How bad are XTi kit lens ?

Hi everybody! I've just bought my XTi and it's my first SLR camera. I just have the kit lens (18-55mm) and I'm very disapointed with the lack of sharpnes . I've used to get more sharp photos with my Sony F717 !
It would make a diference if I buy a 17-85mm IS USM ?
Sorry about my English, I'm from Brasil and I don't speak it very well .

you should read this thread
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=185522

Thanks for your response!

The kit lens can take very sharp pictures. 2 things to try are:

1- add 'sharpening' . You can probably adjust the camera to add sharpness. Check the manual. Or sharpen the pictures in your computer with an editing program. The sony is probably pre set for extra sharpness.

2 - try to use f stops of f8 or higher.

It's not the lens. It's the DSLR camera. Even expensive lenses are not sharp until you add sharpness.

Get a 17-40L and problem solved! Though "sharpening" will always help unless if you got something like the 135L.

The kit lens is still pretty good - it is no where near as bad as people say it is. It works best at between f/8 and f/11.
the only real complaint I have is the extremely low quality build, but that does not affect the optical performance, which is acceptable.

All digital cameras require some sharpening. your point and shoot did this automatically. With a DSLR you are supposed to take some control over this - and do it yourself in an image processing program like Photoshop ( CS2 is the 'best but very expensive, Elements is perfectly OK)

If you don't want to do this, if you check your manual, you can go into 'Parameters' and set the camera to apply some in-camera sharpening, contrast etc like you are used to with a point and shoot.

this is what I have done because I cannot be bothered with the computer side of things for every single shot - it's too much trouble. For anything special I shoot in RAW but for ordinary snap shots, large JPEG with parameters applied suits me best.

Incidentally the EF-S 17-85 IS lens is very similar optically to the kit lens - the main advantages are that it has better build quality, image stabilisation and a longer reach.

I did a side by side comparison of the XTi kit lens and the lens on my non-SLR Panasonic FZ30 by standing back and taking a picture of my alarm system at home, both at the same focal distance. (55mm)

The shot from the kit lens was a lot softer than the shot from the Panasonic, I was able to make out almost all the words on the alarm box in the Panasonic shot, but only the words in the larger fonts with the kit lens. Dunno if that helps at all.

Kurt

As stated in the above comments, you are comparing a non-SLR to an SLR. Not the same animals in any way, shape or form. Point and shoot camera photos are designed to look optimal straight from the cam...not the case with SLR.

Thanks everybody for your responses.
I'll keep trying to improve my photographer skills and see if it helps.

:o)
Liaquila

I'm not a big fan of the 18-55 or the 17-85 IS lenses. The 17-85 is an overpriced barrel distorting CA mess. I hated that lens. The 18-55 just felt CHEAP... REAL CHEAP... TOO CHEAP. I can't speak for its optical quality cause I sold that one right after I got the camera. I have primes and didnt want a slow cheap zoomer. It felt like I could crush that lens with my hand. Super thin plastic, slow meat grinder AF motor, scratchy zoom. Luckily I got the camera for free, cause I would have been pizzed if I spend an extra 100 bucks on that lens! LOL!

Twitch1977 wrote in post #2210367
I did a side by side comparison of the XTi kit lens and the lens on my non-SLR Panasonic FZ30 by standing back and taking a picture of my alarm system at home, both at the same focal distance. (55mm)

The shot from the kit lens was a lot softer than the shot from the Panasonic, I was able to make out almost all the words on the alarm box in the Panasonic shot, but only the words in the larger fonts with the kit lens. Dunno if that helps at all.

Kurt

what were your settings? ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc.
i'd play with the kit lens a bit more before you decide to upgrade.
that is...if the bad shot is a result of 'user error', you'd find yourself disappointed in the new lens as well.

Twitch1977 wrote in post #2210367
I did a side by side comparison of the XTi kit lens and the lens on my non-SLR Panasonic FZ30 by standing back and taking a picture of my alarm system at home, both at the same focal distance. (55mm)

The shot from the kit lens was a lot softer than the shot from the Panasonic, I was able to make out almost all the words on the alarm box in the Panasonic shot, but only the words in the larger fonts with the kit lens. Dunno if that helps at all.

Kurt

I thought I have a copy of a comparison shot of a EF 50 f1.8 vs Nikkor 50 f1.4 vs Kit lens, but instead it ws a Sigma 24-70EX f2.8
so if you're interested in seeing it here it is:

http://i23.photobucket​.com …0mmtestPictureP​ackage.jpg

Unfortunately the kit lens gets a lot of harsh criticism but you always have to put things in perspective. There are many seasoned professionals in these forums that also defend the kit lens and recommend it for beginners or those on a budget. If you haven't already, definitely check out the Archive of kit lens photos and the positive commentary from so many users. When I was trying to decide what to do I got so many people with many different cameras and levels of expertise recommending that I get the kit lens. The only reason I didn't get it was because I knew I wanted a slightly longer lens and I did have a bit of extra money to play with but I can assure you that if my budget didn't allow for anything else I would have gotten the kit lens and probably been very happy. I was convinced that it could do wonderful things after looking at all the beautiful pictures in the archive.
Yes, most people upgrade and some people bypass getting the kits lens but it has nothing to do with whether or not it can produce outstanding results. It's all about making the most of what you have and understanding the equipment. All the people that have taken great pictures with the kit lens are a testament to that. As has been mentioned, once you have a sense of the type of pictures you will be taking and have used the lens and explored its focal length range you can better assess your needs in a better lens and for the $100 extra you paid for the kit lens it was a good temporary lens and it can still supplement whatever else you get or you can sell it for a few bucks.

I actually think it's great that an inexpensive and fairly versatile lens is offered for a good price to get people started so they can buy a nice body and not sweat the whole "what lens" dilemma right away. Obviously its not the best performer in low light, but then again, many lenses that are much better are not necessarily good low light lenses either.

Bottom line the way I see it is that if you are on a budget or have no clue what lenses will be good for you then get the kit lens. I think that if you already had a notion as to the focal lengths that work for you then that might come into play and influence your decision, but most that are just getting started do not really know what focal length(s) will work for them.

My One Cent

For the money though, the kit lens is a fairly versatile and multi-purpose lens. Unless if you're going to be doing 8x10 prints or larger, you won't notice a very big difference between the kit and more expensive hardware. Great pictures are more based on composition and subject matter rather than how expensive the lens is.

it's decent