Honestly, What is wrong with the 18-55 EF-S???

[Kenski]

Everyone complains about the 18-55 on how crappy it is....

All of these were taken with the 18-55 and they don't look that bad...

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36532526.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36532534.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36532537.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36532540.jpg

[Toogy]

What F stop where they taken at? It is known to be pretty good stopped down to F8 or so.

[jaypie77]

As far as the 18-55 is concerned, it's a great lens and a great value. One probably doesn't realize how much better other lenses can be, though, until one drops the cash and tries one out. Once one tries out a really awesome lens, it becomes clear how much better a lens can be. Otherwise, however, the 18-55 is a great lens and can take wonderful pictures.

[aam1234]

There was a thread just about the 18-55, wish I can find it for you. In a nutshell, what everybody said convinced me not to buy the the 17-40 L (for the limited use of a WA lens for me).

[FlipsidE]

I just got my first non-kit lens yesterday. And, I must say that the kit lens is VERY slow to focus. Even the 50 f/1.8 (a non-USM lens) focuses A LOT faster than the kit lens. Plus, USM lenses focus A LOT faster. And, my 28-105 USM is so quiet while focusing.

I dunno... the 18-55 is a great value for the money (esp at 18mm). But, overall, I find it to be a tad inferior to the others.

FlipsidE

[jaypie77]

Agreed that it is a bit slower, but it depends on what you are using it for. If you simply want a landscapes lens, then it's great because the optics are pretty good and it's cheap.

A tad inferior? Of course, it costs $100. Noticable to vast majority of people? No. Capable of really good results? Yes.

[defordphoto]

It's a great budget lens and produces decent pictures. People need to just accept it for what it is and quit beating the horse. It's been dead for some time now. ;)

[aam1234]

I'm with jaypie77. And if I may add, the speed is not a critical issue, especially for a $100 lens.

[FlipsidE]

LOL...to play the devil's advocate, the 50mm f/1.8 is only a $75 lens and focuses quite quickly. A good bit faster than the 18-55.

FlipsidE

[jaypie77]

Ok, but the 50mm doesn't cover anywhere near as wide an area as teh 18-55. At 18mm, you can photography huge mountains and cool scenery. Not so with the 50mm.

[aam1234]

LOL...to play the devil's advocate, the 50mm f/1.8 is only a $75 lens and focuses quite quickly. A good bit faster than the 18-55.FlipsidE

Cost wise, you are right. Howerver, and as jaypie77 said, this is not a prime lens. Imagine how much it would cost to cover that range in other Canon lineup (the 17-40L comes to mind, which costs...you know).

[aznkid.com]

i have no complaints!

[imagesense]

It's a very good lens and you can't beat the price for what results are possible. I do use my 17-40L much more though and do find it to be a superior piece of glass. I wish Canon would build a 16-70 2.8L though.
That would take care of all of it. :)

Lou

[Hellashot]

I have taken great images with my EF-S 17-55mm lens. There's not a lot of bells and whistles to it, but it's new lense technology and the lens is very light.

[defordphoto]

I have taken great images with my EF-S 17-55mm lens. There's not a lot of bells and whistles to it, but it's new lense technology and the lens is very light.

So, I guess your's is a "silly millimeter" longer eh? :shock: