Canon kit lens, all that bad?
Discussion
Background info-
I wouldn't call myself a decent photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I do like taking photos and always tried to improve. I moved from film to digital and so have kept all the lenses from film (28-105, 70-300 and 50mm) but am increasingly finding them too long when the focal length 'changes' on my 450D.
So my question is - if I want to change the 28-105 for a new walkabout/landscape lens, which should I go for? I see I can pick up the Canon kit lens (18-55 IS) for about £80 on eBay, would that be good enough or should I save up an extra £100 and get something like the Sigma 18-50 f2.8-4.5 OS? Or is there something else that shines out in the budget end of the market?
I wouldn't call myself a decent photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I do like taking photos and always tried to improve. I moved from film to digital and so have kept all the lenses from film (28-105, 70-300 and 50mm) but am increasingly finding them too long when the focal length 'changes' on my 450D.
So my question is - if I want to change the 28-105 for a new walkabout/landscape lens, which should I go for? I see I can pick up the Canon kit lens (18-55 IS) for about £80 on eBay, would that be good enough or should I save up an extra £100 and get something like the Sigma 18-50 f2.8-4.5 OS? Or is there something else that shines out in the budget end of the market?
Should be able to find an 18-55 on Ebay for not a lot. Doubt you'd need to spend more than 80quid to be honest. Plus there are alternatives like the Sigma 18-50 that are perfectly ok and dirt cheap as well (I got one on my new s/h 400D that I bought a couple of months ago).
Still not sure why the IS version is so much better than the non IS version, unless you have Parkinsons. IS costs in EV, so I'm not sure why its cracked up to be so good. If you need low shutter speeds, to compensate for shake, then you probably are somewhere that isn't very bright either. I can see the point at 200-300mm though, but not on an 18-55.
Had to use our 18-55 for a year whilst our main lens was being repaired, and I can't say that the pictures were that bad either.
This was taken with a standard 18-55 EF a couple of years ago. Think I was getting a lot of dust on the lens though, but hardly surprising given the conditions. No alterations done to the picture either.
Still not sure why the IS version is so much better than the non IS version, unless you have Parkinsons. IS costs in EV, so I'm not sure why its cracked up to be so good. If you need low shutter speeds, to compensate for shake, then you probably are somewhere that isn't very bright either. I can see the point at 200-300mm though, but not on an 18-55.
Had to use our 18-55 for a year whilst our main lens was being repaired, and I can't say that the pictures were that bad either.
This was taken with a standard 18-55 EF a couple of years ago. Think I was getting a lot of dust on the lens though, but hardly surprising given the conditions. No alterations done to the picture either.
I recently got on brand new for £75 from http://www.parkcameras.com/9270/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm... and havebeen pretty happy with the resuls
tinman0 said:
Still not sure why the IS version is so much better than the non IS version, unless you have Parkinsons. IS costs in EV, so I'm not sure why its cracked up to be so good. If you need low shutter speeds, to compensate for shake, then you probably are somewhere that isn't very bright either. I can see the point at 200-300mm though, but not on an 18-55.
I believe it's the optics that are better, not the IS.tinman0 said:
Still not sure why the IS version is so much better than the non IS version, unless you have Parkinsons. IS costs in EV, so I'm not sure why its cracked up to be so good. If you need low shutter speeds, to compensate for shake, then you probably are somewhere that isn't very bright either. I can see the point at 200-300mm though, but not on an 18-55.
As SamHH said, the 18-55 IS is a newer lens, it's not just the addition of IS to the old 18-55 lens.Some reviews:
Old 18-55 non-IS
New 18-55 IS
Don't think there is anything particularly wrong with kit lenses, just buy them knowing all the facts
Often they are not the best performers, but sometimes it is a very cheap way of buying lenses.Cheers.
It's very poorly built, all plastic including the lens mount. Doesn't give you much confidence that the optics are any good, but it's cheap, I guess like most things you get what you pay for. If I was investing days of my time to get a few good shots then I'd not bother with it, I'd have something better, maybe not an L lens but something that was mid range. As a holiday lens I'll happily use mine, it would be fine for that kind of use, for me. Other people might demand an L lens for holidays . . . . depends what you want.
I agree just buy the IS 18-55 lens, It's a fantastic optic, I paid £53 for mine new from Korea through BIN ebay. It's everything you need in a walk around lens.
I don't normally use wide angle or standard lenses this cheepo 'Kit Lens blew ne away. I normally use the long 'L' prime teles for bird and small ctitters, which are awesome optics, but only a smidgen better than the cheep '18-55 IS.
I don't normally use wide angle or standard lenses this cheepo 'Kit Lens blew ne away. I normally use the long 'L' prime teles for bird and small ctitters, which are awesome optics, but only a smidgen better than the cheep '18-55 IS.
Thumbs up for the kit lens from me. I upgraded my version from the non-IS one to the newer one a year or 2 back after reading very promising reviews of it, and it hasn't disappointed.
That was taken this winter with the kit lens, up at Derwentwater, with my 40D attached. The lens is light too, which is handy when lugging around a 400 and 500mm lens at the same time!
That was taken this winter with the kit lens, up at Derwentwater, with my 40D attached. The lens is light too, which is handy when lugging around a 400 and 500mm lens at the same time!
The newer one with IS is supposedly not too bad, but the older 18-55 that came with my old 400d was very poor. I subsequently borrowed a (IIRC) 28-90 USM from a friend (an old film body kit lens that shows up regularly on fleabay for buttons) and that was miles better before eventually buying something a bit more serious.
Since you want wider though, it might well be worth (if possible) rounding up some extra funds and seeking out a used Sigma 18-50 2.8 - a friend of mine has had a really good experience with that one, and the IQ, weight and quality of it (while not up to L standards) is very compelling compared to the Canon kit glass.
Just my 2p for your perusal...
Since you want wider though, it might well be worth (if possible) rounding up some extra funds and seeking out a used Sigma 18-50 2.8 - a friend of mine has had a really good experience with that one, and the IQ, weight and quality of it (while not up to L standards) is very compelling compared to the Canon kit glass.
Just my 2p for your perusal...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff