I'm not that familiar with Canon gear. In general a more expensive lens will give you more versatility than a cheaper lens. However, that canon kit lens is so mediocre that just about any lens will show more detail in the scene.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..

I did not buy the kit lens with my 350D; rather, I bought the "thrifty 50." It also is a cheap lens, but it takes good photos. However, my L lenses (17-40 and 70-200) capture much more detail and better color. The kit (and my 50) serve a useful purpose, but eventually you feel the need for better quality lenses..

Jerry..

11 x 14 print..

1/250 at f 11.

Canon 50mm f1.2 really expensive lens.

Canon 50mm f1.8 really cheap lens.

Canon 18-55 kit lens set at 50mm.

Sigma 24-135mm lens set at 50mm.

You'd never tell the difference..

I've actually done this, except for the 1.2 lens. No difference at f5.6 and at f8, either, with the other three lenses..

BAK..

In bright light situations, shooting at a high f-stop, the better lens will get you sharper pictures with better colors. Thats it (its a big deal to some people). That's pretty much the case all around, you pay for nice glass and you get sharper pictures..

Another large benefit to expensive lenses are the speed for low light conditions and action shots. If you don't need the speed than you may consider sacrificing the sharpness for a few hundred, or even thousand dollars..

Maybe the best thing for you to do is rent some nice lenses and shoot with them, see if you notice the difference from your older, not so nice lenses. It's hard to say just what you will notice, maybe nothing maybe everything..

Ryanhttp://www.ryandearth.com..

RE>That's pretty much the case all around, you pay for nice glass and you get sharper pictures. <.

Really?.

Done the tests?.

No? Didn't think so..

Color? Yeah, sure..

BAK..

Ryan made a good suggestion. Rent an L lens and use it for a week, and compare the results with your "normal" lens. LensProToGo.com has reasonable rental rates for lenses, and you don't even have to pay the shipping. Decide for yourself whether an L lens is worth it..

Jerry..

In the sense of portraits where you want to have a very shallow depth of field to throw the background completely out of focus, the less expensive lenses cannot compare to a 200mm at f2.8, much less a 200 f2. But that shouldn't matter to you, since the 200 f2 type of lens costs more than my last two cars!.

Nearly every lens is sharp at f8, so if you are going to use it in bright light at medium apertures, then it really doesn't make much of a difference. It is when you need special purpose lenses in dim light or on high resolution cameras that the brighter lenses are irreplaceable.Chris, Broussard, LA..

Daws wrote:.

In essence, is the major benefit of more expensive glass the abilityto shoot in more testing conditions, or is the benefit the hands downquality of the pic, irrespective of the shooting environment?.

Benefits of expensive lenses include:.

1. Glass quality, which equates to light transmission characteristics something that can make or break a low light shot..

2. Built quality think durability. These days it's even plastic vs. metal lens mounts..

3. Constant aperture (typically F 2.8 vs a 3.something to 4.something or event 5.something aperture on zooms..

3a. Wider aperture. Rule of thumb is that the sharpest aperture of a lens is typically 2 clicks down (those would be full F-stops) so for a 2.8 lens it would be 5.6. After you hit max sharpness you can increase dept of field but diffraction can become a factor too..

4. Assorted goodies like motors in the lenses and vibration reduction..

Can one notice the difference in bright light at F11, probably not..

You can get away nicely with consumer grade glass and a 50mm (for those shallow depth of field portraits)..

Good luck.

'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..