I got this camera for my birthday last weekend. Using the smaller lens with the camera set on no flash and it takes amazing low light pictures. Super crisp and hand held. I was absolutely blown away. I can't imagine what this camera can do with better lenses. I'll post pics when I get back to my computer.

"I can't imagine what this camera can do with better lenses."

If you think so, it gives the camera and lens companies lots of profit and in these times we need all of the sales activity possible. But if you really look, a more costly lens may not produce any better picture quality. but lenses do provide other functions like a greater range of focal lengths, extreme close-ups and image stabilization, and that helps.

the reason I said that is because I have read post after post about the kit lenses not being the best lenses. That they basically are to get you going. I was actually adviced to buy just a body and buy a better lens. That the price would be a couple of hundred more than the kit price but I would have a much nicer lens. I'm coming from a point and shoot camera so I was VERY impressed with what this camera can do.

What you read were posts from "volunteer shills". They are like the visitors of Las Vegas who will gladly tell about a winning, but never admit how much they dropped gambling at other times and that they are not ahead a penny.

If you were a camera company wouldn't you welcome all of these arguments to spend more money on expensive lenses?

A number of years ago when the "kit" lens was first introduced I did a test with a Canon dSLR using it, with camera on a tripod, and then switched the "kit" lens for a $1,000 "L" lens, photographing a detailed interior of a chapel in a California mission. The resulting images were essentially identical, almost pixel for pixel. I published the results of the test in Shutterbug, but of course no one paid any attention, they all had to convince themselves, their wives or who ever they needed a bigger, more expensive looking lens on the front of their cameras.

Since I have tried to get photographers to make a true raw image that is unsharpened, that can be done with many high-end dSLR cameras, and look at the result carefully, zoom in with Photoshop, and find out what a lens actually focuses and records on a digital camera sensor. I've still never heard from anyone who has done this test.

I see your point, but I also see theirs. By a company sending less quality lenses with there kit, it ASSURES you to go out and HAVE to buy more expensive lenses. I trust your opinion very much, as you have far more experience than I have. Like I said, I have been very impressed with this camera. It has exceded my expectations. I have been lurking forums and web sites for MONTHS looking and deciding.

But they don't put a less quality lens out with their kits, there are too many like me who would test and report that is the case, and the companies know it is not something they can get away doing. But what if a better lens doesn't make a picture any better, but does satisfy the soul of the buyer; in other words no more go but more to show, a flashier more expensive looking camera? People do gamble in casinos even though the numbers are against them and the casinos win overall, and people still go to casinos and gamble.

In other words your camera with kit lens makes pictures that you think are good, so can you be satisfied and enjoy what you have? And what if you can't and spend money on a costlier lens, won't you claim the pictures are better even if not?

I got the camera on dec. 23 my 9yr. Wedding aniversary/early cristmas present. I am very happy with it. I have take. 500-600 photos with it. My wife got me the one lense kit with the 18-55mm. Lens. I am thinking about getting a 50mm. Lense for portrait photography. All in all the canon eos rebel t1i is a winner in my book. It takes awsome pics.

You already have 55mm in the kit lens, so a 50mm seems to be a waste in duplication. For an APS-C sensor dSLR a focal length for general portrait use would be ideally 70 or 75mm, so a short zoom like 50 to 100mm makes more sense.

I am new to the dslr world. I I went from a 12.2mp kodak easyshare point and shoot to the canon rebel t1i. I I take I took great pictures with the oint and shoot but I needed something better to express my artistic talents. with that said thank you for the replies. More on my previouse question, To be more specific I am interested in the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens. Would that lense be good for various types of pictures including portrait style pictures giving it a shallow depth of field? Will the lense you suggested (50-100mm) also give shallow depth of field? I have a friend in the Photography buisiness that does some amazing work and she swares by that lense. she said she uses that lense most of the time and suggested it to me. I respect your oppinion and thank you for your suggestions.

If it is depth of field you want to control it is the least when the lens is at the largest aperture, smallest f/number and gets deeper, more depth of field when the aperture is set at the smallest size, largest f/number.

With a dSLR you can control aperture size most easily if the shooting mode is set to aperture priority, and differences of exposure are set automatically by the shutter speed.