EF-S 18-55mm thoughts? - DPChallenge Forums

05/20/2004 04:01:55 PM · #1

I did a search on this forum, and didn't find anyone arguing the relative merits (or lackthereof) of the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the Rebel. Anyone have any opinions they want to share? I haven't really heard from anyone who doesn't think that the lens is worth the extra $100. In fact, I just sold my copy for $115 on eBay to someone who wants to modify it for use on the 10D. I'm also curious to know if anyone has seen the real edges of that lens on a full-frame camera. Does it retain any sharpness, on say a film EOS, or a 1Ds? (obviously, this would only come from a modified version)

Before I sold it, I took some quick (very rough) comparison shots with my 17-40L lens, which is around 7 times the cost. Clearly, the 17-40 beat out the 18-55, but depending on your needs, maybe not by much. Anyone who's curious can see the comparison (again, not a rigorous review, just one-set of shots and crops) at //www.fountainphoto.com/archives/000020.html

BikeRacer

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/20/2004 04:13:46 PM · #2

I have been consistently disappointed with the photos I have made with my 18-55 since getting the 28-135IS. Tons of distortion, fuzzy at wider apertures, and the rotating front makes using my polarizer annoying. I assume I'll be disappointed with my 28-135 when/if I get the 70-200/4L.

05/20/2004 04:50:53 PM · #3

I'm disappointed with everything when I compare it to my 70-200/2.8L IS USM. That produces dreams everytime I release the shutter. It's unreal. It's also unreasonable to carry around for an afternoon of sightseeing, so the 17-40 is the lens of choice for that. :)

Message edited by author 2004-05-20 16:51:22.

lelani

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/20/2004 07:14:39 PM · #4

hey wkoffel - what do think about the canon 24-70 2.8, if you have it or tied it - what do you think? i have the 18-55 and the canon 50 1.8 II and am thinking of purchasing the 24-70 2.8

BTW - your reveiw for the 17-40 was great! thanks :)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

05/20/2004 07:46:09 PM · #5

Since I still lack anything lower than 28mm, the kit lense is a life-saver for close up and indoor use, as long as you use it with in its limitations. Keep it near f8 and it is a pretty nice little lense, find anything better for twice it's hundred dollar price and you will surprise me. There are six hundred dollar lenses that are much better, and out of my price range, but the kit works better than missing the shot.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/20/2004 07:48:52 PM · #6

I see a few of these replies are comparing the 18-55mm kit lens with L glass. Why? If you can get L glass, why get a Rebel anyways? Get a 10D. The 18-55 isn't all that great from what I've heard, but compared to what? 18mm is a great wide angle and even with some (correctable in PS) distortions, you have a great CHEAP lens. (no kit lens compares favorably to a USM L glass lens).

M

05/20/2004 08:14:28 PM · #7

Originally posted by lelani:

Nope, I haven't tried the 24-70. I'm afraid that if I do, I'll really want it, and my wallet can't take that. My next lens will hopefully be the 100/2.8 Macro, so I can stop using my damned extension tubes all the time.

05/20/2004 08:17:49 PM · #8

Originally posted by mavrik:

I feel like I need to defend my question. :)

You're totally right, mavrik. No one expects that the 18-55 will be better than L-glass. I was just wondering general opinions on the 18-55, whether people still use it, for what applications, etc, and were they surprised at how good it was, or disappointed by it when they got the Rebel?

I bought the Rebel, and it really rocketed me back into a dormant interest in photography. So I wasn't prepared to spend the money on the 10D (although in retrospect I wish I'd known that I'd be so excited about it), and since then, I can more easily justify money on the "investment" items like the 70-200 IS, while I really milk the Rebel for all it's worth. In a coupe years, I'm sure I'll upgrade to whatever the successor to the 10D is (maybe full-frame 10MP by that point? Who knows??)

soup

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/21/2004 08:09:41 AM · #9

the efs 18-55mm wont fit any other EOS camera film or digital.
so i dont think you'll get much feed back in that respect.

i am content with the lense - nothing special - but it can produce sharp shots under the right circumstances/ settings

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/21/2004 09:03:54 AM · #10

Canon didn't supply the lens to be anything fantastic, but it is adequate for those people who can't afford to go for a 17 - 40mm L series etc... The 300D is aimed at amatuer photographers and those who are stepping up from compact models. For what it is I think it gives a fair result but will always look inferior when comparing it to better quality glass.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/21/2004 09:20:41 AM · #11

The reviews at photozone show it to be almost the worst zoom lens you can buy (there's only 2 that are worse).

Obviously, the biggest plus is that it gets you down to 29mm without having to spend alot of money. When I first got the camera, I thought it was fine, but more and more I see how much it sucks. I use the 50mm 1.8 whenever I can, and I plan to buy the canon 28mm 2.8. I don't use the kit lens now unless I have to.

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

05/21/2004 10:07:07 AM · #12

Originally posted by soup:

This is true, out of thee box. However, there are modification steps on the web for putting it on any EF-mount camera. For example

//www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB8&Number=230366&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all

and some other photos of the steps here

//members.cox.net/byteseller/EFS-WEB/EFS-WEB.html

Not saying I would necessarily do this myself, but I'd be curious if anyone here has done it, especially if they've then tried the lens on a full-frame camera. Just wondering if it's still okay, or totally useless at the edges.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

05/21/2004 03:16:13 PM · #13

Originally posted by wkoffel:

It won't work on a 10D because the mirror will hit it.

soup

05/21/2004 03:52:17 PM · #14

gordon posted a link to a review of the 18-55mm efs a while back - they compared it to the 50mm prime, and a tele zoom. and givene it didnt win - under certain settings the results were as good as the better lenses.

shoot at f:8 - f:11 if possible for the sharpest results.

i have gotten some decent shots with the kit lense - and you cant beat it for some thing you dont need to worry about

pitsaman

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/22/2004 10:35:16 AM · #15

Canon EF -S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
poor
(*) poor
(*) poor
(*) poor
(*) critical
(*) heavy distortions
(**) critical
(*) critical
(*) neutral heavy flare
(*) very poor
(0.63) very slow
(*) bad
(*)
Wow,the worst wide lens,no wonder the corners are blurry on every photo ~

05/22/2004 11:50:13 AM · #16

Originally posted by orussell:

Originally posted by wkoffel:
In fact, I just sold my copy for $115 on eBay to someone who wants to modify it for use on the 10D. I'm also curious to know if anyone has seen the real edges of that lens on a full-frame camera. Does it retain any sharpness, on say a film EOS, or a 1Ds? (obviously, this would only come from a modified version)

It won't work on a 10D because the mirror will hit it.

That's why I say "modified". It will only work when modified, as per the links I posted earlier (basically, you take a hacksaw to the lens back). I certainly don't want anyone to read this, and try to use it on their 10D without modification!! A quick way to ruin a great camera.

soup

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

05/22/2004 12:29:50 PM · #17

anyone who can afford the 10d or better is an idiot to use a low end lense like the 18-55mm on their camera, especially if it needs to be modified.

as for pitsamans ratings - they dont really tell anyone anything from what i can tell. and anyone who expects top quality for $100 lense is crazy. its a usable lense if used properly. but not a great lense by any means.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

05/22/2004 01:21:41 PM · #18

I like the 18-55 because I don't need a high quality wide angle and I only use it on occasion.

If you need a high quality wide angle, don't go for it. If, like me, you're happy with a lens to use occasionally at wide angle, then I think it's a great lens.

(Incidentally, I own a couple of high quality lenses mid range, which I use most.)

pitsaman

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/22/2004 01:39:33 PM · #19

Originally posted by soup:

Blurry edges are ok for you?
Why bother buying SLR than !

It is like eat cowcrap it's free !

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

05/22/2004 02:03:04 PM · #20

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Blurry edges are ok for you?

It depends what you want the pics for. For my holiday shots where I want to carry a light lens, which will most likely be going on the web anyway, yes, somewhat blurred edges are fine.

In fact, I have a 14"x11" from my 18-55 that I'm fairly pleased with. (Granted the corners are water/sky.)

boomer

05/22/2004 02:03:18 PM · #21

Originally posted by pitsaman:

I get that you don't like this lens, but what is that list above? All I'm seeing is a paranthesis with an asterick inside. Am I missing something?

pitsaman

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/22/2004 04:13:51 PM · #22

Originally posted by boomer:

Originally posted by pitsaman:
Canon EF -S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
poor
(*) poor
(*) poor
(*) poor
(*) critical
(*) heavy distortions
(**) critical
(*) critical
(*) neutral heavy flare
(*) very poor
(0.63) very slow
(*) bad
(*)
Wow,the worst wide lens,no wonder the corners are blurry on every photo ~

I get that you don't like this lens, but what is that list above? All I'm seeing is a paranthesis with an asterick inside. Am I missing something?

Quality measurements = 1 star- suck ,5 star- great!

lens test link

Message edited by author 2004-05-22 16:18:54.

boomer

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

05/22/2004 04:42:37 PM · #23

Pitsaman, thanks for the link. I get it now!

I have the 300d on a two week review right now with the kit lens. I just came back from a local small fry football / soccer game and I snapped about 48 shots. Of course I couldn't get close enough, but aside from that, I found the quality of the images leaving something to be desired. Not very sharp (okay, not sharp at all) and the colors rather washed out. I was shooting in Sports Mode and made no other changes in the camera (I don't even know how yet!). The camera chose an ISO of 400 and shutter speeds of 1,000. This was at literally high noon on a bright, sunny day.

Nice FOV however at wide angle.

What I'm learning is that the dReb is a fantastic camera, the kit lens is so-so (in my tests so far, yesterday and today), and that I will almost certainly need a better walk around lens immedidately -- so the price really isn't under $1,000. That makes me wonder about the D70. I heard the kit lens is much better than Canon's and it's a longer zoom to boot.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

05/22/2004 05:28:54 PM · #24

Originally posted by boomer:

The camera chose an ISO of 400 and shutter speeds of 1,000. This was at literally high noon on a bright, sunny day.

Sports mode will only use ISO 400 or 800, I do believe.. Also, for sports you want shutters of 1,000 - so in fact, the camera probably made the right choice.

Let's be honest here, the 18-55 isn't a sports lens, so it's hardly surprising it doesn't perform well.

boomer