One Sick Kit Lens (for the money)

^^^ yeah...I have samples of before and after and when I compare them its a dramatic difference...I'm glad I got everything in working order before my trip to asia too...

Well, I've just bought an 18-55 IS and I'm quite happy with it so far. I'm off to Africa very soon and decided I'll take the 10-22, 70-200 and 300 f2.8. Sadly there's no room for my 24-105 to fill that 22-70mm gap - where I'd want to shoot mainly people in the evenings. That's why I decided on the 18-55, it's light, cheap and the quality isn't terrible - especially when compared to the only other option (nothing).

eg6turbo wrote in post #10954823
Hey BigALz !!

To point out that I did purchase the 17-55 from BigAlz and when I received it...it was in pristine condition as he stated before selling me this lens...however I also too didn't feel it was as sharp as my kit lens as I was experiencing a bit of front focusing...so I paid 100 bucks to have it calibrated by canon in irvine...when I received the lens back it was experiencing the same prob...long story short it took me several times sending it back to have it calibrated correctly and on top of that I was issued a 50 refund for my troubles...all in all a great deal and now I have a 6 month warranty...focus is a non issue now...so his lens was sharp just not focusing correctly...and thanks again I love love this lens!

Since I never had anything else to compare it too, and 100% (pixel peeping) wasn't my thing, I felt the lens was sharp over all. I was happy enough to never take it off my camera for almost a full year.
Now I am a bit wiser and I see that I should have not settled for anything less from a 1k lens.

Anyway, I am glad to know that in the future I should expect sharp images, even from a kit lens.

Thanks for posting eg6turbo.

BagAz...as you and others replied....
good technique + good technology beats poor (inadequate) technique + great technology

The OP image of the bearded singer looks like the camera/lens was front focusing or the camera selected the microphone instead of the face to focus on.. The microphone and cable appears sharper than the singer's face.

I shoot with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a 40D and would never expect my images to be this unsharp.

I am not at all inferring that the 18-55mm is not a decent lens... It is most definitely a good lens! However, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS should be expected to provide quantum better imagery than the posted image... At least mine does!

IF anyone has bother to go look at hard test numbers at photozone.de they wouldn't have been surprised that the 18-55 does very well. :P

I had tested the 18-55 vs a tamron 17-50 and at similar settings the 18-55 did pretty much just as well.

Go on and enjoy your 18-55 it's a great lens for what it costs.

Although I agree that the 17-55 is a better lens in most categories, the 18-55mm is tack sharp on my 7D as well. Not so much on my T1i (probably needed calibration?), but when I 1st mounted it on my 7D and took a shot - I was amazed as well.

The guy with the microphone needs some sharpening...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Ok people, this thread wasn't started to pit the 18-55 against the 17-55, it was to show the amazing IQ that the 18-55, paired with the 7D, gave. I proved this combo was sharper then my 17-55 and 40D combo. We heard from the guy who now owns my old 17-55 and it did have a front focus problem.

Please, this is just a thread to praise the el cheap-o kit lens nothing other than that.

Thank you everyone for your comments.

kitacanon wrote in post #10956903
The guy with the microphone needs some sharpening...

now go sharpen the cake eater.

OP, the 18-55, 55-250 and 50mm 1.8 are three of the best bang for your buck lenses available. The 17-55 is faster but not always sharper, plus the kit lens has more DOF because it's slower... This does make me wonder how much of the change is the 40D -vs- 7D though? Maybe it's an AA filter difference?

I took this picture(http://rldigitalmedia.​com …72472/h1399b24e​#h1399b24e) with the 18-55 is on my 50d a couple days ago and it's pretty damn sharp....I think it's a great lens, especially considering I paid $70 for it. The 17-55 might be better/sharper, but definitely not more than 10x better. If you know how to use your camera and know how to use ambient light/strobes, you can get photos that are just as good as ones from 18-55.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10957314
now go sharpen the cake eater.

Okiedokey...it's hard not to want to edit a lot of shots I see on the net... and of course it's more than just sharpening...it's revising levels and saturation and.....

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I took this picture(http://rldigitalmedia.​com …72472/h1399b24e​#h1399b24e) with the 18-55

That looks like it wasn't shot wide open, maybe f8 or F11 with flash?

. That's the whole point of this thread

This I knew, but no one has ever shown me how sharp any one of them can be, and def not this sharp.

ok you lost me there, that makes no since whats so ever. The drive motor has nothing to do with DOF.

BigAlz1 wrote in post #10960521
"plus the kit lens has more DOF because it's slower"

ok you lost me there, that makes no since whats so ever. The drive motor has nothing to do with DOF.

The quote refers to the aperture of the lens...not the drive motor speed....

The smaller the widest aperture of the lens, the "slower" it is said to be...because it requires a SLOWER SHUTTER speed to let in the same amount of light as a "faster" lens, one with a larger widest aperture (F4.5 is a slow lens @ 50mm vs a 50mm/F1.4 fast lens, for example)

Keep in mind that it's relative to the focal length...a 50mm F4 is slow....F4-5.6 is average (certainly not slow) for a 300mm lens, while 300mm F2.8 is rarefied fast....

kitacanon wrote in post #10960911
The quote refers to the aperture of the lens...not the drive motor speed....

The smaller the widest aperture of the lens, the "slower" it is said to be...because it requires a SLOWER SHUTTER speed to let in the same amount of light as a "faster" lens, one with a larger widest aperture (F4.5 is a slow lens @ 50mm vs a 50mm/F1.4 fast lens, for example)

Keep in mind that it's relative to the focal length...a 50mm F4 is slow....F4-5.6 is average (certainly not slow) for a 300mm lens, while 300mm F2.8 is rarefied fast....

Thanks for the photography lesson, but I am fully aware of aperture and it's relative speed to light.
So, you are saying the lens is NOT mechanically slower? Also, do you really believe that f5.6 has better DOF at 55mm then f2.8? f3.5 better at 18 then f2.8? Both lenses cover the 18-55 sweep, I am still trying to understand how the f3.5-f5.6 has better DOF then the flat f2.8.

I am defiantly ready for that lesson.