Question about Canon 18-55mm lens

06/25/2005 08:15:56 PM · #1

I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel XT about 2 weeks ago. It came with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. It seems to be an OK lens for portrait/landscape shots, but I'd have thought an 18mm would do better on close-ups. I have a lot of trouble getting my subject in focus if I'm within about a foot distance. Additionally, it seems that there is a little "wobble" in the manual focus. Has anyone else noticed this? It's not as solid as I would like, and it's really easy to foul up a manual shot.

Is this a normal thing? Perhaps too little experience with the lens? Just curious to get others' opinions.

DanSig

06/25/2005 08:23:33 PM · #2

well.. this lens is about as cheap as they come, so don't expect much from it, for closeups it's useless, 1 foot minimum focus distance, but then your dof will be about 0.5mm or 1/32" so it will look out of focus, try 2 feet distance and crop the image, or buy a macrolens :)

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

06/25/2005 08:30:52 PM · #3

hmm i heard the kit lens is a little soft at 55 so if ur on a budget and dont' really need 1:1 i'd probably pick up a 70$ 50mm 1.8 and a 150$ set of kenko extension tubes. or maybe that gets you to 1:1 when you stack all three tubes? i'm not sure, but most people say they have had good results from the tubes. the reason i mention the softness of the 18-55 at 55 is because the 50 1.8 might double as both a better portrait lens and your semi-macro.

Message edited by author 2005-06-25 20:31:52.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

06/25/2005 08:32:18 PM · #4

I believe you need 50mm of tubes to hit 1:1 on a 50mm lens.

Nelzie

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

06/25/2005 08:36:35 PM · #5

The kit lense is so... bleh.

It's okay to get you started, but once you switch up to better crafted glass, you will find a serious amount of contempt for that glass.

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

06/25/2005 08:47:25 PM · #6

Originally posted by kyebosh:

I believe you need 50mm of tubes to hit 1:1 on a 50mm lens.

oh hmm so you might get close if you stack all three?

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/25/2005 09:33:41 PM · #7

Originally posted by Nelzie:

The kit lense is so... bleh.

Yeah,

, I hate that lens.

datcat

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/25/2005 09:41:37 PM · #8

Yeah me too.

datcat

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/25/2005 09:53:21 PM · #9

Seriously though, I have been less than satisfied a lot of the time, and I have had the "wobble" when trying to focus manually. I plan to get the 1.4, as many here have. But it can produce nice pics with a bit of patience.

Steveinnz

Canon EOS-60D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

06/25/2005 10:04:28 PM · #10

I have not had the camera long, just picked it up second hand. The kit lens I have been impressed with. I have had heaps of bother trying to use the Tamron 28mm-200mmm lens I got as well. I suspect a bit more practice is required, it is quite a change after my Fuji S602Z
This photo was with the kit lens

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/25/2005 11:54:38 PM · #11

I agree with the rest that this lens sucks...

yido

Canon EOS-5D

06/26/2005 03:38:56 AM · #12

The wobble is normal.
As for the Out of focus shots when the subject is near, may due to subject being closer than the minimum focusing distance. One quick way to check is to back up a bit and see if focus locks.
Optically, it's a decent lens. Nothing a good photo can't compensate for.

Message edited by author 2005-06-26 03:39:36.

liv4him330

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

06/26/2005 06:22:59 AM · #13

evrey picture i have from it seams to have a ton of barrel distortion i havnt had the soft focus problem as much as outher people but maybe because i dont shoot that many macro shots with it.

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/26/2005 09:13:38 AM · #14

Originally posted by art-inept:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
I believe you need 50mm of tubes to hit 1:1 on a 50mm lens.

oh hmm so you might get close if you stack all three?

The kenko set is three tubes, a 36, 20 and 12mm... All three stacked is 68mm, so you get well past 1:1, in fact due to crop factor you get about 2.4:1 effective.

See the third message down in This thread

And, for what it's worth the kit lens isn't all that bad, although definately not a closeup lens, and best stopped down to F/8 or so.

Cheers, Me.

aboutimage

06/26/2005 09:58:31 AM · #15

Cool! Thanks for the great advice everyone.

JayWalk

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/26/2005 10:14:20 AM · #16

Originally posted by liv4him330:

evrey picture i have from it seams to have a ton of barrel distortion i havnt had the soft focus problem as much as outher people but maybe because i dont shoot that many macro shots with it.

I actually didn't notice this until this weekend when I took a few pitures for the Leading Lines comp. Barrel distortion was VERY prominent in a few of my pictures. It also does take a soft picture, but nothing that a little USM can't take care of. Now, I have only had a DSLR for less than a week now and am just getting into this whole photograpghy thing, but personally I think the kit lens is suitable for a good 90% of my pictures.

With the kit lens:

Message edited by author 2005-06-26 10:16:13.

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

06/26/2005 01:49:11 PM · #17

I see two schools of thought here in the comments: those who are sarcastically saying the lens sucks and those that really mean it. For those that are sarcastically saying so: it's not like the 18-55 isn't capable of taking a good picture, it just usually doesn't. This is even more apparant when comparing it to photos taken with better quality lenses. Do you really think Canon would put a high quality lens in a kit and only charge $100 more for it? The idea behind the 18-55 lens is to give folks new to DSLR something to work with until they can build up their bag. I don't even keep that lens in my bag anymore even though it's the widest lens I own.

For what it's worth, the 18-55 is a great starter lens until you can afford to buy something else and it is capable of good pictures. In my opinion, it is not a good quality lens.

aboutimage

06/26/2005 11:06:26 PM · #18

Originally posted by tfaust:

For what it's worth, the 18-55 is a great starter lens until you can afford to buy something else and it is capable of good pictures. In my opinion, it is not a good quality lens.

That said, what would be a next step? Keep in mind that I'm new to the world of digital SLR (my last camera was a Sony F-707). I'm interested in macro (a lot) and just general all around shooting (with as much telephoto capability as I can get).

I do have a budget. Most of the leaves have fallen off my money tree. But I don't want to buy the lowest of the lines either. I'd prefer to build up slowly and get good stuff. I'm halfway convinced that the Canon 50mm f1.8 would be a good budget lens, but am open to any suggestion that buys a decent lens for the lowest possible price. Opinions?

Prof_Fate

06/26/2005 11:23:19 PM · #19

The choices are:
the Canon 50mm 1.8 at about $70 is nice, affordable, fast, lightweight. I have one...i rarely use it...
I recently got the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC, $420 new (off ebay). Fast, strong sharp lens with great contrast and excellent colors. Highly recomended. You can get about $70 for your kit lens, so $350 is all you need to move on up to happiness. (as sharp as the canon 17-40L, but less money, more range and faster too)

Another lens that is a great value is the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO Super Macro 2, about $200. Gives you macro capability and with the 1.6 crop factor 480mm of reach. Nice lens for the money. The canon 70-200L is better, but for that difference in price it better be!

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/27/2005 04:13:38 PM · #20

Originally posted by tfaust:

it's not like the 18-55 isn't capable of taking a good picture, it just usually doesn't.

I thought the person holding the camera takes a good picture. This lens is perfectly capable as long as (just like anything else) you know what it can do and work within those boundaries. I prefer to work this way rather than piss and moan about those limitations or the fact that I can not afford better now. If you CAN afford better, by all means do, but don't complain about what you got with the camera for a hundred bucks...

scuds

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

06/27/2005 04:36:24 PM · #21

Originally posted by TooCool:

Originally posted by tfaust:
it's not like the 18-55 isn't capable of taking a good picture, it just usually doesn't.

I thought the person holding the camera takes a good picture. This lens is perfectly capable as long as (just like anything else) you know what it can do and work within those boundaries. I prefer to work this way rather than piss and moan about those limitations or the fact that I can not afford better now. If you CAN afford better, by all means do, but don't complain about what you got with the camera for a hundred bucks...

BINGO!!!!!

check this 18-55mm crappy pics

phreakon

Olympus C-740UZ

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

06/27/2005 04:37:21 PM · #22

I have to say that I have been satisfied with the kit lens so far. I can't say that I have had any focusing issues with that lens, even while I was getting used to using the new camera. If you're having an excessive hard time focusing, you may want to have a pro check out your lens, and make sure it isn't defective or anything.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT