can someone pls honestly tell me if Canon EOS 7D (18-135mm kit) is junk?

[Stagheart]

@Conkey, and rest

thanks for all the reply n advise from the pro. I am on a tight budget, i know i shouldnt jump to high end dslr, but i just cant help it. i just gotta have my hand on it haha.

I think i will get the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 ,as recommended by many, the price is really affordable, all i need is good IQ, other stuff is just secondary.

i planning trip to australia end of year, so want to get my hand on a good dslr otherwise wasted scenic trip if taken with only my pro compact.

 

[tyho]

Without meaning to add oil to the fire, I would say to the TS that although the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is optically superior to the other Canon lenses you were asking about, note that it does not have optical stabilzation...
which shouldn't matter a lot if you are careful with you shutter speed and hand holding...
In practice I tend to take out my 17-50 when I am in lower lighting conditions... and that is exactly when I need the IS!
If money is really tight and you need a travel lens I think the 18-135 is perfectly fine. If you are a stickler for image quality and pixel peep, the best bets would be the 17-50 Tamron, EFS 17-55 f2.8IS, the EFS 15-85IS. The 18-135 would give you a very versatile lens for traveling and decent image quality, just not the best that your body can achieve. Will it be very obvious at smaller than A4 size prints? I doubt it. Your other option is of course to go with a 50D or 550D and get better lenses which actually makes a lot of sense as lenses depreciate far less than the body.
Even the 550D is more than capable of giving you top class results... if it's the body feel that you like...well... frankly the dark side's bodies feel better especially at the lower end.
Oh ya... I also like the lighter smaller body of the 550D for traveling when every extra kg seems to grow as you walk.

 

[diver-hloc]

Without meaning to add oil to the fire, I would say to the TS that although the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is optically superior to the other Canon lenses you were asking about, note that it does not have optical stabilzation...

At only 50mm at its farest... or 80mm on crop camera.... IS/VR isn't so important. The IQ of this lens is very good for its price. True.... if TS could afford it, EF-S 17-55mm would be the best choice... but its, at least twice the price of the tammy... :sweat:

 

[tyho]

At only 50mm at its farest... or 80mm on crop camera.... IS/VR isn't so important. The IQ of this lens is very good for its price. True.... if TS could afford it, EF-S 17-55mm would be the best choice... but its, at least twice the price of the tammy... :sweat:

I agree it isn't a huge factor as it's quite a short lens... but my own usage pattern has revealed to me that I am missing sharp shots with this lens due to my shaky hands . I get more keepers with my slower 24-105L.

IS would help someone like me who needs the extra help...

 

[conkeychua]

@Conkey, and rest

thanks for all the reply n advise from the pro. I am on a tight budget, i know i shouldnt jump to high end dslr, but i just cant help it. i just gotta have my hand on it haha.

I think i will get the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 ,as recommended by many, the price is really affordable, all i need is good IQ, other stuff is just secondary.

i planning trip to australia end of year, so want to get my hand on a good dslr otherwise wasted scenic trip if taken with only my pro compact.

If that is your take, definately no one would stop you as it is your choice.

I also do not know if you buy 7D together with the 15-85, how much cheaper the 15-85 would be compared to street price?

Scenic shots would really depends on you knowing how wide is 17mm and whether its wide enough or not If IS is needed, then you will still consider 15-85 which has a 4stop IS, 2mm wider and and 35mm longer on the tele end

 

[KeeFy]

@Conkey, and rest

thanks for all the reply n advise from the pro. I am on a tight budget, i know i shouldnt jump to high end dslr, but i just cant help it. i just gotta have my hand on it haha.

I think i will get the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 ,as recommended by many, the price is really affordable, all i need is good IQ, other stuff is just secondary.

i planning trip to australia end of year, so want to get my hand on a good dslr otherwise wasted scenic trip if taken with only my pro compact.

Think of what you want out of a camera.

If you're not going to take sports or invest in a 70-200 or something along those lines. Why bother with a 7D. Buy a 550D instead with a 17-55. Rather than a 7D with an average lens.

 

[conkeychua]

why are there people to review the lenses since none of them are junk? and why dont just use a 75-300mm USM II instead of a 70-300mm DO or the 70-300mm? Because of the wider end ah?

Csupporter, dont take this the wrong way but reviews only points out the pros and cons of the lens and not whether its a junk or a gem. With your statement are you saying that 75-300mm is junk? If it is, people are still owning them. Is 70-300DO a gem? with a additional 100mm reach on the tele end, i believe alot of pros here would rather choose to give up the additional reach and go for a 70-200. which you will start saying that 70-300 is junk?

Lens has pros and cons and bear in mind that sometimes, price of the lens is also factored in the pros and cons.

 

[longj49]

the 18-135mm has become my best carry-around lens, especially when i travel. it may not have the best IQ but it has been more than satisfactory to me.

 

[tecnica]

if u can't afford it, work with what u have. there is no junk lens. only junk photographs.

Totally agree on this. Having a L lens doesn't mean you will get fantastic pics either.

 

[Stagheart]

the 18-135mm has become my best carry-around lens, especially when i travel. it may not have the best IQ but it has been more than satisfactory to me.

hi LongJ, ....mind posting some pictures? or ur flickr links?

i want to see some samples

 

[ed9119]

I would strongly suggest that TS in future re-phrase his Thread Title more diplomatically.... hope u understand that this "is EOS7D , 18-135 junk ?" comment is flame-bait waiting for a bite .....

 

[Stagheart]

oh ya, how much is Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 selling in singapore ah?
and which shop... thanks

 

[tecnica]

oh ya, how much is Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 selling in singapore ah?
and which shop... thanks

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=518391

 

[tonytan0]

@Conkey, and rest

thanks for all the reply n advise from the pro. I am on a tight budget, i know i shouldnt jump to high end dslr, but i just cant help it. i just gotta have my hand on it haha.

I think i will get the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 ,as recommended by many, the price is really affordable, all i need is good IQ, other stuff is just secondary.

i planning trip to australia end of year, so want to get my hand on a good dslr otherwise wasted scenic trip if taken with only my pro compact.

Most important is being happy of what you have. Jumping direct to 7D has its good point too.:lovegrin:

Still got a couple of months before your year end trip, got lots of time to "sharpen" your 7D and hope to see some of your photo when you are back. Cheers;p

 

[Chrissp]

if u can't afford it, work with what u have. there is no junk lens. only junk photographs.

+1. Totally agree with the comment.

Anyway, back to TS question ... both lenses offer good range of focal length. 15-85 is more expensive because of the elements used in the lens and it produces better IQ. But if you can't (or don't wish to) afford it, 18-135 is still a decent lens for your purpose.

Best is if you can test out the lenses you are considering, including the tamron 17-50. Make your decision, be happy with it and shoot!

 

[longj49]

hi LongJ, ....mind posting some pictures? or ur flickr links?

i want to see some samples

ok here are some samples (i'm still an amateur, so pardon the imperfections).

 

[longj49]

and a few more.

 

[gundamseed84]

People compare lens because not all models produce equal quality. Comparison only tells u which is better than others but it need not imply the average positioned lens are junk. Give you top quality lens but without skills is worse than using an average lens with superb skills.

At the end of the day if TS wants to know if the lens is "junk" or not, just go and rent the lens and 7D to try it out yourself. People who loves sashimi will say it's heavenly but people who hates raw food will say they are junk and gross, who is right? Neither...you are the user you make your own decision instead of using other people's comments as facts.

 

[litlefiter]

and a few more.

Nice pictures! However, i thought image 2 was pretty unsharp

Anw, about whether 18-135 is junk or not, you have to decide for yourself. IQ isnt the only factor to determine whether a lens is good or not, u have to consider the value of the lens, the weight, and other stuff etc.

One might prefer a 70-200 f2.8 IS II for travel photography but another might think that a 18-135 is more convenient, at the end of the day, it is pointless if u use the 70-200 and only take mediocre photos with it while a person with 18-135 can take award winning photos.

 

[mrhobbit]

I have had first hand experience with the 18-135. A pretty long time too, I have also got exposure(weekly, daily for some parts of the year) to the best Canon/Nikon/sony glass that is on the market.

For its price, the 18-135 is imo a VERY good compromise of performance, price and size.

If we think about it for a moment, do you really think Canon would release it as a kit lens(which will be the first lens most 7D kit buyers will use) if it was that bad to the point it handicaps the 7D and its 18mp sensor?

I mean, common sense would dictate that a higher performance lens would be packaged so that the a greater potential of the camera would be revealed, thus giving greater customer satisfaction, in the process encouraging sale of lenses.

Thats alongside the fact that the 7D is meant to be a semi-pro camera, doesnt that mean its target market would be semi-knowledgable photographers who have an inkling of what good image quality is?


Lets not talk about bad photographs, because its all subjective imo. What I think is more important is that if you do get say........the tammy 17-50, will it REALLY give you "better" photographs? Or simply 2 stops faster, sharper images, less range, more weight, more money and no IS?

If 2 stops faster and sharper is your idea of a GOOD photo........then no one actually needs to practice....

Besides, no harm in buying the kit, if you dont like it, sell the lens off cheaply and you wont lose alot of $$ simply because its bundled. On the other hand if you like it, you can thank Canon for saving you perhaps $200?

End of the day, have fun lah, why stress whether lenses are good or not? I have more fun with a Canonet QL117 film RF than a 1D4!