Canon 18-55 kit replacement lens?

[Bsmooth]

So far I haven't been overly impressed with my 18-55 lens inclusded with my 20D.What are some good replacements that would have sharper image results without breaking the bank? I was hoping Tamron would do a similar lens to the 18-50 that Sigma put out.

[tim]

What problems specifically are you having with the kit lens?

The Tamron 28-75 has an excellent reputation, I have one, it does a great job. It's not 18 wide, but for what I do I don't need 18. If you do, things get more expensive, so in the rare situation I need 18mm I use the kit lens. Have a look also at this sticky thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752), which has a lot of useful information.

You might also like to read the lens reviews here (http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx) and at http://fredmiranda.com

[Bsmooth]

Specifically I just haven't gotten very sharp images and thats my main gripe.I am still trying different things to help.Its quite a learning curve and its not just that lens.Also learning the 20D and trying to learn Photoshop CS too!I may also be trying to use too low a shutter speed as i do a lot of early morning and late in the day shooting when the light is best. I've had much better results with my Canon 70-200 F4 and thats with handholding it too.I want the same tack sharpness I had using my film camera.Is that expecting too much?

[johnbs]

I was hoping Tamron would do a similar lens to the 18-50 that Sigma put out.

Why not just consider the SIgma 18-50/2.8? It is an excellent lens and Sigma has now solved the problem with the focus-assist mode.

John

[Bsmooth]

What problem did they have with the focus assist mode?And what is the focus assist mode?

[mr.photoguy]

Don't sell it yet.
Take some time and practice post-editing your images.

I have learned this, and recently have been getting some good images with the 18-55. It's pretty good for landscapes, and marginal for photo's of people. It also focuses pretty close..

Try going in photo shop, and using the usm. (unsharp mask).
I usually use 100/.6/1 (if I am not mistaken).
I USM once at original size.
Then resize down to 740 x whatever.
Then I USM again... this time at about 80-100/.6/1

I have been getting good results like this.
My 20D is set to 0 sharpening out the camera so you may have to adjust for your own setting.

I was thinking the same thing you were when I purchased my 18-55 at first.
It's not the best lens, but it does hold it's own.

[pcasciola]

Specifically I just haven't gotten very sharp images and thats my main gripe.I would say you either have a very bad copy of the 18-55, or it's just operator error (no offense intended). If it turns out to be the latter, you are going to spend $500 on the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and still wonder why the images are not sharp.

I've tried a Tokina 17mm which is a highly rated lens, and it didn't fare too well against my 18-55 so I sold it. I'll most likely either be getting a 10-22 EF-S or Sigma 12-24mm for wide angle, so I won't have much use for it anymore, but in the meantime I continue to be impressed by how good the kit lens is for the money.

Here's the thread where I compared the kit lens to the Tokina. The first few shots are 100% crops, and if you scroll down there are 2 pics I took with the kit lens for the Tokina auction pictures that came out pretty sharp as well:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=60721

[Wavy C]

I agree with mr.photoguy. Practice using the 18-55 a little more and try out different methods of sharpening in photoshop or paintshop pro. Another thing I found helpful was changing the Parameters to 1 rather than the default 2. This really helped me as I was getting sharper images without having to rely on post-processing so much. As you get better with editing, maybe change back to Parameter 2 when you are feeling a little more confident.

Anyway, I am more pleased with my 18-55 now than I was when I first got it a couple of months ago.

best wishes

[Wavy C]

Another thing I forgot to mention is to focus using the centre focus point only - I found using the 9-point array almost useless and gave me lots of out-of-focus shots.

Better still, try manual focusing (easier than you might imagine if you haven't tried). The only problem is that the kit lens won't let you use autofocus first and then fine-tune with the focusing ring. You have to switch into manual focus mode.

regards

[dave_bass5]

Wavy, great tips. i was also thinking about getting rid of the kit lens but now am keeping it as im getting used to it (its my first dSLR and only had it a couple of weeks)
I dont know if the 20d has this but on my 350d you can set the Av button just ot the right of the VF to set focus rather than half pressing the shutter button, this way you can then tweak the focus manualy without the camera re-focusing when you take the pic.(in theory as i havnt tried it)
its one of the custom functions.

Dave.

[ron chappel]

Unfortunately i must argue very much on the side of ditching the kit lens!

Several times over the last year i've tried to make the most of it but ,no matter how much i try ,no matter how much i keep to it's sweet spots the pics inevitabley just aren't good enough:evil: :evil: :evil:

Yesterday was the latest attempt. I knew the lens wasn't particularly good but i wanted to use a zoom and had forgotten past bad results with this lens.
I went to a local bike enduro and -out of about 100 pics- i got ONE that is quite good (see below)

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3270644-lg.jpg

(This is after a fair bit of PS work)

Yes i lost alot from missfocus (not the lens' fault), but all the otherwise good pics looked muddy, low in contrast (it was a georgous sunny day:)) and just generally crap.
It definitely isn't a camera setting/post processing problem or lack of tallent/experience as i get good pics with other kit zooms http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

Nor is it a dud example- my lens tests slightly sharper than the EF 75-300 lens for example...and i get much better overal pictures from it.It's more than just a resolution problem

Overall the 18-55 is just a loser
The really annoying thing about it is that it's ALLMOST good enough which gives false hope and wastes alot of time and enthusiasm.
Occasionally you'll get some nice results like the above pic but this tends to be all too rare

[Andy_T]

BSmooth,

I agree that the 18-55 and the 70-200/4.0 don't really compare much.

Still another question is what focal length are you comparing. The 18-55 definitely doesn't shine brightest at 50 mm. At 18 mm (where it makes sense) and used at f/5.6 or f/8, it's not that bad and might even give the 17-40/4.0 a run for its money.

So another suggestion would be to look at the 350$ Tamron 28-75/2.8 as 'standard lens' and relegate the 18-55 to the wide angle, if you do not need that too often. That's what I did (though I don't have a 70-200, yet :wink: )

Makes more sense to me than to spend some 600$ on the 17-40/4.0 to replace a range you already have covered.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Ron, that picture ain't bad ... show us the 99 other ones :lol:

[ron chappel]

Oh man you don't want to see them!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol:

That's a fair point about the wide end being not as bad, but unfortunately it doesn't help me much.
I will keep mine (i can't afford anything else anyway) but will only use it in desperate moments-or to mount the fisheye converter on

[griff2]

Andy Thaler wrote: and used at f/5.6 or f/8, it's not that bad and might even give the 17-40/4.0 a run for its money.

Sorry Andy, but there's no way the kit lens comes anywhere close to the 17-40 f/4L at any focal length. I have both and the 17-40 is much better in all regards: it's much sharper, has bags of detail, and gives superb colour rendition.


Bsmooth wrote:
So far I haven't been overly impressed with my 18-55 lens inclusded with my 20D.What are some good replacements that would have sharper image results without breaking the bank? I was hoping Tamron would do a similar lens to the 18-50 that Sigma put out.

I know where you're coming from with the kit lens, it has a fuzzy sort of softness, and - even at its sweet spot - requires a large amount of USM to hide this. I'd save up for the 17-40, I did and it was well worth it.