haha same same
18-55mm IS handheld @ ISO 1600.
haha..but seems like both of us got abit of distortion on the pics..the tower looks curved.. :dunno:
i'm more and more appreciative of my 18-55mm lens
- Thread starter rebelriot
- Start date
haha..but seems like both of us got abit of distortion on the pics..the tower looks curved.. :dunno:
renzokuken
Senior Member
X2 for effect
a varied no. of online reviews were surprise by the technical IQ the 18~55 IS can perform as compared to much more expensive lenses including some Ls (such as photozone)
those who insist that "when you get more serious hence you will upgrade", please don't forget to credit the technical IQ superiority of this lens and NOT give all the credits to purely "good photographers" who fully utilizes the lens.
Last edited:
Question is: do you need the wide-open aperture of f/2.8? I have compared my personal copy of 17-55 f/2.8 IS vs company kit lens 18-55 IS, and found the latter to be SHARPER. The only optical drawback on the kit lens is poorer color and contrast (apart from its build).
i still have my 18-55 II and no plans to sell it--much less bulky than my 17-55 (and looks less intimidating). on the other hand, with the money you save, you could buy the 50mm/f1.8 (or you could offset it against another more expensive lens).
abidranger
New Member
Hi,I just bought a new 550D with kit lens 18-55 and doubt if it is a good lens.Any sample photos from this lens that can really make me appreciate it?
First and foremost, we'll need to manage user expectations from what is essentially Canon's most basic lens in its lineup.
Yes, it's cheap and yes, the build isn't great. But it doesn't mean it can't do its job well - and that job is to "ease" beginners into the DSLR experience.
It's no slouch, just that it needs good lighting to get good quality shots. Sure, I get more misses than hits with this kit lens but it does still surprise me regularly.
This is a picture I posted earlier:
Here's 100% of the same photo:
No editing except slight adjustments in contrast and black levels. Handheld at 1/20.
For me, good value for money. :thumbsup:
Sample photos from a similar lens @ NDP Preview, 31 July 2010
(Canon 550D, 18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 II):
1.
ISO100, f/7.1, 8 sec. (f=25mm), image has been cropped.
2.
ISO100, f/7.1, 3.2 sec. (f=25mm).
The rest are here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=743330
renzokuken
Senior Member
tell me why not other than it being typically counter-logic
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d?start=1
look at the charts yourself
the only downside of the kit lens is it's varied aperture and build quality
unfortunately a varied aperture is a very very big downside
btw the mk II and the IS version have different optical characteristics although their constructions are similar
Last edited:
Sure at those range it is difficult to tell with the naked eye but look a little closely and the 17-55mm is faster and sharper. Even the 17-50 Tamron would be better.
If you compare 50mm with the 18-55mm at 50mm and same aperture which would be sharper?
Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciated my 18-55mm Nikkor lens when I had it for 4 years but if given a choice of lenses within the same range I'd go for the faster ones because they tend to be sharper as well.
Here's my 18-55mm examples:
Last edited:
Rawbeansta
Senior Member
Recently, as i shoot more, and find the pictures i took are pretty good-looking, i felt that i like my 18-55mm kit lens more and more.
really appreciate it alot. anyway bros, is this a good lens to keep?
in my dry cabi now, there is another 50mm f1.8 lens with me. how about this lens? any suggestion on how to push its beauty and capability?
Personally I believe that every lens is 'good' in its own specialization. Afterall, which lens manufacturer in a sound state would make a 'lousy' lens?
The 18-55 is good, for what it's worth. You may find that it has its own shortcomings as well, esp. under low lighting.
A constant f/2.8 lens may not produce an image as sharp as the 18-55 (as mentioned earlier by others), but it allows well-exposed pictures and clear pictures that the 18-55 may not under hand-held, low-lighting conditions.
Last edited:
renzokuken
Senior Member
Sure at those range it is difficult to tell with the naked eye but look a little closely and the 17-55mm is faster and sharper. Even the 17-50 Tamron would be better.
If you compare 50mm with the 18-55mm at 50mm and same aperture which would be sharper?
Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciated my 18-55mm Nikkor lens when I had it for 4 years but if given a choice of lenses within the same range I'd go for the faster ones because they tend to be sharper as well.
Here's my 18-55mm examples:
well to be fair you have to compare them wide open
stepping down would naturally make any (typically and generally) lens sharper, so if you want a fair comparison compare the 50mm f1.8 at f1.8 and 18~55 at 55mm f5.6
well that's why i said the varied aperture is a huge down-side
this thread is about DEFENDING the 18~55 kit lens (cause way too many people use having a "crappy kit lens" as an excuse to their bad photos), so owners of lens with similar focal length please don't get offended :lovegrin:
and of course naturally a wider apertured lens will do better in low light conditions as compared to this 18~55
given a huge budget i would choose the 17~55 f2.8 as well due to the larger aperture
btw i was messing with a nikon 18~55 kit lens.... pretty impressive build quality for a kit lens i must say
Last edited:
well to be fair you have to compare them wide open
stepping down would naturally make any (typically and generally) lens sharper, so if you want a fair comparison compare the 50mm f1.8 at f1.8 and 18~55 at 55mm f5.6
well that's why i said the varied aperture is a huge down-side
this thread is about DEFENDING the 18~55 kit lens (cause way too many people use having a "crappy kit lens" as an excuse to their bad photos), so owners of lens with similar focal length please don't get offended :lovegrin:
and of course naturally a wider apertured lens will do better in low light conditions as compared to this 18~55
given a huge budget i would choose the 17~55 f2.8 as well due to the larger aperture
btw i was messing with a nikon 18~55 kit lens.... pretty impressive build quality for a kit lens i must say
But you can't compare them at different apertures! (ie. 50mm at 1.8 and 18-55mm at 5.6), that's like comparing a GTR going at 200km/h vs a Mini going at 60km/h, both cars need to run at the same speed to be compared fairly (how is the ride, noise level, fuel consumption, acceleration etc).
That said, I'm a huge fan of the 18-55mm because of its overall performance as a budget zoom lens, I practically had the thing glued onto my D50 for so many years (in which I also didn't realise I had an obvious dust spec all that time doh!). I even labelled my photos outlining that lens I used and I think it scared off a lot of people either from my crappy photos or so-called crappy lens, I think neither hahah.
I don't have one for my Canon but I have a 15-85mm and I think its a nice step up from the 18-55mm where the extra 30mm helps somewhat. However, because I've had good use out of the 18-55mm my expectations are much higher for the 6 times more expensive 15-85mm. I've yet to conclude whether I've made the right decision after a couple of months.
PS. my 2 samples above have very crappy post processing (PP of a JPG that was already PP from an NEF).
Rawbeansta
Senior Member
i love kit lens o~(￣∇￣o~ )
Was this captured at Telly Tubby Hill / open grass patch at Woodlands?
