Kit lens is Worthless

[vinnyveez]

ok maybe not in good lighting, but in low lighting its worthless. I Tried to do some no flash indoor shots this past weekend with the kit lens and realized it is useless in low light.I was standing by a glass patio door (with daylight streaming in), with a 100 watt table lamp held directly over my nephew, aperture wide open,iso 1600 and still couldnt get faster than 1/20 sec shutter speed:mad: . I am waiting for my new nifty fifty, should be here tomorrow or friday.:lol: :)

[lost]

The Nifty Fifty is the fix for that issue, unless you feel the need for some L glass!!!! I love mine and ALL of my indoor pictures are taken with it. Uhh basically because it is the only thinkg I have that will work decent.

[vinnyveez]

uh oh, i just checked and the ups has already delivered. I ordered from B&h monday afternoon and it arrived today at 11:45. This could be a dangerous relationship.

[condyk]

I'm really interested in this lens and would be keen to see a few shots compared to the kit lens. I don't shoot wide, at least I haven't yet, and so I see this as my only lens below the 70-200 F4 L and for use mainly when I do 'person' shots ... a rare occurance ... or any ebay selling image stuff! If not much better than kit lens I may as well save my cash towards the 1.4 extender for the 70-200. Let me know your thoughts and experience with it.

[Shakespeare]

Here's a site reviewing the 18-55. Some shots are direct comparisons with the niftythriftygiftyziftyfifty1.8:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/

[vinnyveez]

I'm really interested in this lens and would be keen to see a few shots compared to the kit lens. I don't shoot wide, at least I haven't yet, and so I see this as my only lens below the 70-200 F4 L and for use mainly when I do 'person' shots ... a rare occurance ... or any ebay selling image stuff! If not much better than kit lens I may as well save my cash towards the 1.4 extender for the 70-200. Let me know your thoughts and experience with it.

well to tell you thee truth my main concern was to be able to use my camera in low light situations and the kit lens is too slow as previously stated. if youa re going to be using it for ebay items, i am sure the difference is useless to you as you can just get better lighting for whatever you are taking pictures of. increase in quality of the actual picture was really not a concern, as i am not a pro, so i cant really notice those differences, but i can notice if a picture is blurry from using really slow shutter speeds, from using small apertures!.

[mr.photoguy]

Thing you have to remember with the 18-55 is that it is a better performer in the area of f8-f11. That's where things will get a bit better for it.

Honestly, from my experiences I wouldn't use the 18-55 for a portrait. I would only use it for landscape images. Which is exactly what I do. I use it for landscape, and keep the Aperature at f8, and above.
It's just my landscape lens, and that's all till I get a 17-40 or something similar.

The 50 1.8.. I have found good results at 3.2 or so. At 1.8 it can be a bit tricky, but at 3.2 I like the results.

here is a 50 1.8 images.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41697650

good luck, and enjoy.

[vinnyveez]

ok so I got it and ran out and took some shots. This is the 50/1.8 at 1.8. and yeah it is a little tricky as the DOF is so shallow that if my sons head is turned, and i focus on one eye, the other goes slightly out of focus, so i need to set one focus poit and aim it dead in betweenhis eyes. i think i got it here. but really it is a great buy like everyone says. sorry if the color is off here, i only used picassa to edit the photo.

[IanBMW]

I like the kit lens. So :P

[vinnyveez]

hey im not saying i hate it in all applications, just low light ones. i really bought my camera to take pics of family gatherings and portraits , both of which usually require low light capability, which this lens does not have. if you zoom at 50mm its like an aperture of 5. compared to 1.8 thats alot of speed to make up, causing blurry shots. outside in good lighting i have absolutely no problems with it. Im not an "L" snob...yet. lol

[pcasciola]

So, it sounds like what you are really saying is that you don't like f/5.6 lenses for indoor use, and not necessarily just the kit lens, because you would have the same problems with any f/5.6 lens indoors. That's completely understandable.

The kit lens is the kit lens because it's cheap. The same focal range in f/2.8 is 5-6 times the price. But for the price, the kit lens is as amazing as the nifty fifty in my opinion.

[vinnyveez]

But for the price, the kit lens is as amazing as the nifty fifty in my opinion.

yeah i guess i wrote the post when i was a little angrier. but now that i have my nifty, im much happier. i guess i should said "the kit lens is useless in low light situations but great in good light situations" as my title, dont think it woulda fit.

[mr.photoguy]

ok so I got it and ran out and took some shots. This is the 50/1.8 at 1.8. and yeah it is a little tricky as the DOF is so shallow that if my sons head is turned, and i focus on one eye, the other goes slightly out of focus, so i need to set one focus poit and aim it dead in betweenhis eyes. i think i got it here. but really it is a great buy like everyone says. sorry if the color is off here, i only used picassa to edit the photo.
yeah! that is 1.8 for you , I would really advice trying to stop down a bit. It will give you nice sharp in focus images, with the background blurred out.
here is another f3.2 image
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41641267.jpg

Whenever I shoot at f1.8 I always have OOF problems, unless I am at the minimal focusing distance, and the subject is a statue.

[johnbs]

The kit lens is the kit lens because it's cheap. The same focal range in f/2.8 is 5-6 times the price.

Not quite that much - the Sigma 18-50/2.8 can be found for less than US$400 and is a great lens even at f/2.8

John

[pcasciola]

Not quite that much - the Sigma 18-50/2.8 can be found for less than US$400 and is a great lens even at f/2.8$400 new? B&H sells the Sigma 18-50/2.8 for $500, and the kit lens is $100 new, $75 used. But either way we are arguing fractions. Whether it be 1/4 the price or 1/5, it's still a decent lens giving it's very low cost.

[xstrio]

i think the kits lens is a great lens to start out with , and with the 50 youve got a really good inexpensive set up, if it wasn`t for the kit lens some people would struggle to get into dslr

[mr.photoguy]

Not quite that much - the Sigma 18-50/2.8 can be found for less than US$400 and is a great lens even at f/2.8

John

any sample images?

[vinnyveez]

i think the kits lens is a great lens to start out with , if it wasn`t for the kit lens some people would struggle to get into dslr

valid point. like i said i think the 50 isa great lens, but i juts think that for alot of consumers this is not a great lens. Here's what happens ....person thinks hey i would love to take nice pictures,person goes to store and buys 1000$ camera, person then realizes they need to learn a little more than they wanted to, person gives up. now person uses camera on auto mode with kit lens to shoot bday parties inside, person is generally displeased with pictures, though person lies to himself that the pictures are good to feel less guilty about spending $1000 on bad pictures. What i am trying to say is that it is my belief that most people use their cameras to take pictures of people most of the time. Maybe not the people on this forum, but i bet if you asked a guy at cvs/walmart what most pictures are of, he will say people. This kit lens is NOT a great portrait lens (inside the house), so it seems a bit misplaced on an entry level slr, as it seems it would discourage further use, as i bet a lot of people give up after taking a few indoor shots that stink. But for the price it is a great lens. and canon knows a little more about selling cameras than i do, so i guess they figured soemthing out., hey they got me to buy a new lens only 3 weeks after getting camera, so they must be right.

[mr.photoguy]

Now if Canon would give us a lens like nikons' 17-55 f2.8 ...

[condyk]

yeah! that is 1.8 for you , I would really advice trying to stop down a bit. It will give you nice sharp in focus images, with the background blurred out.
here is another f3.2 image
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41641267.jpg
.

Boy ... that guy is better seen out of focus :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[vinnyveez]

Boy ... that guy is better seen out of focus :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

put the lotion in the basket!!

[pcasciola]

put the lotion in the basket!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ROTFLMAO

And I thought my friends and I were the only one's that quoted that movie!!!

[vinnyveez]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ROTFLMAO

And I thought my friends and I were the only one's that quoted that movie!!!

scary but us new jersians must think alike.