Whats wrong with kit lens 18-55 from EOS 20D

[Emmend]

Hi,
I often read that the kit lens 18-55 from the Canon EOS 20D is an non quality lens. I don't understand why. Can anyone tell me why this lens isn't a good one and how I recognize a good lens?

Thanks :rolleyes:

[EXA1a]

Hi,
I often read that the kitlens 18-55 from the Canon EOS 20D is an non quality lens. I don't understand why. Can anyone tell me why this lens isn't a good one and how I recognize a good lens?

Thanks :rolleyes:
Grab one and you'll feel that this lens is a crappy and wobbly piece of plastic. The optical quality is pretty good though.

[malum]

It's no awful, certainly worth the money if you don't have a decent lens in that range.

You can tell a good lens by the fact that you have to get a mortgage to buy it (except the 50mm f1.8 which is peanuts and you should get one)

[HJMinard]

Yeah ... like they said you can immediately tell the difference when you handle one of these low end consumer lenses and compare it to mid-level or high level (L) lenses. The build and image quality difference is immense.

On the other hand, the 18-55 offers surprising image quality for its price, and is generally worth getting until you can afford a higher quality lens in the wide angle range.

[Pelao]

Hi Emmend
I have the same lens - came with my Rebel. It is not a bad lens at all and pretty good value for money. It's nowhere near as sharp as some more expensive lenses and the build quality is consumer level. For the price, it's a good way to become familiar with your camera before you start investing in better lenses.

[Emmend]

Ok, but know I want to upgrade my kitlens 18-55. What lens should I considder?

[Kinger]

My kit lens replacement was the 17-40L. It is my first "L" and a wonderful lens to even ust hold more or less to use.

[loebas]

the kit lens is a good lense.
A often said "it's not the lense that takes photos, but you".

If you tell for what your main kind of photography is, you will get a better advice with regard to what lense to buy.

[emilbev]

I bought the 17-85 I.S. lens for my 20D and I like it. The I.S. technology saves me alot from carrying around a tripod all the time.
Good luck with your 20D, its a nice machine.
Emil

[EXA1a]

Looks like here we have different definitions of a "good lens".

IMHO the lens quality is defined at least by optical quality (e.g. resolution, contrast, CA, vignetting, distortion, field flatness, bokeh, ...), build quality (play, material, water sealing, surface, longevity, ...), and AF quality (speed, accuracy, noise, ...). If one of these parameters isn't good, I wouldn't call it a good lens.

The kit lens has a good optical quality, a below-average build, and an average AF, therefore it's not a good lens.

Just my 2 Euro-Cents.

--Jens--

[xtuser]

"The kit lens has a good optical quality, a below-average build, and an average AF, therefore it's not a good lens." - Jens

OK, I know this thread is old but I just found it and have to comment. I have the 18-55 on my xt and I use it all the time. I too was sure I would be selling it right away after all the poor reviews I had heard. However, I decided to give it a shot for a few weeks just to see. I can honestly say that I have taken some of the my best shots ever with this lens. I did some simple tests vs some of my other lenses (50/1.8 and 105/2.5) and found the sharpness to be very nice and the AF to be quite adequate. I refuse to throw a price "qualifier" in here (i.e. good - for the price...) because I think this lens is great for anything that isn't an L series (i.e - $600+) and even as good as a few supposedly "pro" lenses I've tried. For an in depth, unbiased review of the lens visit www.bobatkins.com (http://www.bobatkins.com)

[jn6307]

I bought the 18-125 Sigma to replace my kit lense. However, the 18-125 was no where near as sharp as the Canon 18-55. I returned the Sigma and kept the kit lens, as least for now.

[malla1962]

No probems when iI had the kit lens.:D:D

[lost]

The kit lens was fine for me until I wanted to shoot indoors with available light. Thats when I went with the new 24-70 Sigma and have been very happy!! Do still miss the 17-24 range but I pick that back up by putting the 24-70 on my 7n :)

[ron chappel]

I must very much go against the grain here.
I found the kit lens to be optically horrible! (and i don't have a bad example)

I consistantly get good (sometimes outstanding) pics with other cheap lenses such as the 75-300,28-80,28-90,sigma 100-300DL (their very cheapest telezoom) and many others.But do you think i can get good pics from the kit lens?Allmost never!
I still have one though ,for one simple reason- I don't want to spend a whole lot of $ on a good lens because i rarely need wide angle.

There are several better allternatives worth looking at.The obvious ones are canon's 17-40/4L and 17-85IS lenses but several other manufacturers make some good ones as well-
I think i've seen an article that mentions them all.I'll try to find it

[photobitz]

The good thing is, it's really light and compact. You can also use it as a throw around lens because if you break it, you can always pick up another one on ebay for like US$25 (at least for the moment).

[MALI]

Can anyone tell me why this lens isn't a good one

'Cuz it is a kit lens.

and how I recognize a good lens?

When you see a red ring around it.

MALI

[Mike Bell]

I read a lot of lens reviews before I bought my combination (see signature). I wanted wide angle, normal and portrait focal lengths and I fancied moving into macro. Every possible combination I considered consisted of at least 3 lenses. The L lenses are in a different league and my budget just wouldn't let me go there. I am happy with my choice especially the 17-85 which has magnificent image stabilisation and focusses really fast. It rarely leaves my camera and is the walkaround lens par excellence.

I tried a comparison of the kit lens, the 10-22 and the 17-85 all set at 20mm. With IS turned on and handheld the 17-85 won hands down. With IS turned off they were all pretty much the same sharpness but the colour was nicest with the 10-22. Hope this helps.

[Gienek]

One ( L's) are built in Japan = Quality
Plastic consumer lenses In Idonesia or China = Cheap and not as well built

[Jon]

One ( L's) are built in Japan = Quality
Plastic consumer lenses In Idonesia or China = Cheap and not as well built
That's a little oversimplified. The "nifty fifty" and the 18-55 would be just the same regardless of where they were built. And not all Canon lenses made in Japan are L glass. For that matter, there's very little questioning of the optical quality of the 50 f/1.8. Optically, it's very good. Mechanically is where they cut corners.

[photobitz]

'Cuz it is a kit lens.



When you see a red ring around it.

MALI

C'mon... not all kit is bad! I picked up a 15 year old 28-80mm USM Series I (was kit with the EOS100) and it is about the best lens I have!!! All glass, metal mount and ring USM. Of course, they just don't make them like they used to.