 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Canon's 18 ~ 55 "Kit" lens examples
Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth publication, I can only conclude the deciples of EOS knocking this lens as "total crap" have never actually used one or they would have a different story to tell. Sure it's not a $2600 (AUD) "L" series by any means but it certainly is not deserving of the description piled on it recently and most definitely is a really nice lens to start with. This image was shot with a camera later found to have a substantial back focus error. It was one of the first batch (firmware 1.0) and it locked up, gave Err 99, died once for 3 days and generally was a really good example of why people buy Nikon, Fuji - or pretty much any brand except Canon! Anyway. Canon fixed the problems. Took just 3 working days to do it and since the rectification work, has never missed a beat. I still won't use it seriously unless I also have my 1D Mk II with me but that's only my paranoia. http://www.ryadia.com/neverletgo.htm This shot is the rest of the scene http://www.ryadia.com/2much2drink.htm  SignatureMessage authored by Douglas Who has Zero Care Factor about negative responses from anonymous posters. > Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. What relevance has this to 35mm photography? SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK Nothing but this comes about because of automatic cross posting. The group that I am viewing this in is not specifically 35mm. Mike Bernstein Milton Keynes, UK >> Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. > > What relevance has this to 35mm photography? >What relevance has this to 35mm photography? You, boyo, are now in <rec.photo.digital.slr-systems>!! You could have removed this group from the Newsgroup line before posting. I quite agree. Most serious reviewers say that this, for a cheap kit lens, does a pretty good job. I have now moved on to Canon mid-range lenses but this has more to do with zoom range, image stabilisation and focus mechanism than anything else. Mike Bernstein > Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having > used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth publication, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > This shot is the rest of the scene > http://www.ryadia.com/2much2drink.htm > I can only conclude the deciples of EOS knocking this lens >as "total crap" have never actually used one or they would have a >different story to tell. As I suspected. Angus --------------------- Remember Glencoe. --------------------- >Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having >used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >it seriously unless I also have my 1D Mk II with me but that's only my >paranoia. I got that error code the other day using one. I thought it was due to dirty contacts. But optically, the lens is junk. I wish someone would actually test it, across it's field of view. -Rich > I got that error code the other day using one. I thought it was due > to dirty contacts. But optically, the lens is junk. I wish someone > would actually test it, across it's field of view. > -Rich > Someone has Rich. And they concluded it was OK at both ends but worked best between 20mm and 45mm FL and at f8 aperture. Optically the lens is average to good in a field where poor is a Sigma or Tamron consumer lens from the early 90's and excellent is a genuine Leica (glass element) lens. A Canon "L" series Zoom - like the fabled 70~200 f2.8 would be very good in such a comparison. I doubt any zoom would get to rate excellent in a truly unbiased comparison or lenses. We really need a standard method of description where "junk" and "crappy" have no place. Something like the standard description used for antique and second hand stuff of "poor" up to "mint". With lenses their description could range from "poor" (1 on a scale of 10) up to excellent 10 on the scale) and this would avoid such biased, inconclusive and emotional responses as you just made. I shoot mainly with a 24~70 f2.8 "L" series lens. I still carry the "optically junk" lens with me and use it when the "L" won't go wide enough. I use DxO RAW decoder exclusively for this lens which corrects it's "optically junk" flaws although the second picture I offered for example was decoded with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). I'm not sure what you mean about "test across it's field of view" but those pictures are full frame examples. I shoot a standard Television resolution chart with all my gear to determine it's ability to resolve detail and light fall off before I use it. These pictures were shot inside the lenses "sweet spot" to be sure. This is something all serious photographers should test and know about. Do you? SignatureMessage authored by Douglas Who has Zero Care Factor about negative responses from anonymous posters. >> I got that error code the other day using one. I thought it was due >> to dirty contacts. But optically, the lens is junk. I wish someone [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >"crappy" have no place. Something like the standard description used for >antique and second hand stuff of "poor" up to "mint". MTF tables do that. ******************************************************** "A nice man is a man of nasty ideas." _Introductions to History of the Reformation_ Jonathan Swift 1667-1745 >>We really need a standard method of description where "junk" and >>"crappy" have no place. Something like the standard description used for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > All MTF tables provide is data for interpretation, not a clear description. It depends of the interpretation of the data, to formulate an opinion and that opinion can vary from person to person. What I am saying is we need a standardised "plain English" description of poor, good and better etc.. to use in every day discussions which people have and it is this process of description when people say it's "junk" or it's "crappy" with no qualification of the statement that I object to. SignatureMessage authored by Douglas Who has Zero Care Factor about negative responses from anonymous posters. > What I am saying is we need a standardised "plain English" description > of poor, good and better etc.. to use in every day discussions which > people have and it is this process of description when people say it's > "junk" or it's "crappy" with no qualification of the statement that I > object to. OK how about it's worse than the 3 element lenses used on cheap folding cameras 60 years ago. SignatureStacey > What I am saying is we need a standardised "plain English" description > of poor, good and better etc.. to use in every day discussions which > people have and it is this process of description when people say it's > "junk" or it's "crappy" with no qualification of the statement that I > object to. Er, ah, maybe someone else in the studio of.... has been known to use such unqualified statements. IAE, you're asking to quantify what are at best rather subjective opinions, with a few exceptions. SignatureJohn McWilliams That lens is _not_ junk, nor crap, nor nearly as awful as it is made out to be. I have a plethora of Canon lenses, including the 28-135 IS and 24-70L and, while no where nearly as good, the 18-55, on a price/ results basis, is pretty ok. http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Day%20at%20the%20Races&picture=26 Yes, it's at f8, and, yes, at f8 it should be ok, but if the lens was as crappy as it's made out to be, then f8 would suck, too. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > I got that error code the other day using one. I thought it was due > to dirty contacts. But optically, the lens is junk. I wish someone > would actually test it, across it's field of view. > -Rich > Yes, it's at f8, and, yes, at f8 it should be ok, but if the lens was as > crappy as it's made out to be, then f8 would suck, too. You obviously cropped that shot and the left edge looks pretty soft to me. This was shot with a 3 element folding camera from the 40's shot at f11. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/towerweb2.jpg Lets see some shots with that "OK" canon lens at the long end wide open! I find it comical the canon-heads can't even admit one lens in their lineup is a dog! All hail CANON!!! SignatureStacey >> Yes, it's at f8, and, yes, at f8 it should be ok, but if the lens was as >> crappy as it's made out to be, then f8 would suck, too. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lineup > is a dog! All hail CANON!!! That shot was cropped from the native 8X12 to 8X10, and I don't know what you meant when you say that the edges look soft, you can see the slots in the screw heads in the hinges on the trunk. By the way, that shot with the 3 element lens looks pretty good to me, to... I don't have time to go about, shooting with one of my lenses that isn't in everyday use to prove, or disprove, what is being said by a bunch of people who should get a collective live and get about doing what the claim to, which is take pictures with cameras. And I find it weird that non Canon owners obsess over trying to get somebody to admit what isn't true. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That shot was cropped from the native 8X12 to 8X10, Bet the right side was cropped off? > and I don't know what > you meant when you say that the edges look soft, you can see the slots in > the screw heads in the hinges on the trunk. You're seeing something I'm not. > By the way, that shot with the 3 element lens looks pretty good to me, > to... Exactly my point. Saying a lens works pretty good at f8-f11 isn't saying much. Almost ANY lens looks good there, yet this canon sure doesn't look very good stopped down at the long end from the test shots I've seen. > And I find it weird that non Canon owners obsess over trying to get > somebody to admit what isn't true. LOL Like I said, you guys are so sold that "ANYTHING with canon on it is first class", you can't even see what a POS that cheapo kit lens is. SignatureStacey >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > LOL Like I said, you guys are so sold that "ANYTHING with canon on it is > first class", you can't even see what a POS that cheapo kit lens is. The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have such a hard time with anything Canon that you can't let anything go. It's just plain silly. If I don't say that the lens is crap, and say that it isn't all that bad, you go off on a rant. It isn't the best lens on the market, true, but it's a cheap lens. The lenses Oly offers are better, but Oly is offering them as a loss leader to get people to buy their equipment, now that they're so late to the game. Canon doesn't have to do that, so they don't. Like I said, you and the others need to get a collective life, and go out and take some pictures that don't have anything to do with proving a point. Except maybe the point of your skills as a photographer. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have Geez, what did I do? I haven't expressed, and don't even *have*, any opinion about the quality of the Canon kit lens. So why must I be dragged into this? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have > > Geez, what did I do? I haven't expressed, and don't even *have*, any > opinion about the quality of the Canon kit lens. So why must I be dragged > into this? That'd be a first.. SignatureMessage authored by Douglas Who has Zero Care Factor about negative responses from anonymous posters. >> The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have > > Geez, what did I do? I haven't expressed, and don't even *have*, any > opinion about the quality of the Canon kit lens. So why must I be dragged > into this? Well, the previous thread where you were so sardonically commenting on acceptance of Canon mantras may have had something to do with it... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have > such a hard time with anything Canon that you can't let anything go. I'm just tired of you guys acting like these things can perform magic tricks. > If I don't say that the lens is crap, and say that it > isn't all that bad, you go off on a rant. A lens that is only really useable at 1-2 fstops IS a bad lens. SignatureStacey > > The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have > > such a hard time with anything Canon that you can't let anything go. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Stacey Tell us all, Stacey, just why you feel you have to so roundly condemn a lens that you have never owned? Posters in this thread have acknowledged that it is not the best lens Canon has produced, but have stated reasonably that it is ok for what it is. I have one of these lenses, and for out-and-about shooting it is adequate. Not stellar, not even very good, but it is ok for run-of-the-mill shots of the kids, the picnic, the holiday, whatever. It isn't a suitable choice for a 13x19 blow-up for exhibition purposes, but then it isn't meant for that. On the other hand, it appears you won't be satisfied until everybody agrees with your extreme stance about this lens being a POS (pile of sh.t). What's in it for you to have adopted this position? Jealousy? Buyer's remorse? Own up, Stace. Colin >> > The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are >> > have such a hard time with anything Canon that you can't let anything [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Tell us all, Stacey, just why you feel you have to so roundly condemn a > lens that you have never owned? Because I've used one? > Posters in this thread have > acknowledged that it is not the best lens Canon has produced, but have > stated reasonably that it is ok for what it is. I have one of these > lenses, and for out-and-about shooting it is adequate. Not stellar, not > even very good, but it is ok for run-of-the-mill shots of the kids, the > picnic, the holiday, whatever. A 2-4MP P&S can do that, why spend $1000 and carry around a big camera to get results like that? SignatureStacey > >> > The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are > >> > have such a hard time with anything Canon that you can't let anything [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Because I've used one? Ok, you've used one. Did you use it in RAW mode, or in one of the jpeg options? What sort of shots were you using it for that dissatisfied you? How big a print did you do or get done? Did you do any post-processing in Photoshop or equivalent, or just look at the image off the card? > > Posters in this thread have > > acknowledged that it is not the best lens Canon has produced, but have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A 2-4MP P&S can do that, why spend $1000 and carry around a big camera to > get results like that? No, a 2 or 4 MP can't do shots like a 6.3 MP camera can, and the lens isn't that bad. OTOH, some p&s's - my wife's for one, a Panasonic - produces incredibly sharp images, due to the in-camera processing, which is very aggressive in P&S's. But run your 300D shots through Photoshop, use the unsharp mask at 300% and 0.3 pixels, and see the difference. Unlike P&S's, dslr's require post-camera work to get the best, which is how it should be, to give the control to the photog. Also, a 'camera like that' is a gateway to later superb results with a good lens. The kit lens doesn't have to be the final lens by any means. It is intended to give adequate results at a price, which it does. Further, Canon were the first to break the price barrier with a dslr kit that gave good results, and provided an upgrade path with better lenses as required. For those who champion the D70, the *ist, the Minolta, and/or the Oly offerings, realize that Canon blazed the way, all they had to do was follow, and try to beat the standard set by Canon. Nikon appeared to do that - with a lens that cost three times as much. I don't know about the pentax, as I haven't seen a lot about them on the NG. The Oly is a different animal, 4/3rds machine, and I don't want to get into any discussion about sensor sizes. I reiterate: Your saying the Canon kit lens is a POS (pile of sh.t) is hype at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Your stance on this is so extreme that I was constrained to ask what's in it for you. There has to be something. Colin > I reiterate: Your saying the Canon kit lens is a POS (pile of sh.t) is > hype at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Your stance on > this is so extreme that I was constrained to ask what's in it for you. > There has to be something. > > Colin You haven't figured that out by now Colin? And I though you were a bright boy, too. SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > > I reiterate: Your saying the Canon kit lens is a POS (pile of sh.t) is > > hype at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Your stance on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And I though you were a bright boy, too. > -- Sorry, Doug, I'm a techo, not a psycho(logist). I haven't a clue why he's like that. Colin. >>>I reiterate: Your saying the Canon kit lens is a POS (pile of sh.t) is >>>hype at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Your stance on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Colin. Well That's you first mistake mate... He's a she! SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. >> > I reiterate: Your saying the Canon kit lens is a POS (pile of sh.t) is >> > hype at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Your stance on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Colin. Attention, my boy, attention... (In my best Foghorn Leghorn voice.) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >I reiterate: Your saying the Canon kit lens is a POS (pile of sh.t) is >hype at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Your stance on >this is so extreme that I was constrained to ask what's in it for you. >There has to be something. Stacey is exactly what Stacey complains about; a person who likes to shoot down other people's choices. The fact that some of the people Stacey complains about really do act this way boosts Stacey's position, but Stacey never realizes that Stacey *is* one of those people, and that many of the people Stacey accuses of being this way are not. Some psychologists call this "projection". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> I reiterate: Your saying the Canon kit lens is a POS (pile of sh.t) >> is hype at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Your [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Some psychologists call this "projection". And some of us look at his/her expressions as "How can anything be true of my behavior, or mental state, or attitude, when I am so strongly against such behaviors, mental states, and attitudes?" and call it "Reaction Formation". SignatureFrank ess Certified and qualified evaluator of expressive behavior >> Tell us all, Stacey, just why you feel you have to so roundly condemn a >> lens that you have never owned? > > Because I've used one? You said you've used one on a 10D, when it was pointed out to you that the 18-55 would't fit on a 10D, you scrambled to cover that, saying you couldn't be bothered to keep track of the lousy low level lenses that Canon makes. You've never used one, and you know it. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Tell us all, Stacey, just why you feel you have to so roundly condemn a >>>lens that you have never owned? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be bothered to keep track of the lousy low level lenses that Canon makes. > You've never used one, and you know it. He lies so much, he can't keep track of all of his lies. >>> Tell us all, Stacey, just why you feel you have to so roundly condemn a >>> lens that you have never owned? >> >> Because I've used one? > > You said you've used one on a 10D, I was wrong, it was whatever the cheap low end zoom canon made at the time. might have been a 35-70? It was a year or so ago when I borrowed the camera for a couple of weeks, sorry I don't recall the exact lens that was on the camera, wasn't impressed with that one either. Also tested a 20D at the store when I was shopping last fall and it did have this "kit lens", shot with a E300 the same day and after looking at the results later, I didn't buy the canon. Like you said at f8 on the short end it was OK, sure wasn't good enough to consider it "useable".. SignatureStacey >> The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have >> such a hard time with anything Canon that you can't let anything go. > > I'm just tired of you guys acting like these things can perform magic > tricks. Nobody here makes any such claim. We've all acknowledged that it isn't a stellar lens, but adequate. What we all equally take issue with is your, and other's, contention that it is a POS. >> If I don't say that the lens is crap, and say that it >> isn't all that bad, you go off on a rant. > > A lens that is only really useable at 1-2 fstops IS a bad lens. Well, it's useable down to f22 from about f8. Which, by the way is only stopped down a couple of stops from maximum. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are have >>> such a hard time with anything Canon that you can't let anything go. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >stellar lens, but adequate. What we all equally take issue with is your, >and other's, contention that it is a POS. Well, at what point do you say a lens transitions from being acceptable to being unacceptable? What criteria do you use? How about this; If a $1000 DSLR can't produce pictures as sharp, detailed or contrasty as a $500 point and shoot, what does that say about the lens? Is it still acceptable? >>> If I don't say that the lens is crap, and say that it >>> isn't all that bad, you go off on a rant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Well, it's useable down to f22 from about f8. Which, by the way is only >stopped down a couple of stops from maximum. That's pretty slow, especially in low light. -Rich >>>> The other side of that is that you and Jeremy and several others are >>>> have [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > That's pretty slow, especially in low light. > -Rich Heck, it's a slow lens, f3.5-5.6. You can't expect the same performance as a 24-70 f2.8L... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> A lens that is only really useable at 1-2 fstops IS a bad lens. > > Well, it's useable down to f22 F22 should be pretty soft used on a digital camera compared to f8, f22 is actually getting pretty soft even on 6X9 medium format use. If it looks "good" from f8 to f22, then something -IS- wrong! I'd expect even f16 to be getting softer if it's actually sharp at f8-f11. SignatureStacey >>> A lens that is only really useable at 1-2 fstops IS a bad lens. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be > getting softer if it's actually sharp at f8-f11. Differentiate between "useable" and "excellent." SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> A lens that is only really useable at 1-2 fstops IS a bad lens. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Differentiate between "useable" and "excellent." If you think f22 shots look good (useable) even from 35mm full frame sized film shots much less the smaller format dSLR's, yes we have a -VERY- different opinion of what consititues "usable".. SignatureStacey You're right, then, we do. Not f22, but f16: http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Model%20Cars&picture=6 SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >>>>> A lens that is only really useable at 1-2 fstops IS a bad lens. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > film shots much less the smaller format dSLR's, yes we have a -VERY- > different opinion of what consititues "usable".. >You're right, then, we do. >Not f22, but f16: >http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Model%20Cars&picture=6 Those shots, especially given their size don't look all that sharp, nice tonality though. There really is no way to get a good idea of a lens's quality from web-based small .jpgs. -Rich > You're right, then, we do. > Not f22, but f16: Hmm I did say F22 didn't I? http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Model%20Cars&picture=6 Doesn't look that sharp to me, even downsampled for the web.. SignatureStacey This image http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%202 0D%20images/Processed%2020D%20images&picture=8 Is pretty good considering it was shot with a 28-135... > This image > > http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%202 > 0D%20images/Processed%2020D%20images&picture=8 > > Is pretty good considering it was shot with a 28-135... It wasn't shot with a 28-135, it was shot with a 90mm Tamron Macro. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > This image http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%202 > > 0D%20images/Processed%2020D%20images&picture=8 > > > > Is pretty good considering it was shot with a 28-135... > > > It wasn't shot with a 28-135, it was shot with a 90mm Tamron Macro. Maybe you didn't see that he changed the URL, or you need to correct the details info on the above shot because it says the 28-135. Greg >> > This image >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Greg You're right, I didn't notice that he changed URLs, I figured he'd stay with the image in question. Actually, the entire URL didn't copy, it was only partial. That one was, indeed, shot with the 28-135 IS. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > This image > > http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%202 > 0D%20images/Processed%2020D%20images&picture=8 > > Is pretty good considering it was shot with a 28-135... Now that I've identified the image to which you refer, why "considering it was shot with a 28-135?" That's a pretty good lens... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > This image http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%202 > 0D%20images/Processed%2020D%20images&picture=8 > > Is pretty good considering it was shot with a 28-135... If it wasn't shot at F22 (doesn't say), what does this have to do with anything? SignatureStacey >> This image >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If it wasn't shot at F22 (doesn't say), what does this have to do with > anything? I kind of wondered that, too... Not that it's any more germane to anything, but, IIRC, it was shot at f5.6... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> You're right, then, we do. >> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Doesn't look that sharp to me, even downsampled for the web.. Apologies, for some reason I thought the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro had a max aperture of f16, not sure what brain fart led me to that conclusion, it has a max aperture of f32. And that's a shot of a 1/18th scale model, not a full size car. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> You're right, then, we do. >>> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >a max aperture of f32. And that's a shot of a 1/18th scale model, not a >full size car. Now that is funny. I thought it looked kind of "detailess." -Rich >>>> You're right, then, we do. >>>> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Now that is funny. I thought it looked kind of "detailess." > -Rich Try this one. 1/18th 365 GTB/4. http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Model%20Cars&picture=1 A little better detail, but still, what can you expect for $60? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>> You're right, then, we do. >>>>> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Model%20Cars&picture=1 >A little better detail, but still, what can you expect for $60? http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type =Product&ID=83048 >>>>Apologies, for some reason I thought the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro had a >>>>max [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type =Product&ID=83048 Yeah, but that's 1/4 scale, that Ferrari is much smaller, the entire car is about the length of that engine. I read about a guy in Italy who built 1/18 scale Ferraris that had actually functional engines, trannys and suspensions, but the ran in the $15,000 range. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> You're right, then, we do. >> Not f22, but f16: >Hmm I did say F22 didn't I? >http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Model%20Cars&picture=6 >Doesn't look that sharp to me, even downsampled for the web.. It sharpens very well; try it. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> You're right, then, we do. >>> Not f22, but f16: > >>Hmm I did say F22 didn't I? > It sharpens very well; try it. Again I said F22 not F16... Again F22 is going to look pretty soft compared to f11 or even f16. If it doesn't, the lens must be a REAL POS! SignatureStacey >>>> You're right, then, we do. >>>> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Again I said F22 not F16... Again F22 is going to look pretty soft compared >to f11 or even f16. If it doesn't, the lens must be a REAL POS! Why did you cut out the actual sentence I replied to, and nothing else: >>>Doesn't look that sharp to me, even downsampled for the web.. ?????? You are a sad liar. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>> You're right, then, we do. >>>>> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why did you cut out the actual sentence I replied to, and nothing else: Because I said --AT F22 IT SHOULD LOOK SOFT-- and you guys start talking about a shot at f16 downsized to the web and then cranking USM mask into it? And yes that shot is SOFT even if it was shot at f16.. If he's too dumb to actually sharpen images he posts as an example of how sharp a lens at f16 is, I should do it for him? I doubt you can get that "sharp" without introducing all sorts of artifacts. >>>>Doesn't look that sharp to me, even downsampled for the web.. > > ?????? > > You are a sad liar. A "liar? So you're trying to claim shots done at f22 look sharp? (which no one has even posted one yet) And that a small downsampled image from a tamron macro lens which you then crank USM into is a "test" of the 18-55 at f22? And of course NONE of the sample images posted are with the 18-55 lens which is the title of this thread? SignatureStacey >>>>>> You're right, then, we do. >>>>>> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > So you're trying to claim shots done at f22 look sharp? I didn't say anything about that. You can't pick and choose which of your statements people should respond to. You made an absolute, independent statement that said that the image he linked to was not sharp, even for a downsampled web image. In a statement like that, the f-stop has no relevance. > (which no one has >even posted one yet) I don't care. That's *NOT* what *I* was responding about. >And that a small downsampled image from a tamron macro >lens which you then crank USM into is a "test" of the 18-55 at f22? Don't be stupid. You said the image wasn't sharp. My reply had absolutely *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with your rant about f-stop. I told you why it wasn't sharp; it needed to be sharpened, as downsized images often are. The sharpness of 20% downsized images has almost everything to do with post-processing, and almost nothing to do with the sharpness of the lens, unless the lens is a *really* bad lens. >And of >course NONE of the sample images posted are with the 18-55 lens which is >the title of this thread? You really need professional help. You don't seem to be able to wade through reality by yourself. You are totally incapable of understanding the concept of individuals, or the contexts in which they (attempt to) communicate with you. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I didn't say anything about that. You can't pick and choose which of > your statements people should respond to. Sure I can.. > You made an absolute, > independent statement that said that the image he linked to was not > sharp, even for a downsampled web image. In a statement like that, the > f-stop has no relevance. Sure it does when we are talking about sharpness and he supplies an example shot at a specific f stop to refute my statement. You'd think he would at least bother to make sure the shot was sharp if trying to prove this point wouldn't you? >> (which no one has >>even posted one yet) > > I don't care. That's *NOT* what *I* was responding about. So stay with the program.. >>And that a small downsampled image from a tamron macro >>lens which you then crank USM into is a "test" of the 18-55 at f22? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > told you why it wasn't sharp; it needed to be sharpened, as downsized > images often are. So lets see the "fixed" one and how many artifacts you introduced making it look sharp.. It's not my job to prove you are right.. SignatureStacey >>>>>> You're right, then, we do. >>>>>> Not f22, but f16: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > f16 is, I should do it for him? I doubt you can get that "sharp" without > introducing all sorts of artifacts. I didn't downsize that image, the site did, so my control over the sharpness was minimal. And I already said I was mistaken about the image being at max aperture. Cripes, Stacey, is photography your hobby, or is arguing? >>>>>Doesn't look that sharp to me, even downsampled for the web.. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > course NONE of the sample images posted are with the 18-55 lens which is > the title of this thread? Au contrair, my post of 7/17, 8:21pm was indeed taken with that lens. Admittedly, not at f22 or f4 or f5.6, but it is there, as are other samples. And my post of the image from the Tamron was in response to your shot that no image at f22 could look good, not any comment about the 18-55. I was mistaken (as already stated) that f16 was the maximum aperture for that lens. And f22 should look ok with it, since f32 is its max. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I doubt you can get that "sharp" without [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sharpness > was minimal. I guess that's as good of an excuse as any. Why would you do that anyway? So the images you display won't look their best? > And I already said I was mistaken about the image being at > max > aperture. Cripes, Stacey, is photography your hobby, or is arguing? Yea it's a good thing you don't argue about anything here... :-) > Au contrair, my post of 7/17, 8:21pm was indeed taken with that lens. Way stopped down at it's one "OK" fstop setting.. > And my post of the image from the Tamron was in response to your > shot that > no image at f22 could look good, So you post an image that isn't very sharp, shot at another fstop than we were discussing to prove what? SignatureStacey SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So > the images you display won't look their best? Like I said, I didn't do it. They did it to save bandwidth, I presume. One reason I post my stuff on Pbase, now... >> And I already said I was mistaken about the image being at >> max [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So you post an image that isn't very sharp, shot at another fstop than we > were discussing to prove what? > Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having > used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth > publication, I can only conclude the deciples of EOS knocking this lens > as "total crap" have never actually used one or they would have a > different story to tell. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page20.asp SignatureStacey >> Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having >> used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page20.asp Part of that review: "The Mark II lens appears to have had improvements made to corner sharpness at maximum aperture and light fall-off (vignetting) at maximum aperture. However it's performance at telephoto with smaller apertures is disappointing with noticeable softness and ghosting when compared to the older lens. The difficulty is that in Auto or Program AE the camera will tend to stop down in brighter light situations, if you're using the kit lens this could lead to soft looking images." Which is exactly what I've seen. Except the corners still (to me) look soft as an old banana. -Rich Hi, I thought I'd add my own thoughts into the mix. I think there's one important point being overlooked - the market the lens is aimed at. Speaking as a keen amateur on a limited budget I am very happy with the results I'm getting. Of course there are better lenses out there and if I had a big bag of money I'd buy one. For now I'll carry on with the kit lens and enjoy the photography and the results. I've uploaded a couple of examples shot on my 300d with the mk1 18-55m: http://www.pxl8.co.uk/IMG_2699_sml.jpg (800x533 466kb) http://www.pxl8.co.uk/IMG_2732_sml.jpg (800x533 582kb) The original files are here - caution large files! http://www.pxl8.co.uk/IMG_2699.JPG ISO 100, f8, 1/100sec 55mm (2117kb) http://www.pxl8.co.uk/IMG_2732.JPG ISO 400, f5.6, 1/400sec 55m (3760kb) SignatureAndy >Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >http://www.pxl8.co.uk/IMG_2732.JPG >ISO 400, f5.6, 1/400sec 55m (3760kb) Good news for Canon, they can keep churning out sub-par entry-level lenses and most won't complain. Unless they happen to compare them with any other DSLR lens, that is. Also, your lens has been replaced with the MkII. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page20.asp >>Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > with the MkII. > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page20.asp "With the introduction of the original EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) Canon produced a low cost lens which could be included with the camera 'Kit', the EF-S 18 - 55 mm F3.5-F5.6. This lens proved to be fairly good as $100 lenses go with good resolution and fairly good edge to edge sharpness (we were surprised)." idiot. if you want to slag of canon and provide a link to prove it you should have provided a link that wasn't so damn positive about the item in question. >>>Hi, >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >should have provided a link that wasn't so damn positive about the item in >question. It was only to prove that the lens he was talking about had changed. I'd go off the photos they took (maybe!)rather than the flaccid words of a reviewer whose webpage advertises Canon. -Rich > Good news for Canon, they can keep churning out sub-par entry-level > lenses and most won't complain. Unless they happen to compare them How many consumers would a) be able to spot the differences from a print and b) actually care? 15 years ago I worked E6 in a pro lab in London. There were pros who knew all about the E6 process, some would even ask to see the current plot before judging their clip tests - often holding them until the process was running faster, slower, warmer, cooler. Other pros couldn't care less about the technical details and didn't even know what a clip test was. Their images didn't have or need to be technically perfect, or perhaps they were quite so anal about it all? :) The 18-55mm is a kit lens, anyone who is serious about their glass wouldn't buy it in the first place. Before the 300D I had the aged Digital IXUS V, the results from the 300D and it's sub-par entry-level lens are leaps and bounds ahead in every way. > with any other DSLR lens, that is. Also, your lens has been replaced > with the MkII. A fact I am well aware of hence my use of mk1 to make the difference clear in my previous post. SignatureAndy >> Good news for Canon, they can keep churning out sub-par entry-level >> lenses and most won't complain. Unless they happen to compare them [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > A fact I am well aware of hence my use of mk1 to make the difference > clear in my previous post. Aside from the "II", what _is_ the difference? SignatureFrank ess >> Good news for Canon, they can keep churning out sub-par entry-level >> lenses and most won't complain. Unless they happen to compare them > >How many consumers would a) be able to spot the differences from a print >and b) actually care? Any who compared would spot it, unless they were blind. They'd care if they knew. "Ignorance is..." >15 years ago I worked E6 in a pro lab in London. There were pros who >knew all about the E6 process, some would even ask to see the current [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >test was. Their images didn't have or need to be technically perfect, or >perhaps they were quite so anal about it all? :) True, there are pros like that. In fact some pros even shoot for different periodicals who think like that, some want perfection, others want "action" shots and don't care too much about technical perfection. >The 18-55mm is a kit lens, anyone who is serious about their glass >wouldn't buy it in the first place. Can't argue with that. >Before the 300D I had the aged Digital IXUS V, the results from the 300D >and it's sub-par entry-level lens are leaps and bounds ahead in every way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >A fact I am well aware of hence my use of mk1 to make the difference >clear in my previous post. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > had a big bag of money I'd buy one. For now I'll carry on with the kit > lens and enjoy the photography and the results. You can buy the eos cameras body only you know. Canon have always slapped a budget lens on the front. As for nikon they put a cheap a.s sigma lens on that wasn't even super wide. Many were returned when punters realised that the 28-80 on their nikon behaved like a 42-120. Then the backorders for the 18-70 really built up. But could i or any other jessops get bodies only? Maybe they do now but the inital 9 months run of imports were those two lenses or higher. >You can buy the eos cameras body only you know. Canon have always slapped a >budget lens on the front. But it's always at least been a lens that looked and felt like it was made to decent tolerances. Such as the AI 50mm f/2.0 that's on all the AE-1's out there. Not a bad lens at all, really. >Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having >used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth >publication, I can only conclude the deciples of EOS knocking this lens >as "total crap" have never actually used one or they would have a >different story to tell. It performs fairly well as you have found. But it is obviously not made to high manufacturing tolerances; it feels flimsy; the focus ring vibrates (can't be good!). But it's a pretty good lens, comes free with the camera kit, and is the only 18mm Canon lens many people will be able to afford (myself included). >Sure it's not a $2600 (AUD) "L" series by any >means but it certainly is not deserving of the description piled on it >recently and most definitely is a really nice lens to start with. All reviews I've ever read concur with my opinion: It's a fairly good lens, it covers a reasonable range for wide angle, and although it's very usable, it doesn't feel like it's put together with any quality. You must be reading different reviews than I am. Most people that would discourage you from buying the 18-55 kit, are really just encouraging the 17-85 IS kit. That's reasonable. The 17-85 is the better lens. But the kit with the 18-55 isn't a bad value. It won't be the *only* lens for many people, but it might be their only wide lens for a while. > It performs fairly well as you have found. But it is obviously not made > to high manufacturing tolerances; it feels flimsy; the focus ring > vibrates (can't be good!). But it's a pretty good lens, comes free with > the camera kit, and is the only 18mm Canon lens many people will be able > to afford (myself included). Actually it adds $70 to the body-only price. > All reviews I've ever read concur with my opinion: It's a fairly good > lens, it covers a reasonable range for wide angle, and although it's > very usable, it doesn't feel like it's put together with any quality. This is a good analysis of this lens. > You must be reading different reviews than I am. Most people that would > discourage you from buying the 18-55 kit, are really just encouraging > the 17-85 IS kit. That's reasonable. The 17-85 is the better lens. > But the kit with the 18-55 isn't a bad value. It won't be the *only* > lens for many people, but it might be their only wide lens for a while. It's definitely worth the extra $70 bucks. The people knocking this lens have not only never used one, they have never read a review of one! They were looking for something to knock Canon on, and the fact that the $70 18-55 lens is not as good as the $300 kit lens on the Nikon D70, is all they could find. This speaks volumes! >Actually it adds $70 to the body-only price. I got my 20D kit for less than the same vendor's body-only price. A special deal, granted, but one that I happily took advantage of. No regrets, ever. After a while, I was willing to entertain the possibility of buyer's remorse, so I again checked out a D70 and a Rebel XT. I realized I could have saved money buying the XT, but, I did not like the feel of the camera at all, and I also found that the value of the info available on top of the 20D, which is not on the XT, is understated. It's much easier to operate the 20D than the RebelXT, regardless of the features being technically almost the same. The ergonomics are completely different, and the 20D wins. As to the Nikon, I have to admit it's still a difficult choice. I was budgeting for the D70 when a friend let me use his 20D. I liked it so much, I jumped the budget plan and bought one. A gestalt of "wow" factors that the Nikon camera didn't do for me. The only specific thing I can say I like better on the Canon, is the shutter and aperture control. Well, I also have to admit, the 18-70 kit lens on the Nikon seems better. I probably would have been happy with the Nikon D70, or maybe even a ZLR. But looking back, and actively trying to find an area in which to have buyer's remorse, I'm not finding any. If I had to do it again, I would be about as likely to get the 20D again, or wait until some of the inherent problems with DSLRs are solved a bit better (e.g., sensor dust, hot pixels, red sensitivity, stuff that doesn't really matter WHAT camera you end up with.) > The people knocking this lens have not only never used one, they have > never read a review of one! Ahem. Your memory is deceiving you. I own this lens, and I wish I had gone for the 50mm f/1.8 instead. I straight up do not like the images that I get from the kit lens, even stopped down. I might change my mind if I play with that DxO software. For now, my workflow is complicated enough. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having >>used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > But the kit with the 18-55 isn't a bad value. It won't be the *only* > lens for many people, but it might be their only wide lens for a while. It certainly is the only cheap wide angle for Canon DSLRs. It's been my only wide angle for my Digital Rebel for a year now and it'll stay that way for another few months. Considering its price, I've been satisfied with its performance. I've used it mostly for landscape where the lens is stopped down and I don't need the kind of detail that is required for portrait. As for 17-85 IS, for me, I just don't see the point of buying that lens. It costs almost the same price as the 17-40 f/4 L, which I'm sure is a far better lens. As for the gap between the 17-40 f/4 L and my 70-200 f/4 L, I'll buy a prime 50mm. >f/4 L, I'll buy a prime 50mm. I believe my f/1.4 50mm EF lens may be the best piece of glass I will own for a while. It certainly raises the bar. Snipped > You must be reading different reviews than I am. Most people that would > discourage you from buying the 18-55 kit, are really just encouraging > the 17-85 IS kit. That's reasonable. The 17-85 is the better lens. > But the kit with the 18-55 isn't a bad value. It won't be the *only* > lens for many people, but it might be their only wide lens for a while. I don't read reviews James. I assess a product on it's technical specifications and if it suits my purpose I buy it. The little kit lens of mine came with the first 20D I bought. Canon Australia wouldn't import the body alone in the first shipment. When I opened the box and found this inside, my first comment was "It's Plastic, for God's sake". I realise now the most likely reason for this was a problem with quality control... They couldn't get the cameras coming off the assembly line to reliably auto focus on the point of focus so they forced buyers to have a F3.5 lens and claim the camera is "within specs" if it focuses anywhere inside the depth of field. That policy apparently worked until people like me put f1.4 lenses on them and found the fault. The thing about my posts which are very different from most which respond to them with negative comments, is I actually own the stuff I comment on. Nothing I post about is fantasized or invented, Just experienced. I don't own the 17~85 lens and never will so I can't make any comment about it. It gets up my nose when I read a load of bullshit from people who think they are some sort of authority because they read an article from someone who previously read and article and then claimed to be an authority too! SignatureMessage authored by Douglas Who has Zero Care Factor about negative responses from anonymous posters. > Snipped >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > they are some sort of authority because they read an article from someone > who previously read and article and then claimed to be an authority too! I heard that the very first batch had a back focusing problem. But then i had customers moaning about the very same thing about the nikon D70. I trust that a firmware patch may have fixed any gripes you may have had? Or did you insist on a factory fix? Either way the market the 20D is aimed at i would expect quality focusing as a given. I have also heard that the 10D exposure system is more accurate. the focusing is also accurate though not as fast. Another reviewer says its common for every canon he owns (that is owns not tested) he has had to permanently set the exposure comp to +1. Even his eos1. film and digital. Was a long time i read that. I never buy a graphics card or mobo until it has been around 6 months so that stable drivers have been developed. I have been advised never to buy a mkI car from any manufacturer. Looks like buying a new dslr within the first 6 months is a no no too. > Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having > used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > means but it certainly is not deserving of the description piled on it > recently and most definitely is a really nice lens to start with. I've found my 300D's "kit" EF-S 18-55 to be a very good lens... for what's essentially a $50 zoom lens. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0529-2, 07/21/2005 Tested on: 7/24/2005 3:10:10 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.