18-55 Canon nasty lens.

[photography By Evangelos]

I just started to play with the Kit lens that I got with the 20D Kit and all I can say is this lens is one of the worst canon lenses I have ever used. I took over 30 shots and they are all very soft and nasty. I guess I will use it as a paperweight when things get windy. I did not expect much but it is really a horrible lens. The only reason I have it is because I got a good deal on the 20D Kit and the lens was kind of free. Any one also fee the same way?



Angelo 8)

[Toogy]

Under certain conditions it can deliver good results.

I took this with the kit lens on a Digital Rebel

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/image/34892890.jpg

[EXA1a]

I took over 30 shots and they are all very soft and nasty. I guess I will use it as a paperweight when things get windy. I did not expect much but it is really a horrible lens.
Angelo 8)
The kit lens is a crappy piece of plastic, no doubt. But the optical quality is pretty good, at least for my copy of this lens. I can barely distinguish shots from this lens from a 17-40L shot at f8. I can imagine there are big differences between the best and the worst copies. Such a cheap lens is likely to get the worst quality control. You obviously got a bad one.
Why don't you post a sample to support your rather bold complaint?

--Jens--

[Adam Hicks]

I've been thinking about buying a cheap kit lens vs. the Tokina 17mm or the Canon 17-40 because I very rarely need wide angle, and when I do it's bright or tripod mounted, so f8 isn't a problem. Seems like a REALLY cheap way to limp by when I need wider than 28mm.

I had the lens on my Rebel, and I thought the results were surprisingly good considering how incredibly cheap it feels.

Adam

[FlyingPete]

They guys at one of our local Pro shops (AucklandCamera) have got a couple of 12x10's taken on a 300D, one with the 18-55, the second with the 17-40.

Their point is yes you can see a subtle difference, the 17-40 is a sharper image, but you have to look carefully.

Both shots were on tripods etc etc.

[JZaun]

Yep the kit lens is cheep! But I just ran a test and I think it may be sharper than the new 17-85mm IS EFS. See other thread.

JZ

[sjprg]

I for one am impressed with the optical quality of the 18-55. I use it on my 20D and it does an execelent job. I have several primes and they don't do much better.
You should check what you are doing again, as your results are not consistant with others.

[Jack W.]

Got the kit lens here too. While I've since bought a few new lenses, the kit lens does a very respectable job. No complaints here.

[commando]

I've done a few comparisons between the kit and the Tamron 28-75, which you can see here (http://kiwirant.co.nz/gallery). Overall I think my copy of the kit lens is pretty good, very light, and reasonably fast.

There's a thread about it here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47571). There's an earlier thread too, on the first or second page of this forum.

[Adam Hicks]

So it seems like the 18-55 might actually BE a decent poor man's wide angle lens for those who need it rarely.

I know it's not considered 'wide' but I'd like to see it at f8 vs. the Tokina. It's certainly about 1/5 the price used!

Adam

[HJMinard]

So it seems like the 18-55 might actually BE a decent poor man's wide angle lens for those who need it rarely.

I know it's not considered 'wide' but I'd like to see it at f8 vs. the Tokina. It's certainly about 1/5 the price used!

Adam

I think that's a very accurate description of the lens. Mine has suprised me more than once with it's image quality (in good lighting, f8, etc.).

[defordphoto]

Well...Of course it's not the sharpest lens in Canon's stable. Geeze, what do you expect for $100. :roll:

Overall, it's not that bad a lens for what it is. It's a nice, light lens that produces acceptable results. Definitely is not going to win the Lens of the Year award, but it is not that bad.

[Adam Hicks]

Well it's an f3.5 at 18mm vs. an f4 at 17mm on the 17-40, and I think the main point I'm trying to make is people immediately dismiss it because it's so playschool-like, but it might be the next best bargain to the 50 1.8 as far as price goes.

[defordphoto]

I couldn't agree more Adam. While it's certainly not my first choice, I am not going to throw it off a cliff either.

[friscomgm]

I happen to believe that the EF-S 18-55 is one of the best bargains in Canon's entire lineup.

Not even close to L quality, but certainly not bad for the price...

[FlyingPete]

Well...Of course it's not the sharpest lens in Canon's stable. Geeze, what do you expect for $100. :roll:

Overall, it's not that bad a lens for what it is. It's a nice, light lens that produces acceptable results. Definitely is not going to win the Lens of the Year award, but it is not that bad.

I happen to believe that the EF-S 18-55 is one of the best bargains in Canon's entire lineup.

Not even close to L quality, but certainly not bad for the price...

Perhaps it could win "Best Value Lens of the Year"? Opps no such thing, if there was I think we have a candidate.

[Scottes]

Now that I have the kit lens I'm actually thinking about selling the 17-40 and getting a lens I can really use. Since I don't go wide that much, and when I do it's at f/8-f/16, the 18-55 is plenty good enough for me. Considering what I paid for the 17-40 the kit lens is one hell of a bargain. It's a keeper.

[Chazs]

End of April: Buy A DRebel for a trip to Europe

Early May: Decide to take a better lens and purchased the 24-85 Canon USM one day before leaving (no time to test).

Mid May: Left the 18-55 at home for the trip to Sweden (stupid stupid stupid) :cry:

The "better" 24-85 lens was way defective: the entire left-hand 1/3 of every photo was much more than just soft, it was downright blurry. Oh how I wished to have the 18-55 "nasty" on the trip.

I've since traded for a crisp 24-85, but I learned the hard way to take the el-cheapo (not to be confused with the L-not-so-cheapo) with me. :wink:

[Adam Hicks]

I plan on keeping my Tamron 28-75 because it quite simply hasn't failed me. So with that being said the 17-40 just isn't attractive when I can get dirt cheap and wide should I need it with the 18-55. Of course I shoot mainly motorsports events, so I rarely have any need for wide angle. Even when I'm NOT shooting motorsports, the 28mm on the Tamron is close to the 'normal' 50mm after the crop factor, which is enough to do anything I need with very few exceptions.

In my shots, it's all about 'if it ain't tight, it ain't right' or 'fill the frame!' not about being able to see my own earlobes in a shot :)

[photography By Evangelos]

I don’t know guys the lens is just unusable for me. Maybe I am too picky. But it doesn’t produce acceptable images. I now have the 16-35 L and I have the 17-35 L that I am selling but these lenses are very good optically. So you can see what I am comparing it too. I expected it to be bad but not this bad. I tried it on both of by 20D’s and same nasty flat looking images. I for one will not ever use this lens for any paying work if I use it at all. I am surprised that some are saying the lens is better than the Tamron? Tamron this bad? I had the Tamron 28-300 XR Ultra and I hated it very poor optically and slow A/F. You know one of the most over looked lenses I like to use when have to pick one and am on the go and all to often over looked by many is the Canon 28-105 II what a great lens for all kinds of shooting small and compact and pretty sharp too! It is not my 24-70 L or 70-200 L but is dose produce acceptable images for clients and general all around photography shooting but not the 18-55 just a plain nasty lens. I also think the 28-105 II is sharper than the 28-135 IS.





Angelo 8)

[commando]

Maybe you got a bad copy of the lens - can you borrow one from someone in your area to try?

[RBarr]

One of these days I'll find someone who despises this lens AND who lives geographically near to me. I'd like to see a direct comparison between my copy of this lens and the offending unit.

The OP could be correct -- his copy could be trash. There's such a huge gap in opinion about this lens that I'd have to suspect some QC problems, i.e. variations in quality between copies.

The only way this question will ever be settled will be with a direct comparison-- with one camera body, one supposedly substandard lens, and one that has demonstrated good quality.

[RBarr]

Let me toss out a few shots that I'm sure I used the 18-55 on:

http://www.cycleorings.com/kid.jpg

http://www.cycleorings.com/h2.jpg

The second one's been sharpened to death -- the D60 doesn't add much sharpening, and I think I went a little too far with Photoshop. It's also as crooked as can be...

I know I've seen better quality than these. I also know I'd normally pay a lot more than $76 for a lens that can do this.

[c0ntr0lz]

it's not an L glass but it's not for the cost.


http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/mimis_sunset/images/sky_of_fire7.jpg

[DocFrankenstein]

Yeah, it's a pretty nice lens optically...

If you stop it down to f/11 or f/16 and then downsample the image to post card size :twisted:

You almost can't tell it from 17-40 :twisted:

[spaceman]

http://www.cycleorings.com/kid.jpg



Great shot, and the clarity here is excellent. What did you use for lighting? I don't have any complaints with my kit lens.

[RBarr]

For the youngster, I just bounced a 380EX off the ceiling.

[defordphoto]

Thanks, RBarr. You have shown, beyond the shadow of ANY doubt, that the 18-55 kit lens is indeed a charmer and can produce outstanding photos!

[timmyquest]

I have a small collection as well

http://www.questphotos.com/april2004/images/0144.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/May2004/images/shack.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/May2004/images/sun%20house%20b&w.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/infinity%20hall.jpg

[Andy_T]

I don't have the kit lens ... but I certainly plan to get it when I get my 20D early next year.

So far all I can say from reading the forum is that there are 3 theories on my part to explain the discussion:

1) There are serious QC problems, there are pretty good and really bad smaples of the lens
2) some peoples' perception of the lens is influenced by its price and the opinion of others :wink:
3) maybe both of the above in combination

I think that theory 2 can not be dismissed immediately, If I look at review sites ... e.g. http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html and see how users rate two lenses, the 18-55 and the 17-85 IS, I notice something ...

NAME ................................17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS.........18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Performance WIDE (wide open)............Ok (**-).......................poor (*)
Performance WIDE (stopped down)......good (***)....................poor (*)
Performance LONG (wide open)............Ok (**).........................poor (*)
Performance LONG (stopped down)......good (***)......................poor (*)
Distortions WIDE.........................heavy distortions(**)..........critical (*)
Distortions LONG.........................little distortions (****)........significant(***-)
Vignetting WIDE..........................significant (w/o) (***-).........heavy (**)
Vignetting LONG..........................little vignetting (w/o) (****)...significant (w/o)(***)
Color Balance...........................neutral......... ................neutral
Flare........................................some flare (***)................heavy flare (*)
Optical Verdict (max. 5 pts).........average (2.88)..................very poor (0.87)
AF Speed ...............................slow (**+)......................very slow (*)
Build Quality...........................not so good (**)................bad (*)
Number of Inputs .......................10......................... .....31

'Obviously', the kit lens is crap and a lot worse than the 17-85.
Actually, the kit lens must be among the worst lenses on earth, if I believe those reviewers ...

Now ... how does this explain the comparisons by forum users that were recently posted
As I recall, the result was NOT 'the 17-85 is 3 times better than the 18-55', but rather ... they are about equal, with the kit lens handling distortion and flare better than the 17-85.

So my personal take? The result tells me more about the quality of the reviewers than about the quality of the lens...

Best regards,
Andy

[Adam Hicks]

Wow that is REALLY bad. I don't think anyone's saying it's a good lens, but what we've seen from it seems to make it worth the $65-$70 it sells for. I wouldn't have expected the reviews to be that bad though!

Thanks for posting

[Cadwell]

I suspect a lot of those reviews of the kit lens are written by people who have bought it attached to their very first digital SLR... there may be a whole raft of issues as to why they are not getting decent shots. Much easier to blame the lens or the camera than look for the real cause though...

(I know "Evangelos" doesn't fit into that category BTW).

I don't doubt that there are better lenses out there than the kit lens but the feedback on here and some of the shots I have seen would seem to indicate that it's "OK".

[Andy_T]

Adam, that's exactly what I want to say. I don't trust those numbers at all.

The tests I've seen here indicate that the kit lens is very similar to the 17-85 IS(which, in turn, is similar to the 28-135 IS).
It even handles some fields (distortion, flare) better than the 17-85. However, this lens received an 'optical verdict' three times as high.

I don't think that all people reviewing the lens have a bad copy.
I rather think that many of those 'experts' gave their reviews based on thoughts like 'OK, it's only 50 $, so I think that the optical quality is bad...'. That would also explain the high number or reviews in a rather short time.

I would invite anyone to test the kit lens against one of the 28-200 or 28-300 lenses to prove that those are superior.

Best regards,
Andy

[Longwatcher]

Take into account who is doing the reviewing.

As I have mentioned in previous posts my perceptions have changed over the past few years on a couple of subjects.
1. Shutter Lag. I thought my Kodak DC4800 was pretty good when I got it, but when I got my D60 with 28-135, I decided it was very slow. Then I got to use someone else's olympus, I decided The DC4800 was actually very very fast compared to that olympus. Then I got told by someone else, they were disappointed in my 75-300 IS lens in how long it took to focus. The comment was "I had always heard that Canon lenses were fast to focus". Then I got my 50/1.4. Talk about fast focus. If not for the change from blurry to sharp, I would not notice it had focused. Then I got my 10D, everything sped up a little bit more. So my perception of shutter lag changed from going from a P&S to a DSLR with medium lens to a wide aperture lens.

2. Sharpness versus quality. My Kodak DC4800 was perfectly acceptable to me until I wanted to print something larger then 8x10. My D60 w/75-300 IS has taken some of the sharpest pictures I have taken. However, the best looking shots have been done with my 70-200/2.8 even if they are not as sharp as the ones I got out of my 75-300, they look better (AKA Bokeh at work). So again my perception changed from sharpness being the defining quality of a lens to an overall appreciation of quality being the definition.

3. If I had been using "L" series lenses all along and then down switched to the Kodak, it would have not been acceptable and I would have been extremely dissapointed with digital cameras, like a friend of mine. A D60 or 10D might have been marginal to me if I had been shooting film like I shoot digital (not that I could have afforded that mind you).

So had I reviewed the 18-55 after having had access to L lenses, I would probably underrate it based on my experience. However, If I had just gotten a shiny new DSLR and hadn't used a camera in years, I would think it was great.

I saw similiar remarks about my 75-300 IS I still get great pictures when I use it, but I get even better pictures from my 70-200/2.8 IS.

Always look at multiple sources and read the reviews, numbers can mislead if not taken in context.

On a side note: someone mentioned one side of their lens was blurry, I had this happen after awhile on my 28-135. It was under warranty and Canon fixed it. Apparently one of the elements was out of alignment.

[DReb-MO]

I have a small collection as well


...can't see them here! :wink:

[sjprg]

I just revisited the images I shot with the 18-55 the day after receiving the 20D Kit.
I took the 20D to a local lake and setup the same scene on a tripod. Water, green trees, blue skies, tan hills, white clouds. The quality of the images straight from the 20D using the 18-55, the 100 f/2.8, the 24 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8 other than the perspective, were remarkably simular and were useable straight from the ACR with no additional sharping needed. I ran the 18-55 wide open at 18, 24, 28, 55 and used the shutter for exposure control.
Processed with PSCS ACR using Tom Fors beta 3 profile. (Mcbeth shot with 50mm 1.2)
Looks good to me.

[photography By Evangelos]

I guess I have a real horrible copy of this lens then.






Angelo 8)

[commando]

Send it for repair - you've got nothing to lose, assuming you have another lens to use (I assume you do, can't be arsed reading the thread again).

[Hellashot]

The 18-55 is a good lens, especially for the price. I've taken very good images with it. Even of a wedding where my brother took basically the same pictures with a good 35mm manual Pentax and the only difference looking at the printed pictures was the paper quality used.

Maybe you need the updated firmware or need to learn the autofocusing of the 20D.

[tumb]

My kit lense is junk too. I can pshop images with it and they come out good, but with this camera why would I want to bother? My old 2 MP S10 took way better pics than my 20D with the 18-55 attached. Now my Sigma 28-105 f2.8, that's another story, so I know it's the lense and not the camera. Mine even has excess slack in the focus mechanism.

[Molydood]

Angelo,
I think you need to substantiate your thoughts with some sample photos, we would all be very interested to understand your opinion of this lens.
The jump between expensive glass and the kit lens is noticeable (particularly build quality), but I don't think it's right to call the optical quality 'bad'
In my experience it takes ok photographs, and if I was a much better photographer, it would take really 'great' photographs.

Maybe if you post something, we can help you decide if you have a bad copy, in which case you can get it replaced and start taking good photos with your new copy.

Martin