The 18-55 Kit lens

Would just like to know what people think of the 18-55 lens if they got it as part of the "kit package" for the 350D, 300D or 20D...

EDIT :

Argh, I meant for there to be a poll for this with options.....

1. Love it
2. sold it (wish I didn't)
3. sold it (it was cack)
4. kept it but now it's a paperweight, gathering dust
5. use it from time to time, nostalgia & all that
6. did not get the kit lens as part of my EF-S mount compatible body
7. don't have an EF-S mount compatible body

EDIT 2 : For the record, I love mine. It's the least used lens I have but I love it nevertheless.

Its not the best lens out there, but its a great lens for a beggining dSLR photographer who doesnt own any glass. The price just cant be beat, when i bought my camera it was on sale and the difference between body only and kit was $10, in my opinion its a great lens for $10, or even $100. Its certainly a good wide to normal zoom for a begginer since better wide glass might not be in their budget, when i bought my camera i didnt really know a lot about lenses having moved up from P&S's, and the 18-55mm was more than enough to impress me into a way too expensive hobby

*edit* now that theres coices, id say somewhere between 4 and 5.

This is a decent lens if used within its capabilities. The problem is that most do not want to do that (including me).

This is probably not a good way to answer your question, but IF you got a good price on your kit, then it is a fine lens. If you had to pay more than say $100.00, it is probably not a great lens. I purchased my camera with the kit lens, now that I own the 50mm 1.8, the 28-135 IS (and now new 70-200 f4/L), I probably wouldn't get the kit lens. I was disappointed in the build quality-it feels "plasticisy" My biggest complaint about the lens is that it is slow. And although the 28-135 is not fast by any means the IS lets me shoot in lower light.

For the price it's not bad when used properly and as mentioned it is a good lense to start off with and learn on. Would I do it again? Probably not because of what i know now. I would've opted for a tamron 28-75mm instead or maybe even the 17-85mm. So i am looking to replace it in the near future.

However i've gotten some pretty good results from it and in good light it performs well, and the length is definitely handy. For a lens in this range in price, it is fairly sharp but the build is cheaply made.

Here's a similar thread that may help shed some light.
https://photography-on-the.net …113831&highligh​t=kit+lens

i agree with most of what has been said already. I bought it with my 300d as a kit, since it was my first digital slr (though I had used film slr before). It was my only lens for a few months, it went on a trip to Italy and Germany with me, and all in all it was very good to me. The lens is responsible for some of the best shots in my portfolio.

Quality glass can be addictive though From there I bought the nifty fifty, got the 100 F2.8 macro lens as an anniversary present, and bought myself my first 'L' the 70-200 F4. Next to those lenses, the kit lens pales in comparison. I still use it when I need a wide angle, but I just agreed to purchase a 17-40 from another member, and when that arrives my kit lens will most likely become the 'paperweight' you mentioned

Its a very good lens for the price. If used within its sweet spot, meaning in good light at 18mm, between f/8 and f/16, more expensive lens have a hard time beating it .

Its when you get out of its sweet spot that it starts showing its limitations.

But for the asking price, its worth getting one.

When I bought my 20D I opted to get the 17-85 instead and have been very happy with it

It's not bad. I like this lens a lot. I'm not a pro but it gives me great results.

I've gotten very satisfying photos out of my kit lens that I would never have thought possible, but it is still limited in many areas like the f3.5

It's not heavy enough to be a paperweight.

But I do use it for my wider than 24mm stuff for now, or general around-the-house shots knowing my nephew will probably try to touch the front element.

I'll add my vote for the kit lens being worth while. As somebody ponited out to me, at the very least, it provides a lens to sell with your DSLR if you ever upgrade. I have taken some shots with my kit lens I'm really happy with. Here's an example shot I've posted previously, taken with my kit lens (shot RAW and some USM applied):

There are not many choices for an inexpensive wide angle lenses (with 18mm or wider). The next cheapest is probably the Tarmon/Sigma 17-35 ($470), and the Canon 17-40 runs about $680. The kit lens is probably a $60 investment when purchased with the camera. The user has to make a choice whether $60 vs. $680 is worthwhile. That depnds on the amount of usage of that focal length and their budgets. Many people I know of, including me, use it to shoot 18 to 24/28mm, and have another better lens for24/28mm and up.

It's a very worth while lens to start out on, served me well and it was the only lens i used for 6 months on my 20D, helped find out what i liked and disliked ect.

Sold it now, and i don't miss it at all, but it's a good lens for helping someone find their feet

I vote for 4 - I still have mine but it's a paperweight. My lens collection contains many better lenses than this one. I'd give it away, but I can't find anyone around here that wants it. That tells me a lot about the lens and its reputation among my peers.

Mark