is it works right out the box, it's decent in daylight/bright lighting, and it has IS.

But it's certainly a fine starter lens and I have no regrets buying the kit.

I haven't found kit lens sharpness to be an issue at all:

http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv28/perroneford/Dorothy%20Oven/_MG_0413_out.jpg

It is EASILY outresolving the sensor in video mode, and seems pretty good in stills mode as well. Outdoors in daylight, it's fast enough.

I am trying to decipher which lenses I should initially purchase that will offer the most bang for the buck. Here is my current plan of attack:

4 lenses I'm considering for the price i can afford;
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
55-250mm f/4-5.6 - (Kit lens with 60D) = $1149
EF 50mm f/1.8 II = $99
EF 28mm f/2.8= $242

75% of the time I'm shooting video in controlled well lit environments or daylight.
25% of the time I'm shooting video in low light conditions.

So If i own 4 cheap lenses I might be able to cover 75% of all video shooting conditions. At which point I would rent lenses for low light conditions. Considering low light lenses cost so much; why so critical to have them for 25% of the my time?

Am I overlooking anything here?

Are we saying the kit lens sharpness is only a noticeable issue in photography b/c in video mode 1920x1080 resolution cant resolve the point at which more sharpness in a lens would matter? IF this is a fact that is a good point for me. For the 60D I am only interested in video (not that i will never use it for stills) but I am buying my lenses for filmmaking.

Response in reference to Perrone and Vincent.

Are we saying the kit lens sharpness is only a noticeable issue in photography b/c in video mode 1920x1080 resolution cant resolve the point at which more sharpness in a lens would matter? IF this is a fact that is a good point for me. For the 60D I am only interested in video (not that i will never use it for stills) but I am buying my lenses for filmmaking.

Response in reference to Perrone and Vincent.

The kit lens isn't sold for video purposes. It's sold to take photos with. And it's job is to produce a sharp picture using the entire 18 megapixel sensor at 5000+ x 3000+. At 1920x1080 the lens is so much sharper than the sensor could possibly capture it hardly matters any more. If you ask me if you put on some Canon L glass, or some Zeiss, or other premium glass would there be a noticeable difference, I will say the answer is yes. If you asked me if it was "better" I'd probably say no.

Many of us use vintage glass. Lenses from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. As an experiment, I put a Nikon 50mm F1.4 lens on the camera and in still mode, took a photo of a resolution chart that went to 4000 lines. The Lens resolved detail past 2000 lines. This tells me that good 45 year old glass is MORE than sufficient to outresolve the sensor in the Canon in video, and likely in stills mode. In video mode, these cameras are resolving something like 750 out of the possible 1080 lines so the glass sharpness becomes even less a factor.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the kit lens (other than being slow) is absolutely FINE for shooting video with. I've done it, and been well pleased with my results as have my clients.

My other question is this. Why are you paying a premium for autofocus lenses, when that feature doesn't work on the camera in video mode? Not only are you paying more than you should, you're using lenses that are HORRIBLE to focus manually, when you could buy lenses DESIGNED to focus manually and save yourself a load of cash in the bargain.

I'm just asking...

My other question is this. Why are you paying a premium for autofocus lenses, when that feature doesn't work on the camera in video mode? Not only are you paying more than you should, you're using lenses that are HORRIBLE to focus manually, when you could buy lenses DESIGNED to focus manually and save yourself a load of cash in the bargain.

I'm just asking...

Because I'm not aware of this until you mentioned it. I have so far spent about 5 hours learning everything i know about canon lenses. I have shot on the 7D before with f/2.8 lenses, but my DP knew everything about his own equipment to achieve the shot i wanted. Now that I'm going to own one, time for me to learn. And I'm happy to do so. I am currently aware, that there are things about lenses I do not yet know. I plan to know these things over the next week so i can make a wise purchasing decision.

Should i really avoid the stock lens?

without gong into the long discussion about what are planning to film, my advise would be don't buy lenses slower than f 2.8, they will have limited usability;

if you shoot movies,there are chances you will be on the wide angle side.
take in account the crop factor, that make the field of view narrower on 60D relative to what it has been build for.
if you shoot interiors, a 50mm that become a 75mm could be way too long except in very large rooms.
Zooms are great because you do not need to change your lens or move all the stuff every 3 minutes.
2.8 is only one stop far from the lowest 1.4 you can find on few lenses. Most of fast lenses are 1.8 or 2.0 at best and it is no so better than 2.8. and you will pay a lot to get that supplemental half stop.
a good choice would be a tamron/tokina 16-50 at 2.8, that is a universal lens for less than $700
if you really need wide angle, tokina make a 11-16 at 2.8, with 2 lenses you would cover from 11 to 50.
sigma is doing (if you can find it) a 28-70 at 2.8 that would just give you the entry level to tele (remember that a 70mm on a D60 will give you over 100mm equivalent).
About autofocus and other features. Yes you do not need them for movie, but think it comes for free and make the value of the lens for photo or (who knows) the day DSLR will be able to shoot video and focus at the same time.

Actually, going from 2.8 to 1.4 is two stops, representating 400% as much light as f2.8, a huge difference IMO. So F1.8 vs F2.8, the amount of light ratio is (2.8/1.8)^2=242%. You can see the effect by changing your shutter speed from 1/100 to 1/40.

Not only are you paying more than you should, you're using lenses that are HORRIBLE to focus manually, when you could buy lenses DESIGNED to focus manually and save yourself a load of cash in the bargain.

Because some of us also make money using them for photography. Plus things might change with the Mark III. I don't think the issue with kit lens is its sharpness (thanks for correcting that Perrone), I think the issue is its versatility, color, rendering. Study up on antique glass. You can get stuff down to 1.4 afford-ably and have the option to shoot in the dark. You can also find a lot of glass that doesn't have aperture stops that click, so you can smoothly change your exposure.

Then there is the investment, kit lenses don't have very good resell value. You buy glass thats worth it and you sell it for more than you bought it for in five years. Tyson, looks good to start. If I had done it over again I would have studied below, but maybe its not worth the time it takes: Manual Focus Lenses (http://mflenses.com/)

If you ask me if you put on some Canon L glass, or some Zeiss, or other premium glass would there be a noticeable difference, I will say the answer is yes. If you asked me if it was "better" I'd probably say no.

Why "no"? Why do guys like Shane hurlbut push this stuff? I understand the debate that a competent photographer/videographer should be able to do something great, even with a p&s.

Still Lenses That Can Grace The Big Screen | Hurlbut Visuals (http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/06/still-lenses/comment-page-3/#comment-5575)

Because some of us also make money using them for photography.


Understood. The OP made careful comment that this was not a need he had. Thus my question to him. I use my lenses for both photography as well as video, but for someone who does not have the need, the purchase decision might well be different.



Why "no"? Why do guys like Shane hurlbut push this stuff? I understand the debate that a competent photographer/videographer should be able to do something great, even with a p&s.


Hurlbut doesn't push "L" glass. He doesn't like it and neither do I. Hurlbut likes Nikon glass and I have a bunch of it. He has Zeiss glass, I don't care for it and couldn't afford it even if I did. Hurlbut is also making 10x - 50x what I make on a shoot and his needs are different than most people here. Very few people here are doing work that will end up on broadcast TV or in the local Cinemaplex. I've seen what Nikon, Canon L, Canon non-L, and some other glass looks like on our screening theater (28ft screen) and at the theater where we premiered which is bigger than 42ft. I was pleased with the look of the Nikon glass far more than the other glass. For out next film we used the Nikon glass more.

Pay close attention to the people who are complaining about aliasing and Moire. And notice how many of those folks are using ultra-sharp glass like the Compact Primes and the "L" glass. Then see comments from the vintage glass shooters. You barely hear anything about these issues. In my opinion, based on what I've shot and what I've seen shot, the very sharp glass causes more problems than it solves, and costs a small fortune to boot. So I don't recommend them. If others like them and want to shoot it, that's fine.

For me these reviews only go so far. At some point, you've just got to put the glass on your own camera, and go see what it does.

Thanks to everyone included, I now understand that f/2.8 is what i must be going for for video. Man, i cant believe how dumb i was 2 days ago! Anyway, I'm now adjusting and looking at the Tamron 17-55mm f2.8 lens as a primary lens i might use often. -As used it sells for only $400. ($800 new)

I would say the line up of lenses you want/plan to buy should have an impact on whether or not to get the 18-135 kit. If you initially want to buy some fast primes then get the kit, use it, and start buying primes. If the first lens you want is a 17-50/18-55 f2.8 then use the $100 toward that lens.I have many lenses and my 17-50 2.8 is on my camera almost exclusively when it comes to video. For stills I favor my primes.

Tyson I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and NEVER take it off my camera. I have the OS/IS version and got it for $650 with a $50 rebate. Tamrons are known to be optically better than Sigma but rarely have an autofocus system as good. With video autofocus is pointless so it was a no brainer to me. And a grand for the canon is simply laugh worthy.