How good is the standard 18-55 Canon lens?

JumboBeef

JumboBeef

Messages
978
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title says, how good is the standard 18-55 Canon lens? (for landscapes)

I normally shoot in good light on the wider end of the lens and was wondering if there is any (good) reason to get a better lens?

More to the point, is the gain worth the extra £££?

Thanks.
 
All taken with the kits lens

no sharpening

2354955318_5a651346a7.jpg


2285935382_0519b8e772.jpg


I think it proves the point that the lens is well up to the job
 
I've been playing with the same thoughts myself, I find it a little soft wide open by around f8 it seems quite a decent lens, and certainly the best lens you can get for the 30 quid it costs :)
 
Compared to an L lens, not that great. But as always, you get what you pay for. As previously mentioned, soft when wide open. I also found colour/contrast to be a problem with the kit lens.
 
But is an L lens 15x better? I doubt anyone would compare the two seriously.

Stu.
 
loosehead said:
But is an L lens 15x better? I doubt anyone would compare the two seriously.

Stu.
Click to expand...

I'm not 'comparing' them per se, as there is a massive price difference between the two. Obviously an L will be better. As I say, you get what you pay for. But, the difference between the kit lens and an L (or even an EF lens) is quite big in my experience. The build quility is cr@p, the manual focus ring is non-existant, no FTM and the IQ is not that great.

Depends on what you want it for and what your budget is i guess. It's a good lens to begin with, but having used mine for several weeks, and trying a better lens, I put it on ebay (and got £50 for it :D)

Just my experience...

 
What would be the next step up from the standard lens? (and how much would it cost?)
 
Slapo said:
Why not get the 18-55 mm IS version of this lens? The optics are improved quite a bit in the IS version. Sure, it does cost more, but it seems to be worth it from the samples I've seen.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's supposedly better than the kit lens. Also, although slightly more expensive, is the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS. It costs around £320. I used one at the weekens and it seemed like a good lens copared to the kit lens. The 18-55 mm IS is around £110.

This is a good site for getting an idea on prices:

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html

 
In my opinion with camera things, you get a noticeable difference everytime you double the price. The 18-55 is a good lens and if this is your first SLR it will treat you well. I'm sure you will want to upgrade the lens before you do the camera though. I started 4 years ago with a 300D and an 18-55, then after about a year I got a 17-40L. I wouldn't go back to the 18-55 now but at the time it definitely made monetary sense and did produce some good pics.

The main thing improvements I found it going to an L were:
1.Better overall build quality - it feels like a nice lens
2. Non rotating front lens element - really good if you ever want to use a polarizer
3. Constant Aperture - Since I nearly always shoot aperture priority or manual this is a real bonus
4. A distance window on the focus - useful at night when you can't focus properly or are doing IR photos
5. Better IQ
6. Weather sealing - I know your body isn't weather sealed either but it's easier to cover a body than the lens
 
its better than a lot of folk have given it credit for , if you are shooting in the right situation its a great wee lens, in my case i have replaces it as the chromatic aberration in architecture shots ( my fav) was getting to be more than unacceptable so i originally had planned to go for the 17 - 40L, but funds were scarce so i had the chance of a 20-40mm sigma..........and so far im VERY happy with it!
Fi
 
Jumbo Beef, I Think The 450D Comes With The Better Quality 18-55IS That People Are Suggesting To You. Just Use It For A Bit, Decide What Focal Range Suits What Your Doing Then Go To A Camera Shop With Your Body And Kit Lens And Take A Few Shots With A Few Difference Lens And See What You Think Of Them. Check The Pics At Home On Comp And Youll Know In Your Own Mind Whether They Are Better Or Not and worth the extra money
 
The kit lens isn't bad - I still use mine! I do agree with the comment about the contrast/colour though.

But then again can anyone honestly say Canon make a totally bad lens? They make some usable ones, some better ones and some as good as any on the market... and as you move up that scale you move up in price.

The kit lens isn't 10-500mm F2 IS, it is what the spec says it is (funnily enough).

My advice - go out and use it, study your results and work out the technical shortfalls for yourself (focal length, aperture, speed of focus, macro ability - whatever it is you need for the shots you are chasing). When you have an idea of what you are technically lacking then buy something else specific to your needs - that might be a cheap nifty fity or a "not quite so cheap" 1200mm :D

PS Fletch, you got a new shift key you are running in there? Makes it Very Hard To Read :D
 
have caps lock on at work and the filters change to lower case with cap first letters!
 
JumboBeef said:
What would be the next step up from the standard lens? (and how much would it cost?)
Click to expand...

i'd say the next step up if we ignore zooms would be the 50mm 1.8 which you can get from kerso off here for £58 posted.I really can't get on with my kit lens(way too soft imo) and ive just broke my 50mm 1.8 by dropping it :( but im going to buy another soon.
 
JumboBeef said:
As the title says, how good is the standard 18-55 Canon lens? (for landscapes)

I normally shoot in good light on the wider end of the lens and was wondering if there is any (good) reason to get a better lens?

More to the point, is the gain worth the extra £££?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It's hard to justify price increases based on luxury goods. That's just a function of how the economy works. (Relatively) few people purchase L lenses, so an L lens that's "twice as good" as a non-L lens isn't going to necessarily be twice the price.

In my view, you shouldn't focus on the prices, but rather the reviews. As was mentioned the 50mm f/1.8 can be had for less than $100 (£50) -- but it has incredible image quality. The 50mm f/1.2 L on the other hand is more than 10x the price of its cheaper cousin. Is it 10x better? Not really. But it is better, and some (pros) need every inch they can get, so yes, it is justified in their case.
 
Theo Moore said:
As was mentioned the 50mm f/1.8 can be had for less than $100 (£50) -- but it has incredible image quality. The 50mm f/1.2 L on the other hand is more than 10x the price of its cheaper cousin. Is it 10x better? Not really.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the same with anything? For example, how much faster is a race prepared Yamaha R1 than a stock one? You spend a lot of extra money squeezing out that extra little bit of performance and as the performance increases so it costs you more per percent of increase. Same with trying to make a faster computer or pretty much any piece of technology.

As the sign down my old bike shop used to say "speed is only a question of money... how fast can you afford to go?"
 
ab$olut said:
i'd say the next step up if we ignore zooms would be the 50mm 1.8 which you can get from kerso off here for £58 posted.I really can't get on with my kit lens(way too soft imo) and ive just broke my 50mm 1.8 by dropping it :( but im going to buy another soon.
Click to expand...

For landscapes (original question)? I thought it was more for portraits? or is it that versatile?

Would something like the Sigma 10-20mm be worth considering?

I write these as questions and not statements because I am also considering adding to my kit lens for landscapes.
 
Ted said:
For landscapes (original question)? I thought it was more for portraits? or is it that versatile?

Would something like the Sigma 10-20mm be worth considering?

I write these as questions and not statements because I am also considering adding to my kit lens for landscapes.
Click to expand...

sorry I missed the part about landscapes :bonk:no I wouldn't recommend the 50 for that for landscape i'd go with the sigma if you can afford it.
 
desantnik said:
But isn't that the same with anything? [...] Same with trying to make a faster computer or pretty much any piece of technology.
Click to expand...

No, not everything.

Competitive markets are generally not subjected to these 'random' price increases. Buying stuff like water or food, for example. Like I said, it's more a thing with luxuries.

Rolex is a very good example of luxury good. Huge difference between the price of a Timex and a Rolex, and it's not just explained by supply and demand. To an extent, the Rolex company is extremely strict on the prices its distributors are allowed to offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top