18-55 KIT LENS AINT SO BAD

I just bought a used 300D off of ebay for my daughter to goof around with and it came with the 18-55 kit lens. While the build of this thing is really crappy, it is very sharp. I was very surprised. Below are two pix. Compare for yourself! RAW Images straight out of camera, and cropped, no PP. 55 mm., f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/60 sec.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Excellent examples !
The little zoom is a good value for the money.
If it breaks in a few years (which I doubt it would in normal use), just buy another one.

Just goes to show you what can be achieved.

Its more likely to be bad photo takers then bad lenses!!!

lostdoggy wrote in post #3321483
Its more likely to be bad photo takers then bad lenses!!!

yep

yeah photography monthly (UK Mag) actually rated the XT with kit lens as better than the Sony F828 (or whatever iteration it is now) with the Carl Zeiss glass. A few months ago.

it goes to show we all have been spoiled by tremendous images from great glass, that we forget that the basic or "good" glass is still better than what most people have.

Center sharpness at f5.6 with most zooms would be good. It's the faster speed, contrast, colors, CA control, distortion control, corner performance, and build quality where the more expensive lenses are better.

Having said all that the kit lens is ok.

Tee Why wrote in post #3321564
Center sharpness at f5.6 with most zooms would be good. It's the faster speed, contrast, colors, CA control, distortion control, corner performance, and build quality where the more expensive lenses are better.

Having said all that the kit lens is ok.

Greetings Tee Why,

Considering what you just said, is the 17-40mm f/4L a worth replacement for the 18-55mm kit lens?

Peace,
Yanis

It's the simplest most rational way to get a wide angle-to-short telephoto view of the world for anyone starting to learn about how to take photos...

I'm sure any $400 lens will surpass it but as in my other obsession, golf, in which anyone with scratch playing ability and a $250 set of clubs will out-play someone with only the scratch and a $1000 set-up, so too will anyone with good technique out-shoot someone with just the goods

Tee Why wrote in post #3321564
Center sharpness at f5.6 with most zooms would be good. It's the faster speed, contrast, colors, CA control, distortion control, corner performance, and build quality where the more expensive lenses are better.

Having said all that the kit lens is ok.

However, this is shooting wide open on the kit lens... which is still significant.

The 17-40L can be a good replacement, but I'd consider a Tamron 17-50, Sigma 18-50, Sigma 17-70, and Canon 17-55 as more fitting replacements for the kit lens, as 40mm is a bit too short for most as their walking around lens.

Yes, it's not bad wide open, but f5.6 isn't really that wide. So it's all relative I guess.
The kit lens isn't bad, but like most $100 zooms, it's got it's limits. That's all.

For me, I think the cheaper Sigma 18-50 F3.5-5.6 maybe a better option per photozone.de's review.