I have had quite a few point and shoot cameras. I've had 7 that I have owned over the years and then there were a few at work.

The last one was a Canon G10 which I thought had really good picture quality and much better then any of the point and shoots I owned in the past.

Recently, I sold the Canon G10 and replaced it with a Canon Rebel X1i with the kit lens (18-55mm I believe). Wow! This thing runs rings around the Canon G10.

After a little research, I found that there are lenses I can buy for even better photos.

The internal flash on the new Canon is better then the G10, however, I use a 430EX Speedlite external flash which I believe is more then 3 times powerful.

The photos are amazing. If you are thinking of getting a camera, go with the DSLR. Even the best point&shoots cant compare with the DSLR.

I bought backpack style Velocity 10X bag. It looks like a backpack verus a camera bag. This is a must if you are traveling. You dont want to appear like you are walking around with a few grand in lenses and camera.

There are smaller bags like the Velocity 7x which might be better for some individuals, but I got the largest one seeing that if Im traveling around then I might want to stick various items in the bag.

This bag you can move quickly with it strapped across your back when you need to.

I wanted to add to this thread that if you do get a DSLR, do not get the kit lens. Get the "Body only" and then, depending upon what you are using it for, get another lens.

The 18-200 mm Canon lens is a great travel "all in one" lens. It will be good enough for a non-discriminating hobby photographer that just wants pictures better then the point&shoot.

Getting even better pictures requires more lenses with better technology meaning more expensive and more stuff to carry around.

The kit lens seems to work just fine. Sure wish it had more zoom and if I had to do it over again then I would have gotten the 18-200mm.

I have the same camera and I am very happy with it. I would suggest getting a wide angle lens, mini tripod and long range cordless shutter activator. all these dramatically increase the versatility of the camera. I travel with a cheap Cosina 19=35 wide angle and a canon 75-300mm, I use a Lowepro hikes camera bag but I usually put in a cheap flea market back pack. If I am in a less secure area

About lenses, for the best results for Portrait and Landscapes, get a 50mm Prime lens around F1.4. You will be stunned by the results. But you have to zoom with your feet...
Zen.

One thing that I noticed which makes or breaks photos is the Speedlite flash. The only speedlites to get in my opinion are the 430ex ii and the 550ex ii. Either of these two will make for awesome in-room photos.

Oh this is absolutely true. a good flash and using it properly is everything. This is actually one of the biggest difference with compacts vs DSLR, the possibility to use a powerful speedlight.

Zenrico
Took a look at the lense you suggested I bought the Canon 50mm f/1.8 f1.8 II EF AF on ebay, great deal less then US100 including shipping to South Africa which is a big deal. Lenses are about twice the US price here.

Portege, 550EX? did you mean 580EXII?

Canon flashes are for wimps-- try hauling some Elinchrom packs on your next trip.

Everyone else, camera, flashes, etc are tools. No tool "makes a good picture", the photographer does. The best way to take better pictures is look at images you like, practice, study, and yes acquire some basic tools.

I've had the point and shoots for so long that just the kit lens and basic speedlite flash has me in awwww. Yeah I think its the 580exii.

The fun part is learning how to use it and the DSLR is much more fun then the G10. The G10 only came out on special occasions, but now I look for an excuse to take the DSLR out with me wherever I go to snap a few photos here and there of different things and experimenting with the various modes on the camera.

the 550EX is 3 generations old (550EX ->580EX->580EXII). All nice tho.

I hear ya and welcome to the insanity!

Isawal,
Yes in Canon and Nikon the 50 1.8 is a very wise choice because of a very good price. The difference with the 1.4 is very slim. In a Hotel room with chics i usually set my Nikon 1.4 at Manual mode, Shutter of 1/100 to avoid shake, Aperture at F4 or 2.8, to make sure i get the most of the skin sharp... hehe... I bounce flash my SB-800 with the white card open. And set the focus point to the eye usually... Or somewhere else depending on the pose.
Zen.

Zenrico

I took a re look at your pictures and I am impressed I find it more difficult to take good photos of Asian ladies aspecialy when they have that white gunk on their faces. I will post some pictures then the lens arrives I will look forward to your comments.

Isawal.
LOL Yeah man, combined with flash, this white crap produces horrific pictures. Especially if its fresh.

One thing i have to say about big DSLR's is that in the Phils, the ladies LOVE these machines, and they get all excited to pose in front of them. So take control of the shooting and tell them how to pose, they will obey with a smile.
Zen

I took some pictures over the weekend of a local girl who has a thing about getting naked with guns I used my 1000d and Cosina 19-35 wide angle. I will post them tomorrow tell me what you think.

Isawal:

I just hope her face is not green in the photos, if you (and I'm sure only you) know what I mean.

LAguy.
No comment...

Its OK to love guns but she really LOVED GUNS....

Photo: Gun Girl 01
Photo: Gun Girl 02
Photo: Gun Girl 03
Photo: Gun Girl 04
Photo: Gun Girl 05

It took me hours to get the smell out of the guns..

LAGuy where are your comments?

First, I agree her face is no longer green (as per earlier private conversations).

But more importantly, given the pacifist I am (except when a country or someone pisses me off) I would have preferred that she fondle a didgeridoo between her legs rather than a gun. And yes, they do make didgeridoo freshener so that's not a problem.

I think that the green thing had more to do with the quality of your computer. As for using a piece of Australian wood, I am a South African not an Auzy Sheep bugger! We have wood, we might even play with our own wood but blow someone elses wood never...thats an Australian thing.

As for the guns that was her choice, she loved to play. I think she had a thing for barrels.

I've done my homework a little bit more on lenses and so I thought I might come back and share.

The best lens for in-room photography in regards to the Canon, as others had pointed out previously, is this one. This one has a F-stop of 1.8 (versus the 2.8 on most point&shoots and 3.5 on most zoom lens)therefore its better in the lower light of an interior room then the 18-55mm kit lens the camera came with:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-
Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=cm_cmu_pg_t

There is another 50 mm lens and that is the 1.4:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCZ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1256508692&sr=1-1

The 1.4 is a better quality and more durable lens, but the pictures taken by both the lenses are comparable. I don't think there will be much of a difference between the 1.8 or 1.4 for my purposes.

I went with the 1.8 after considerable thinking. The 1.8 would take better pictures then what I have which is the kit 18-55mm lens the camera came with. In all of the pictures I have seen between the two, I can't tell the difference between the 1.8 vs. 1.4 except for a few notables. The differences between the two are apparent in extreme conditions and when something is out of focus in the background.

I concluded that I would not need the 1.4 unless I was a professional. The 1.8 will enough for what I am doing.

In any event, the kit lens that came with the camera takes better pictures then my prior G10. So if the 1.8 takes even better pictures then what I have, I would not be unsatisfied with either the 1.8 or 1.4. The 1.4 is better in low-light, but the 1.8 is also better in low-light then the lens I have. The lens that I have did very well in low light without a flash when I took pictures at night and indoors.

Sigma and Tamron make lenses, but I have read many reviews where there were focus issues. The Canon lens was always judged the best for focus. I looked at several pictures and agreed the geniune Canon lenses seemed to focus better then the the aftermarket counterparts. Therefore, I think I will stick with geniune Canon lenses vs. aftermarket.

(Message edited by Portege on October 25, 2009)

Portege

I agree I picked up the 1.8 as well and have had great fun with it. One thing you didn't mention was the substantial price difference the 1.8 cost about a 1/4 of the 1.4.

I would also suggest using a zoom I use the 75-300 and I have taken some interesting pictures.

Another consideration is picking up an external flash, I picked up a cheap ttl flash and it does perform noticeably better then my 1000d's internal flash.

I believe your zoom lens is nice and I would sure like to pick one up when I master the camera more.

However, I believe the Canon 18-200 all-in-one lens for the purposes of our trips to these foreign destinations would be ideal.

I noticed that some of these lenses cost a lot of money and most of the time priced more then some of the best point&shoots out there.

If you are walking around with a dslr camera you are already a target. However, combine that with a bag full of different lenses and your target size becomes much greater not to mention the weight involved. If you have to change a lens while on the street then you have to stand there vulnerable as onlookers watch you take out a $500-1000+ lens out of the bag. You have to carry all these lenses aboard a plane and around which increases the risk of damage too.

I think its best to bring as little as possible on these trips so I think it comes down to two lenses. The all-in-one lens and the 50 mm. The 50mm used for indoor camera work and the all-in-one for everything else.

Dell has the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens for $89.99 with FREE SHIPPING.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A0405641&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=39715&lid=1003762

The best lens for in-room photography in regards to the Canon, as others had pointed out previously, is this one.

Portege, I know you are new to the world of DSLRs so I think it is important to point out this statement is far off the mark. All the Canon lenses you are talking about are the consumer lenses. The "best" lenses from Canon are the L series.

For indoor situations, I highly recommend the 24-70 2.8 L. For an all-around travel lens, the 24-105 4.0 L. For some throw, the 70-200 2.8 L kicks ass.

I personally don't shoot primes, but I know others who swear by the 50 1.2 L and the 85 1.2 L II for portraiture.

In addition to Amazon, you may want to check out B&H photo, a photographer's best friend and crack dealer.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

I know about the L series lenses, but since I am not a professional or super serious amateur I can't really justify spending over a thousand dollars per lens.

I'll add a lens to Murasaki's list. It is only for those who don't anticipate going full-frame, at least not for some time, or perhaps don't care if the lens eventually has to be relegated.

Even though I own the 24-105 4.0 L, I usually travel with the EF-S 17-55 2.8 for its low light capabilities. Although not an L lens, it costs and generally performs like an L lens. An advantage over the 24-70 2.8 L is it is an IS (image stabilization) lens. To increase reach, I also use a 70-200 L 4.0, mainly so I don't have to break my back with a 70-200 L 2.8 (the 4.0 also uses more recent technology, although I'm not sure how much that matters).

But rather than have us all debate lenses here, www.slrgear.com pretty much covers what needs to be covered.

I bought a Lowepro hikers pack, it fits the camera and has two easy access lens cases attached. I put it in a cheap over shoulder bag to be a little low key. The trick is to carry the right three lenses then doing the tourist thing, any suggestions?

I know a camera marks you as a tourist. but as a 6.1' 300 pound white guy its pretty hard to hide the fact.

The low-light problem is the main issue I have had in the past with point and shoots and camcorders.

The 50mm prime lenses should take care of that, but the other solution is the Canon 2.8 17-55mm. However, I found that lens costs a $1000 which seems like a lot to spend for this one item that I dont use all the time.

Tamron is coming out with a 17-50 2.8 with image stabilization. Sigma has a few 2.8 lenses.

I heard that Sigma has focus issues with Canon. I read a logical explanation which is that Sigma and Tamron have to reverse engineer the auto-focus programming of the Canon's. Canon wont simply give it to them so sometimes you get focus problems. The good thing is that the Sigma and Tamron have long warranties (4 years I think) so you can just send it back to have the lens reprogrammed.

With all due respect, I wouldn't make a blanket statement about the merits of a 24-70 and 24-105. While both are good for zooms and of course L build quality is great, I would much prefer to shoot with a 35L, 50 f/1.4, or 85L. Any yes, I have shot extensively with just about every lense under 400mm.

f/2.8 for a natural light lens is SLOW. I'll take a couple stops over a zoom anyday for my style. Now if your bringing light, yes the zoom.

IQ-- I'll put a non-L prime (50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8) against a 24-105 or 24-70 shot at f/2.8 any day all day. Granted I buy based on build and speed, so yes I go with the 35L and 85L.

why the 50 f/1.4? I shot with the 50L and found that while the build was great, IQ was on par, and going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 wasn't worth the 1k premium. Also, give that 50mm is my walk around. I prefer light and toss away glass. Never tried the 50mm f/1.8-- cannot comment, but sure it's fine for 100 bucks.

It's horses for courses. Newbies learn and develop your style. Buy stuff when you need it not when I or someone else tell you to. When your serious, buy Ls as build quality is more important.

DM: I agree the 2.8 for natural light is slow relatively speaking. But the 17-55 has IS, while the primes you mention do not; doesn't this even the playing field a fair amount, at least with respect to the low light issue?

LAG- it assists with static subjects or the shooter's poor hand held technique, not with obtaining a sharp capture where the subject may have some movement. Also, it's not just about sharp, it's also shooting with a nice and thin DOF-- huge difference between f/2.8 and f/1.4. This greatly assists images in less than perfect settings when your able to blow out the backgrounds.

Again, I'm not suggesting folks run out and buy fast primes, just that one has to weigh their objective, style, and particular shooting situation to determine the best fit.

Well of course Mr. Marco, primes are well known for higher IQ than zooms. But SOME of us prefer more flexibility than what sneaker zooms offer. But like you said, it is a matter of style.

Sneaker zoom works well for me-- it's the only time I get to burn calories these days ;)

C ya soon!

Here is what I did.

I looked at the pictures I got with the kit lens 18-55mm. They all looked superior to any of my pictures with the high-end point&shoot Canon G10. Then I looked at several zoom options and I ended up buying the Canon 55-250 which I paid less then $250 on Amazon.

The 18-55 and 55-250 combination, I have read, are better then the 18-200 in regards to picture quality. They are both cheap lenses so if they are stolen, broken or dropped then I won't be out much cash. The pictures I saw on the internet and reviews I read had some amazingly good photos from my perspective.

The 55-250 was the dirt cheap option lens. The pictures I saw on the internet and reviews I read were all positive. I think it was a good deal for $238.

So I have the following:

Velocity 10x sling bag
18-55 kit lens - came with camera
55-250 kit lens - $238
50mm lens - for indoor pictures and lower light photography - $325

Once I get past this next trip then I will see about other lenses depending upon my experience and the pictures I take. I think these three lenses will be fine for now.

The sling bag has worked for me very well as it does not look like a camera bag (more like a small backpack) and can be pivoted around fairly quickly to take out lenses and such.

The L and other non-L lenses are much better quality then the kit ones. However, I think I will get by with the ones from the kit for now.

just bought a Canon T1i. I bought a 28-70 auto focus lense and a 430 ex2 speedlite.

I didn't know that I was capable of taking photos that good. Cant wait til my next trip.

Cool camera, you should think of getting a 50mm 1.8 lens for all those in room pictures you are going to post to the site.

Well, the 50mm lens just arrived and I have some questions.

I did some experimentation with the camera in a large bedroom which I estimate will be about the size of the hotel room. Well, the hotel room is probaby a greater size, but probably not by much.

You have to get a good distance away from the woman in order to get her full body and a good shot with the 50mm.

I believe the 50mm is a good lens, but something like a 20/24/28mm lens would be more practical. I looked at the reviews for the non-L series lenses with a focal distance under 50mm and no one seemed very crazy about those lenses. Only the L series lenses, $1500+ lens, seemed to be everyone's favorite. All of the L lenses will solve any issue you have as long as you are willing to spend over $1500 per lens...

I came to the conclusion the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 is probably the lens that should be the one bought first. Its a little lower in price, is better optically then the kit lens and the 2.8 has better low-light capabilities then the kit lens. I think the 1.8 50mm cannot be passed up because its very cheap, but I can't see using it too much in the room without having a very large room.

How do you guys manage with the 50mm?



(Message edited by Portege on October 31, 2009)

My main lens is the 17-55 2.8. Pricey for a lens that cannot be used on a full-frame body, but it gets the job done quite well on the Canons with the 1.6 crop factor.

However, I can't really comment on the bokeh with this lens compared to let's say the 50 prime 1.4 or even the 1.8. I suspect the 50 1.4 might do a bit better in this regard. But for a relatively versatile lens that gives you a shot getting good photos in relatively low-light situations, the 17-55 is a good compromise.

I should mention a funny experience I had with that lens though, and keep in mind Thai people believe in ghosts. I took a full-length picture of a gal in Thailand dancing around in my living room. For this I used room-level illumination, no flash. As DM correctly points out above, the IS is ineffective in removing subject movement and therefore for a moving subject in low light an f-stop of 2.8 is a bit high. Anyway, the picture came out such that she looked like a ghost; you could see right through her, which was kind of surprising.

The problem is when she saw the photo on my computer, she kind of freaked out, I guess because she looked like a ghost. I just hope I didn't cause her any long-term psychological harm!

And while we are talking about DSLR's, I could use some advice. I'm going to visit South Africa soon and will do the wildlife thing while there. I've used this as an excuse to purchase some additional camera equipment.

My main camera will be a Canon 7D. For lenses I will also have the EFS10-22, EFS 17-55 2.8, EF 70-200L 4.0, and EF 100-400L 4.5-5.6.

I plan on having two cameras with me, one for the 17-55 or 10-22, and the other for the 100-400L, with the 70-200L used as a backup when the light gets too low for the 100-400.

I have two potential back-up cameras: a 40D, and the new Ti1 (or whatever it is called). I can't decide which to bring. The 40D may be a bit more solid, but the Ti1 has newer technology, and some video capabilities. Any recommendations?

Also, I'm thinking about using the 7D for the 100-400 lens and the backup camera for the 17-55. The only counterargument I can think of is I might want to use the superior video on the 7D for some panoramic shots (of course, there is nothing that says I can't at some points change the lenses, although I'm not sure how hospitable the environment would be for that).

Anyway, my main question is which backup camera should I bring? And secondarily, am I correct to use the better camera with the two longer lenses rather than the other way around?

I went with the t1i. I chose it over the 50 and 40d. I just didn't want to pay the extra money for a few more functions that I didn't think I needed.

After experimenting with the 50mm lens, I am regretting its purchase and looking to return it. Its only useful if you are a ways away from what you want to picture and no good as a walk around lens.

I have concluded the wisest avenue is to go with the 17-55mm 2.8. Tamron has a solution coming out for about $600 which is a 17-50 2.8mm lens vibration compensated lens. For indoor photography in the room, a Speedlite like the 430ex or 580exii bouncing of the ceiling will do.

There are other solutions like certain Canon L lens or certain prime lenses from Sigma, but each solution comes at a certain expense that I am not willing to make.

Contrary to my last few posts, I am going to make the following my standard setup and sell (return) the extra equipment I have:
- 17-55 2.8
- kit zoom 55-250mm
- 430ex/580exii speedlite

I saw the Canon 18-200mm all-in-one lens, but was not satisfied with the images I saw on the web. I also judged the 18-200mm took worse pictures then the kit lens and did not want to get something that was worse then what I have already. I'm not certain when I will need the power of a 250mm zoom and think a seperate lens would be justified. I think I will be happy with the cheap $230 zoom lens for those rare instances. Other mongers might have some greater zoom requirements though.

The 580exii would be a better flash for the Angeles City crowd that likes to go to bars which allow photos. I have taken some photos with the 430 ex and it seems powerful enough for lighting in a small room.

I went online and saw 100 watt 220 volt lightbulbs that cost a few dollars. These would double or triple the in-room lighting as most of these hotel rooms come with low power fluros that have the lighting equivalent of a 40 watt bulb.

There has been good advice in this thread.

BHPhotovideo.com is a good pro store to get equipment from, yes. Often not the very best prices but great customer service and warranties.

DSLR is very good, but high end point and shoot cameras can take good photos.

The problem is lighting, low light, and an indirect bounce flash which can be mounted on high end point and shoot cameras like Canon G7, G9 etc. And yes, the prime lenses or L lenses are much better then any point and shoot camera.

The Canon 50 mm f 1.8 lens definitely is the best bang for the buck. A MUST. Be extremely careful about dust, dirt, spit when changing lenses.

with 18-55 lens, avoid wide angles, keep it on 30-55 only. Wide angle lenses make unflattering distortions of people. I think you don't need a zoom of under 28 mm. 28-135 is a well known nice cheap Canon Lens.

Get a room with white ceiling and walls to bounce a flash. Or at daytime, get the window in the photographer's back and shoot. Great light.

One of my many professions is being a photographer. I even have a well equipped photo studio in Copacabana, if you want great photos of your girlfriend, you can rent it or hire me for the photos. Your camera should have "manual" position or an external flash shoe to work well in the studio.

I also often take photos for "Gata da Hora" in Meia Hora newspaper. Contact me if your girl looks good and wants to be in the newspaper.

I know most of you will not want a studio or a photographer, but just to let you know there is the option.

Here some photos I posted to Club Hombre, years ago:
https://www.clubhombre.com/brazilspecialist/Miss_RJ2006/

I posted another beauty contest
https://www.clubhombre.com/brazilspecialist/Beauty_Contest/

I want to like the 50mm as much as you guys do. How do you use it while in a hotel room? I think its going to present a challenge and thus money is probably best spent on a premium general purpose lens like the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and a premium speedlite for the low-lighting situations in the room.

I know there are focus problems with aftermarket lenses, but I understand that Tamron does not suffer the same focus issues as Sigma and Tamron has a generous warranty where you can keep sending the lens back to them so they can re-chip the lens.

Portege, you can buy a few primes of varying focal lengths for the cost of a 17-55. The benefit of an SLR is that you choose the right lens for the particular situation, not try to find the silver bullet. Buy whatever suits your style, but I would at least stick with canon glass (why you bought a canon I presume).

If you have a cropped sensor, getting full body shots in small hotel rooms can pose a challenge (you'll need about 7-8 feet working space). With that said, I would assume that your not buying a DSLR and lenses just for in-hotel room body snapshots.

On a side note, someone firing off a flash (e.g., your future 430ex) in a bar would end quickly wear out the welcome mat ;) This is where glass speed and high ISO performance come into play.


At the end of the day- shoot, develop your style, then buy what fits your style. As long as you buy quality lenses (not 3rd party), you can unload them fairly quick.

What do you think of the Tamron 17-50 that is coming out? I know its not Canon glass, but just want to get some thoughts;)

Although I have a couple of Canon primes, I don't use them all that much. The reason is my dust paranoia, initially developed when the early Canon DSLRs had no protection against dust on the sensor. Although they now come with dust "shakers" I am still a dust paranoid.

So while I agree it would be nice to swap primes as needed, I use the zooms a hell of a lot more than primes if for no other reason than to avoid too many lens changes and the risks of dust.

LAG, buy a rocket blower for 10 bucks and stop the worry ;)

Or clean it once a year-- a monkey could do it. Dust shakers are for the most part a gimmick.

I'm learning little by little of the DSLR world. Here is the information I have collected so far on lenses. I post this up as a primer for those who are thinking about getting one.

Canon has 3 qualities of Lenses:

- Economy - 50mm 1.8, Kit lens 18-55, 55-250. Lightweight, made of plastic. Not weather-resistant or durable. Wherever metal would be used on regular lenses, plastic is used. Lenses have a toy-like feel. 50mm=less then $100, 18-55 $150, 55-250 $230

These lenses take good pictures, but usually not as good as the higher quality lenses. They will beat their point&shoot counterparts and most people will be satisfied with the shots from these.

These are not all-weather lenses and not designed for heavy use.

- Mid-Grade Lenses- More metal parts and durable. Look and feel is a bit more substantial. Not weathersealed. Lenses range from $350 to $1000. Designed for the serious amateurs who will use the lenses at least a few times a week. Pictures tend to be better then their economy counterparts. Heavier then the economy lenses.

- High-grade lenses (L series lenses) - Designed for professionals and those who use the camera every day. Weathersealed so operating the cameras in rain is doable. Most durable design and will last over time with heavy use. Tends to take the best pictures in the lens line-up. Lenses tend to be priced the highest at this level.

Aftermarket lenses - Sigma/Tamron
Its hit or miss with aftermarket lenses. Reviews indicate more satisfaction with Tamron Lenses then Sigma.

The main issue with aftermarket lenses seems to be focus. These companies have to reverse engineer the focus technology as Canon won't give it to them. The focus is sometimes good, but sometimes bad. Sigma seems to have the most focus problems.

Long warranties on aftermarket lenses is a plus. 4-6 year for the aftermarket vs. only 1 year for Canon.

All of the lenses, aftermarket and Canon, will produce pictures that are better in quality then the point&shoots and acceptable to the average non-photography person.

lenses and cameras don't take good pictures, the photographer does. You can own the very best Ls and a Ds3 and still have your images look like shit. Not trying to be harsh, but instead of spending your time pondering the merits of canon vs. tamron or conjecture about AF quality-- take a class, go to an exhibit, shoot, learn...

(Message edited by donmarco on November 03, 2009)

Portege, since you seem to be very keen on learning some fundamentals about photography, I highly recommend Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. I recommend it to everyone who is starting out. Amazon has it for about 17 bucks.

Also, since you belong to the Canon family, you should utilize this web site in the future when researching a lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

They've tested everything Canon has put out, plus some of the others.

Believe me, I cannot put this thing down for now. I find I am bringing it with me wherever I go. In order not to look like a geek, I have the Velocity 10 slingbag.

I went to a Halloween party at a bar. I thought about bringing it, but then I thought it was large, expensive and it might look a little geeky lugging it around all night.

I showed up to the party to find no less then 3 people with DSLRs and lenses.