Your opinion -Canon 18-55 f3.5 -5.6 kit lens owners

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by asdf3b, Dec 18, 2007.

  1. asdf3b

    asdf3b Guest

    Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.
    asdf3b, Dec 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. asdf3b

    dwight Guest

    "asdf3b" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.


    Personally, I think it's a good general-purpose lens. I'll take it, if I can
    only take one lens (usually for convenience). But it doesn't spend a lot of
    time on my camera. For the most part, I've got the 50mm f/1.8 on board.

    Still, as I've read here many times before, I rarely have the lens I need at
    the time I need it. But the kit lens covers a lot of ground. It's not great,
    but good.

    dwight
    dwight, Dec 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. asdf3b

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <>,
    asdf3b <> wrote:

    > Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.


    Everybody bitches about it, but the images I've seen aren't bad. No,
    it's not "L" glass, but it's certainly usable.
    Mr. Strat, Dec 18, 2007
    #3
  4. asdf3b

    Matt Ion Guest

    asdf3b wrote:
    > Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.


    Like the others have said, it's a perfectly usable lens. It's basically
    about a $100 lens, and as long as you don't expect more than that from
    it, you won't be disappointed.
    Matt Ion, Dec 18, 2007
    #4
  5. asdf3b

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    asdf3b wrote:
    > Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.


    It sux -- much worse than the Nikon and Pentax equivalents --
    but Canon owners will tell you it's acceptable.
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 18, 2007
    #5
  6. asdf3b

    dwight Guest

    "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > asdf3b wrote:
    >> Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.

    >
    > It sux -- much worse than the Nikon and Pentax equivalents --
    > but Canon owners will tell you it's acceptable.


    Ah, see now, if I owned all three - as you do - then I would be able to
    compare Canon to Nikon to Pentax. But that wasn't the question, was it?

    dwight
    dwight, Dec 18, 2007
    #6
  7. "dwight" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> asdf3b wrote:
    >>> Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.

    >>
    >> It sux -- much worse than the Nikon and Pentax equivalents --
    >> but Canon owners will tell you it's acceptable.

    >
    > Ah, see now, if I owned all three - as you do - then I would be able to
    > compare Canon to Nikon to Pentax. But that wasn't the question, was it?
    >
    > dwight
    >
    >


    I don't know Bill, but I find that most people who make those comments
    related to this lens, have not really looked at results. I suspect some
    have not even looked at the lens.

    Let me repeat. I don't know Bill, nor do I know how he reached his
    opinion.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
    Joseph Meehan, Dec 18, 2007
    #7
  8. I find I use that lens a lot. It is my favorite lens. I have a wider
    angle zoom for some uses and some telephoto lenses, but I consider them
    special purpose and they get far less use. The kit lens is so good, I often
    leave my macro behind even for close up work (as long as the distance is
    within the kit lens range.) That is something I would not have done with
    prior Canon or Nikon lenses in that range that I have owned.

    The kit lens "feels" cheap, but it works very well. It is not equal to
    some other lenses, but it is far ahead of any lens I have used when it comes
    to price, convince etc.

    "asdf3b" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.



    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
    Joseph Meehan, Dec 18, 2007
    #8
  9. asdf3b

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > "dwight" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "Bill Tuthill" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> asdf3b wrote:
    >>>> Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.
    >>>
    >>> It sux -- much worse than the Nikon and Pentax equivalents --
    >>> but Canon owners will tell you it's acceptable.

    >>
    >> Ah, see now, if I owned all three - as you do - then I would be able
    >> to compare Canon to Nikon to Pentax. But that wasn't the question, was
    >> it?
    >>
    >> dwight
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I don't know Bill, but I find that most people who make those
    > comments related to this lens, have not really looked at results. I
    > suspect some have not even looked at the lens.
    >
    > Let me repeat. I don't know Bill, nor do I know how he reached his
    > opinion.
    >
    >

    No Joe, you don't know Bill. But you and I and no doubt everyone else
    knows someone like Bill. Prior to your post I was going to ask if Bill
    actually owned the lens.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Dec 18, 2007
    #9
  10. asdf3b

    BD Guest

    On Dec 17, 7:05 pm, asdf3b <> wrote:
    > Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.


    The results for this lens varied for me, with focal length and
    aperture - image imperfections are more visible with the lens at the
    shortest focal length (18mm) and at its wider aperture setting.

    The most apparent imperfection, IMO, is the amount of chromatic
    aberration around the edges. It can be corrected to a degree in post,
    but I'd certainly say it's the weakest lens that they manufacture.

    Very useable, very portable, very handy - just don't expect perfection
    in the output.
    BD, Dec 18, 2007
    #10
  11. asdf3b

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Dave Cohen wrote
    >>

    > No Joe, you don't know Bill. But you and I and no doubt everyone else
    > knows someone like Bill. Prior to your post I was going to ask if Bill
    > actually owned the lens.


    A friend took this lens (on a Rebel) down the Grand Canyon, and I was
    shocked by its flare. Sharpness isn't bad, but the Canon G7 produces
    better images over a wider zoom range. Consumer Reports rated this low.
    The Nikon 18-55 is much better, according to them.
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 19, 2007
    #11
  12. asdf3b

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <4768b596$>, Bill Tuthill
    <> wrote:

    > A friend took this lens (on a Rebel) down the Grand Canyon, and I was
    > shocked by its flare. Sharpness isn't bad, but the Canon G7 produces
    > better images over a wider zoom range. Consumer Reports rated this low.
    > The Nikon 18-55 is much better, according to them.


    Consumer Reports doesn't know an F/stop from an F-sharp.
    Mr. Strat, Dec 19, 2007
    #12
  13. asdf3b

    dwight Guest

    "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message
    news:181220072219062196%...
    > In article <4768b596$>, Bill Tuthill
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> A friend took this lens (on a Rebel) down the Grand Canyon, and I was
    >> shocked by its flare. Sharpness isn't bad, but the Canon G7 produces
    >> better images over a wider zoom range. Consumer Reports rated this low.
    >> The Nikon 18-55 is much better, according to them.

    >
    > Consumer Reports doesn't know an F/stop from an F-sharp.


    Yeah, but you can't argue with single-incident anecdotal evidence, that's
    for sure. The lens must really suck.

    dwight
    dwight, Dec 19, 2007
    #13
  14. asdf3b

    default Guest

    "asdf3b" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Greetings! Does any one have any opinion on this kit lens? With thanks.


    I've had three versions of the 18-55. Using the EW-60C hood with it gives
    you more to hold when manual focusing.

    EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II (kit lens) - It is good for the money, focuses
    quick and quite close (max magnification 0.28). Works very well reversed
    for high magnifications. You can hear the micromotor during focusing. Take
    the filter off when flare is evident or if there are light sources within
    the frame.

    EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II USM - Same optically as the non USM but focus
    speed is about 40-50% faster which is damn near instant and almost silent
    without any loss of accuracy or increased overshoot. Might be worth the
    extra money. I liked this lens especially how light and small it is (190g).
    It's $139 at Adorama for new, $109 for Canon refurbished.

    EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. This is my new one and I LOVE IT!. It is
    optically much better than the non IS versions. So sharp and little light
    fall-off. The IS really reduces camera shake so they show less shake and
    are sharper, more convenient, or possibly somewhat longer shutter speeds
    handheld if desired. It also focuses closer bringing max magnification up
    to 0.34. It only weighs about 10g more than the non-IS variants and a 3.8mm
    longer. It doesn't have the micro USM motor so it isn't quite as fast or
    silent though when focusing. The IS is silent. It's only $174.95 at
    Adorama too.

    All of them have some chromatic aberration at the wide end. This is easily
    fixed in Adobe Camera RAW. There is some barrel distortion at 18mm too and
    a little light fall-off at wide apertures at 18mm. If it bothers you, the
    lens distortion filter in Photoshop can fix it. Fixing these issues makes
    the images look like they were taken with a much more expensive lens.

    All five of the EF-S 18-55mm lenses are supported in Canon DPP if a
    supported camera is used (Rebel XTi, 400D, 40D, 30D) which means that the
    distortions, light falloff, and chromatic aberrations can be corrected
    automatically for those lenses.
    default, Dec 19, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike Kozlowski
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    786
  2. Boenospam

    Canon A75 Owners, Does your cam do this?

    Boenospam, May 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,165
    Steve
    May 13, 2004
  3. Rick

    opinion for my lens choices for Canon 20d

    Rick, Aug 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    315
    Robert R Kircher, Jr.
    Aug 29, 2005
  4. Anirudh

    Nikon Kit Lens Or Sigma Lens

    Anirudh, Mar 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    391
  5. Mario
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    716
    Shailesh
    Apr 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page