Lens quality difference??

C

Canon Tim

Messages
126
Edit My Images
No
I bought a 450d about a year ago with the standard lens kit 18-55mm.

A week or so later I bought a 55-250 canon lens from kerso on here.


Although both are canon lenses the quality of the pictures taken through the 55-250 is far beyond that of the standard kit lens. It's almost like they aren't as crisp/sharp whatever you want to call it.

Is this to be expected? I don't think it should be the case.

Anyone recommend a good reasonably priced alternative if in fact the lens is just crap?
 
Pretty sure the 450D comes with the IS version... The kit lens is at least reasonable so should be delivering similar quality to the 55-250...
 
Whilst I know the kit lens is never going to be the sharpest in the world, mine takes relatively sharp photos, enough to keep me happy for the time being (until I can afford better) and especially now i've found the "sweet spot" at around f/11. I also have the 55-250, and I would say they both give pretty good results, considering one is a kit lens, and one is a budget zoom.
 
Check first for focusing issues with the 18-55

If it turns out that you just don't get on with the lens itself (i.e. it's not faulty), then the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is a much better lens, both VC and non-VC (Tamron's equivalent to IS) and comes in at around £260 iirc, depending on whether you go VC or not (The non VC is widely regarded to be the superior lens in terms of IQ, though it's a toss up between VC and IQ).

If £260 is too much, then you'll probably be looking at prime lenses for your IQ, e.g. nifty fifty's (Canon's can be had for £70) or cheap 35mm lenses (not sure about Canon's pricing on those, but Nikon's 35mm 1.8 is roughly £200 as a reference)
 
Ksanti said:
If it turns out that you just don't get on with the lens itself (i.e. it's not faulty), then the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is a much better lens, both VC and non-VC (Tamron's equivalent to IS) and comes in at around £260 iirc, depending on whether you go VC or not (The non VC is widely regarded to be the superior lens in terms of IQ, though it's a toss up between VC and IQ)
Click to expand...

This is the lens i'm going for to replace my kit lens in a couple of weeks time, non VC :)
 
Canon Tim said:
I bought a 450d about a year ago with the standard lens kit 18-55mm.

A week or so later I bought a 55-250 canon lens from kerso on here.


Although both are canon lenses the quality of the pictures taken through the 55-250 is far beyond that of the standard kit lens. It's almost like they aren't as crisp/sharp whatever you want to call it.

Is this to be expected? I don't think it should be the case.

Anyone recommend a good reasonably priced alternative if in fact the lens is just crap?
Click to expand...

The 55-250mm is better in terms of IQ over the kit lens from my experience, its a really good lens for the price and the zoom range, i'd expect it to give noticeably better images than the kit lens. As has been said look at the 17-50mm or 28-75mm Tamron for an affordable upgrade to your kit lens
 
Just because they are both made by canon, it doesn't mean the image quality will be the same!

The 55-250 has much better iq than the kit lens, and this is really to be expected. Yes it's a budget telephoto, but it punches far beyond it's weight and produces better ages than some lenses at twice the price.

It well deserves it's excellent reputation.
 
Last edited:
I would be very surprised if there was any noticeable image quality difference between the 18-55 IS and the 55-250. Both are pretty good for the price.

Can you post pics, with technical details attached (Exif data)?
 
My 55-250 has much better iq than my non IS kit lens (which I got shot of) which I thought we were comparing to! Never used the IS version if the 18-55 so can't comment in that...
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
If it turns out that you just don't get on with the lens itself (i.e. it's not faulty), then the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is a much better lens,
Click to expand...

I just wanted to point out to the OP that it is in fact Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The 17-55 f/2.8 is the Canon and costs way more.

The 18-55IS is supposed to be pretty good for the money, and on a par with the latest kit lens as far as IQ goes.
Photozone gave it pretty good marks but i agree, the Tamorn is in a different league.
Although i have a Canon 17-55IS i did have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and to be honest it was a pretty close call. No idea about the VC version but if i was buying again i would go for the VC because IS is pretty handy to have and would outweigh the slightly (apparently) inferior IQ.
 
I have an 18-55IS and the 55-250IS. I would say the IQ is better on the 55-250, but the 18-55 is no slouch either given it's price point. Assuming the OPs 18-55 is of course the IS version, then it seems strange to me that the difference is so pronounced. It would be good to see some examples to compare.

I could understand there being a noticeable difference if we're talking about comparison of the non-IS with the 55-250.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top