>>4525248
Nifty-fifty is the way, it's cheap and has more artistic potential.

>>4525248
as a beginner you should read the sticky and post your questions in the gear thread

>>4525248
50mm is good for taking artistic pictures of your own butt hole, but if you want to take interesting pictures of wildlife a zoom that reaches out to at least 300 is necessary.

File: 28105.jpg (63 KB, 500x500)

63 KB JPG

The 50mm will be really helpful for low light if you're using an older Canon DSLR, you probably won't want to crank the ISO too much so f/1.8 helps a lot. You'll also be able to get sharper photos than with a zoom, and the fixed focal length forces you to work on your composition. Playing with depth of field is also a lot of fun when you're a beginner. You can't go wrong with it.
That 55-250 is obviously more versatile, but that's its only strength. It does an OK job throughout the zoom range. It's fine for what it is, but most people don't need 250mm and if they do they should buy something nicer. Trying to get into bird or wildlife photography with that specific lens will probably leave you frustrated.
Personally, if I could only have a single cheap EF lens to experiment with, I'd get a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. It performs unbelievably well for the price and when you pair it with a crop sensor the zoom range is much more useful than a 55-250. The only problem is that the manual focus ring isn't great. If you dig through ebay you can get one of those AND an STM 50mm for less than the price of an STM 55-250.

>>4525248
On APSC 50mm is more of a portrait focal length, 75-80mm equivalent. I would rather recommend a 35mm or the 24mm pancake instead.
The 50-250 is a good beginner telezoom but if you get into birding/wildlife be warned, it is a slippery slope with expensive telezooms and telephoto primes but they are fantastic.

>>4525248
>i dont know specifically what i want to shoot yet.
then don't buy anything stupid

>>4525248
As a beginner it depends.
Do you want to be a superb art photog? Get a prime and kneecap yourself intentionally so you either sink or swim. You'll most likely sink because the actual volume of effort and learning is normally more than most newbies can handle.
If you want to just take pretty pictures and want something that looks better than your phone while avoiding AI bullshit, get a zoom. You'll hit better shots out of the gate.

You can train yourself to do both over time, but each school of thought has hardliners that'll tell you there is only one path.

>>4525263
personally for someone like op i would prefer a cheap prime over a cheap zoom. at least the prime will give you appreciable improvements in quality over a phone where it'll make you want to use a camera.

plus a 50mm f1.8 or even f1.4 is what? $50-100 in canon ef?

>>4525277
Yeah you're not wrong. For OP's sake, I got my EF 50mm f/1.8 STM for $95 Diggerydollars, which is probably about $70 freedom shekels. No matter how much I might use my f/4 zooms more, the sheer value of a cheap prime is very high.
Sure, zoom is nice to have for convenience, but my old EF-S 55-250 STM was $210. Is the 55-250 @50mm even half as good as the 50mm STM? Nope, the prime smashes it in terms of IQ from about f/2.5 onwards, and the wider apertures are still useful for other reasons.

The 50mm is literally an afterthought in terms of monetary investment.

>>4525248

Get the cheapest zoom you can to dick around with until you figure out what you're actually shooting (which can and probably will be very different than what you think you're shooting.)

Then save up for a nice used prime in that range.

>>4525248
As a creep, I 100% recommend buying a zoom lens with good range. Zooming all the way to the top end, and having like a 4 degree field of view on your sensor is really fun.

Both good starter lenses, but I recommend the 55-250 (STM version). Sure, the 50mm will give you that shallow DOF effect you are probably going after, but the 55-250 is very versatile for travel, portraits, automotive photography, etc. It's also super sharp and has great stabilization. You can get shallow DOF as well, you just have to use it correctly - wide open at longer focal lengths. I feel like you'd learn a lot more from the zoom.

>>4525263
My first lens was 50mm f/1.8 and I used it exclusively for a few months before the gearfaggotry struck me.
A friend's son wanted to start photography so I loaned him an APS-C Canon with and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. Hopefully he'll figure out faster what he wants, as a gearfaggot it kinda bothers me how he's apparently happy with that gear as is

File: 098A3548-2.jpg (2.39 MB, 2000x1333)

2.39 MB JPG

>>4525288
Shot with a 55-250, for good measure.

File: 098A4795-2.jpg (1.18 MB, 1600x1067)

1.18 MB JPG

>>4525290
Another with the 55-250.

>>4525248
18-55 /120 /200

The 55-250mm is useless indoors

>>4525252
Ah yes, I expected to find your miserable ass here complaining whenever someone makes a new thread in an otherwise dead board.
Consider non-existence, faggot.

>>4525578
I'm flattered you care so much you think you recognize me but I've no idea who you are

>>4525582
Take your meds, Clive

>>4525583
>answers instantly on slowest board of the website
>think they're being persecuted by a mysterious name on an anonymous website
>meds mentioned
ah, yes, the obligatory schizo of the board. Makes sense we never met. Since I usually never post in gear threads I've managed stay clear from the mentally ill until now.

>>4525248
55-250 sounds mostly like a useless range. You can use the bottom end of the range for general photography and portraits but the upper end is not going to give enough reach for wildlife and seems a bit pointless. I'd say get a 25-80 or something close to that, then if you want to do wildlife, get a 400 or 600 prime.

>>4525585
I just logged in lol
Take your tylenol, autist

>>4525583
This fucking Clive myth can honestly die in a soggy hole you schizoid nigger.
Yes there was a Clive being a hamfisted retard at one point. No, not everyone you disagree with otb is named Clive.
>>4525590
>55-250 sounds mostly like a useless range. You can use the bottom end of the range for general photography and portraits but the upper end is not going to give enough reach for wildlife and seems a bit pointless.
Brother it's just a (88)100-400mm lens but for APS-C. You know, like the third most popular zoom range after GP and 70-200mm? Beginners are not going to have fun with supertele primes. Hell, most photogs wouldn't unless they were specifically shooting one kind of thing.
>>4525551
>The 55-250mm is useless indoors
Most zooms are unless you're lugging a f/2.8 around. Idk why there's this constant desire to point this out around here. There's photography in well-lit areas, or outside as well. Also, dark things are okay to be, you know, dark? Framing a shot properly instead of cropping (because face it, primes make you miss some shots) has just as much merit as cleaning up a few stops of noise. At least as a beginner anon can get more familiar with what he wants.

>>4525585
>>4525637
I think it stuck because it's a memorable yet uncool name so people assume it's not a pseudonym. It's almost self-mocking. Had it been Clyde or Klavdiy they'd have to come up with some nickname.

>>4525639
>implying 99% of the posts containing "clyde" were not written by the same schizophrenic individual

>>4525646
my bad meant clive
the point is I am not versed in mentally ill gearfag culture but most of them dont have enough digit of IQ to write an ironic pist anyway so it's probably a schizo

>>4525637
The fact that clive is a real guy, a native of /p/ who trolled every other website, just makes it funnier. The real clive gets to watch people have mental breakdowns and accuse him of being ludicrous shit like a 5'2" hapa jew that fucks his husky. He is the most accomplished troll since moop.

>>4525248
get the superzoom to help you figure out what you like

i bought the 55-210 one did i fuck up?

Long lenses are nice, but I think 200-250 FF equivalent is not a lot, unless maybe you have a lot of megapixels to crop. I have a 200 on an APS-C and it's barely enough for distant objects.

>>4525660
Hi moop

>>4525637
I don't care if it's popular, it's still useless. For anything besides wildlife you can just walk up closer to it and get a better picture from a shorter range. With wildlife, 400 FF equivalent is not enough.

>>4525697
That's the RF mount version. They kneecapped the long end (210mm vs 250mm), the aperture is 2/3rds of a stop narrower, and the optical performance is slightly worse.
In return it's smaller. Eh. The EF/RF adapter and the EF-S 55-250 STM would have been "better" but also bulkier.

Anon I hope you have an RF body because you led the thread with EF lenses in mind and the RF 55-210 will not fit a DSLR.

File: 1730814622937865.png (117 KB, 461x400)

117 KB PNG

>>4525755
>you can just walk up closer to it and get a better picture from a shorter range
>Wow let me just apply that logic everywhere and suddenly every photo is possible with a phone. Let's all just zoom zoom with our feet! Lmao this 24mm lens is great for everything if I just move closer! Why does any other lens exist?

Draw the line somewhere faggot, because greater focal length is undoubtedly useful and there's enough contrarian niggerdom otb as it is.
If 400 isn't enough, why is 500? Or 600?
An EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is like $1000, while a 600mm f/4 is more like 15k.

>>4525769
>An EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is like $1000, while a 600mm f/4 is more like 15k.
The fast telephotos are pricey and unwieldy, it's not worth it unless you really know you need it. Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS would be around 650 eurobucks and probably quite enough for birding with an R7 or something - it's insane how a 600mm prime cost at least three times more than that setup

>>4525769
The EF 100-400 is crap, soft on the long end, AF is slow and is a push-pull zoom design, also has crap weather sealing and is essentially a huge dust pump. The EF 100-400 II would be a much better comparison because the 600/4 has a gorgeous image even on todays sensors.

>>4525755
It was a budget telephoto for dad with his first DSLR taking photos at the zoo. It serves that purpose perfectly. It's a shame you don't see beginner lenses used by more skilled photographers, because this one is really capable in experienced hands.
Like >>4525769 said, you are just being contrarian.

The last version 55-250 IS STM is commanding a premium over the first two versions of the lens and is a decent lens provided you are not gonna adapt it to some high megapickles sensor camera like the the R7 where it can be a bit limiting because it was never designed for that type of pixel density, but in general the EF glass produced from circa 2010 and onward are still great performers.

>>4525248
are you shooting on APS-C or Full Frame?

a 55-250mm will view like a 70-300mm on a crop sensor camera, eg bird sighting. if you want an every day beginner lens, especially on crop, just use a kit lens like 18-55mm (22-80mm equivalent). it'll get you the 35mm for landscape, the 50mm for "natural" pics, and 70mm for portrait photography. unless you're doing a lot of shooting indoors, a f/1.x lens is pointless, especially as a beginner, most lenses are equally sharp when stopped down a few stops. in fact, zoom lenses are typically sharper at f/8 than primes. also, most modern cameras can shoot ISO 3200 without concern, so even if you shoot indoors with a f/5.6 you'll get plenty of exposure.

and we can always default to the cliche, "the best camera/lens is the one you have with you"

also, we live in the age of technology, go chat with google ai, use it as a sounding board to figure out what you want to do. don't believe it in blind faith, it's known to be wrong, but bounce ideas off of it

>>4525775
>>4525797
>The fast telephotos are pricey and unwieldy, it's not worth it unless you really know you need it.
>The EF 100-400 is crap, soft on the long end, AF is slow and is a push-pull zoom design, also has crap weather sealing and is essentially a huge dust pump.
It was more an example of how a zoom and 400mm max focal length is far better value than some autistic supertele prime. I would recommend the 2nd gen lens not the 1st.
Same reason I wouldn't recommend a C63 to a guy on a learner's permit.

>>4525835
It's the only crop Canon tele worth buying. When I used it like 5 years ago it was perfectly fine on a 24MP sensor.
But basically any modern EF lens will do pretty well considering the cost:value ratio.

File: file.jpg (78 KB, 450x450)

78 KB JPG

>>4525261
>the 24mm pancake instead
this, assuming OP has a crop sensor canon
they accidentally made a good EF-S only lens and then agreed to never do it again. it's tiny, light, decently sharp, 40mm equivalent so just a biiiit wider than a 50, renders nicely, and cheap. fucking get that shit
a 55-250 is the telephoto that comes with a Rebel kit as the pack-in zoom lens and you will find that, as a beginner, it's both too long for 'normal' use (the EF 50mm will be too, becoming an 80 on crop cameras) and too short to actually zoom in on the interesting shit you see, you won't be looking at planets or airplanes with 300mm and haven't found the interesting stuff closer yet.
t. began on a 550D kit with the 18-55 and 55-250 back when dinosaurs roamed

>>4525766
yes i do have RF. thanks. i'm not op i'm just some guy

File: 1751879723347746.jpg (78 KB, 750x1000)

78 KB JPG

>>4525248
Man i hate these fake boomer threads, when some faggot (probably a mod) asks anons to help him with lens after he states he needs it to shoot X, then 3 other mods start to recommend him shitty wildlife kit zooms from 2012, and then they start to curlejerk untill the thread reaches 200 replies and that faggot mod never buys anything.

>>4525852
>they accidentally made a good EF-S only lens and then agreed to never do it again
The RF 28mm gets an honorary mention because if anything it's more suitable for crop than it is for FF.
>>4526067
Take your finasteride.

Never buy a zoom lens for any reason.. All zoom lenses must be melted down and turned into prime lenses. The zoom lens must die. It is an abomination.

>>4526269
>zoom lenses are sharper at f/8 and /11 than primes
whoops

>>4526282
>muh sharpness!
you are livestock

>>4526461
that's a weird concession

>>4526466
no one likes your overly-sharp sterile bullshit but you. but by all means, enjoy your sigma """art""" zoom lens that is twice as large and twice as expensive as a prime and produces chatgpt-tier photos.

>>4526657
Nta and I don't really have any stake here, but why the fuck are you manlets afraid of using gear that has any mass to it?
Is the purse meme real? Ofc you'd be retarded to whip out your beeg white lens at a mall but besides shit like that, I don't see the problem with carrying actual tools.
>inb4 muh leatherman just werks

>>4526717
size/weight is just another irrelevant spec for nophotos to min/max argue about

>>4526717
Its always a reference to weddingslop ("holy trinity") and sigma art/snoy G master styled primes
>Carry bigger lens that costs 3x more
>photos look AI generated
There's a reason "gearfag" and "pixel peeper" became such cutting perjoratives that micro fool turds users began feeling a false sense of confidence

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1698397/
>sigma 35mm f2 shoots landscapes as well
>sony gaymaster photos look uncanny and harsh

>>4525248
I'm >>4527247 and the lenses are the 18-55 kit and the 55-250. I have very little experience with DSLRs so take my word for what you will. The 55-250 is pretty nice and sharp. Pictures look nice and bright in good lighting but it's quite lacking in low light. Autofocus is also snappy in photo mode. I haven't tested it in video yet. It's a pretty fun lens overall. I guess you will have to choose between low light performance and telephoto. I will eventually get a 50mm because it goes for like $20 used over but I am in no hurry. Godspeed.

>>4527252
*over here

>>4525248
I could never be bothered to actually swap lenses that often and for a hobby, just carrying one zoom lens for whatever you wanna shoot is just so much less hassle
I got a prime 50 for that sweet f1,4 but I dont notice that much of a difference
my only critique, at least with the zoom I have, is the bokeh looks a lot nicer on the prime when shooting something like flowers or anything where background elements are really close, otherwise they look the same