It's Time to Praise the Kit Lens [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

Steve Eisenberg

03-03-2009, 11:27 AM

How about a positive thread about the much maligned kit lens?

Keep this thread alive by your photos!

All praise the kit lens!

These were taken with the Canon XTi & 18-55mm Kit Lens

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3345025594_f7d97e0d55_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3344190637_e674dc6228_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3643/3326036908_74c1f672e4_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3325199997_996c8ff27d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3326036566_f6449805b2_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3595/3326036526_1d584471c8_o.jpg

adam

03-03-2009, 11:40 AM

This is the first "keeper" shot I took after I got a DSLR...taken with a 20D and an 18-55 IS. To this day it's one of my best airplane pics.

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/7/6/8/37609_1197759867.jpg

Vlad Xp

03-03-2009, 12:26 PM

My contribution:

Both taken with a Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-6.5 IS. Tripod, self-timer, mirror lockup, auto WB. Manual exposure using f/9 aperture, at 10 seconds for the statue, and 30 seconds for the fountain.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3450/3213737774_05b34728ee_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3272852619_be837d6514_b.jpg

davideglasgow

03-03-2009, 12:29 PM

So I can't blame it on the kit lens anymore. Man, I have a lot to learn! Great shots!

bassmangtk

03-03-2009, 02:31 PM

with the exception of my macro set, just about everything on my flickr page was taken with the 18-55. www.flickr.com/photos/gtkurtz . Any feedback on my shots is welcome!

Dallasphotog

03-03-2009, 02:45 PM

I think the kit lens has a lot of great uses. It serves as a good paper weight. It's an OK hammer when the tripod locks get jammed and my small dog likes to chase it across the floor.

Please stop the insanity!LOL Next, we'll have a thread on the superior IQ of camera phones.

Steve Eisenberg

03-03-2009, 02:53 PM

I think the kit lens has a lot of great uses. It serves as a good paper weight. It's an OK hammer when the tripod locks get jammed and my small dog likes to chase it across the floor.

Please stop the insanity!LOL Next, we'll have a thread on the superior IQ of camera phones.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
This is what keeps people out of discussion boards.

You are being a troll, and not adding to what is supposed to be a positive thread.

Jon Ruyle

03-03-2009, 04:51 PM

These are some great shots.

I love this thread... too often we associate good photography with good equipment, and should remember that the photographer is the most important variable.

(Of course there are a lot of 5D II owners out there to whom "kit lens" means 24-105 f/4 L.... but that is missing the point :) )

adam

03-03-2009, 06:16 PM

Well, the thing is, under optimal circumstances, you CAN take great photographs with a camera phone. But conditions are almost never that optimal, and the better your equipment is, the greater the set of circumstances under which you can potentially take great photographs.

Dallasphotog

03-03-2009, 06:19 PM

I think the kit lens has a lot of great uses. It serves as a good paper weight. It's an OK hammer when the tripod locks get jammed and my small dog likes to chase it across the floor.

Please stop the insanity!LOL Next, we'll have a thread on the superior IQ of camera phones.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
This is what keeps people out of discussion boards.

You are being a troll, and not adding to what is supposed to be a positive thread.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I'm sure the kits lens has it's place, but not in a serious photographers bag. For very small prints and thumbnails the IQ doesn't have much impact. For my wedding business, L-series glass is mandatory. Bridal portraits often end up enlarged beyond 16x20 and the better glass means happy customers.

Every wedding I shoot someone runs up with a camera phone to show me they got just as good a picture of the bride walking down the aisle as I did. I actually have weddings where 10 relatives jump into the aisle shooting the bride with their phone. For thoseguys, the kit lens is a big step up. However, when I deliver huge gallery wrap prints the customer never knows why they look so good, they just knowthat they look good.

I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, but I just don't see much place for the lowly kits lens in a professional or serious amatuer's arsenal, but hey, I take $15,000 worth of equipment to my 13-year old's soccer games.

Steve Eisenberg

03-03-2009, 06:33 PM

These are some great shots.

I love this thread... too often we associate good photography with good equipment, and should remember that the photographer is the most important variable.

(Of course there are a lot of 5D II owners out there to whom "kit lens" means 24-105 f/4 L.... but that is missing the point :) )

<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Thanks!

Please post some of your photos. And never mind the naysayers. This is not a community exclusively for professionals, or those that can afford the most expensive gear. I'd like to think all are welcome at The Digital Picture!

Vlad Xp

03-03-2009, 06:55 PM

I think the kit lens has a lot of great uses. It serves as a good paper weight. It's an OK hammer when the tripod locks get jammed and my small dog likes to chase it across the floor.

Please stop the insanity!LOL Next, we'll have a thread on the superior IQ of camera phones.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

In this case, I’m sorry for posting here; I did not realize that this forum is dedicated only to professionals. So, if my lens is not an “L”-lens, then, according to your theory, I can’t achieve a “wedding photographer professional’s” image quality, and therefore may not post, comment, or admire others’ work derived from using a non-1xD body, and a kit lens? It’s a good thing that we’re all entitled to our opinions, and are free to express them regardless of how tactful (or not), and smug we may sound.

Colin

03-03-2009, 07:47 PM

(Of course there are a lot of 5D II owners out there to whom "kit lens" means 24-105 f/4 L.... but that is missing the point :) )

Ah, yes, I LOVE my kit lens... [:)]

I bought it separately, with my Rebel XT, but it eventually met up with my 5D, which should be back from service right about now [:)]

Colin

03-03-2009, 07:55 PM

Well, as much as I really love the 'L' stuff, and I think it's easy to say that the cheap zoom that comes with a rebel is not nearly the same, still, I think it's really, really cool when you can grab a truly fantastic photograph with truly economy hardware. That's art, and absolutely inspiring.

I dig the picture of the dogs, and it gets back to the point of lighting and composition.

I'm not going to go out and buy the cheap kit lens for the sake of having one, but being able to get a cool picture with something that you might roll off of the end of a table for the thrill of it, that's really neat.

OTOH, I'd love to get a point and shoot camera, when finances allow, that I can take underwater, come summer time. There are a lot of shots that I'd love to get, which would require some degree of abuse, and just isn't viable for me to go the route of underwater housing, full professional lens/body combinations, whatever.

They're jut toys and tools. Use 'em!

SRPHOTO

03-03-2009, 07:58 PM

kit lens photo :]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/3145946043_1537488c22.jpg

Daniel Browning

03-03-2009, 08:08 PM

I think the kit lens has a lot of great uses. It serves as a good paper weight. It's an OK hammer when the tripod locks get jammed and my small dog likes to chase it across the floor.

This part is funny. I appreciate what should have been sarcastic humor.

Please stop the insanity! LOL Next, we'll have a thread on the superior IQ of camera phones.

This comment turns your post from something funny into something that is condescending and rude.

I'm sure the kits lens has it's place, but not in a serious photographers bag.

I disagree. It so happens that the kit lens *does* have it's place in the serious photographer's bag: any landscape photographer that hikes long distances to get the best shot. The kit lens is very light-weight, so it allows the photographer to carry more food, water, or additional lenses.
The equivalent professional gear would be 24-70 f/2.8 and 1Ds3, but the increased quality may not be worth the extra weight, if the photographer could even have the capacity to carry so much additional weight. The resolution and contrast of the kit lens is surprisingly good.

For very small prints and thumbnails the IQ doesn't have much impact. For my wedding business, L-series glass is mandatory. Bridal portraits often end up enlarged beyond 16x20 and the better glass means happy customers.

Wedding photographers are just one type of professional photographer, who are in turn just one type of serious photographer, who in turn are just one type of photographer that is welcome on this forum. So whether a lens is serious or not should not be cause for condescension.

Tim

03-03-2009, 09:49 PM

Hey nice shots, and I'm not at all surprised that the kit lens can produce great photos. Yeah the amount of keepers might not be as high as L glass, but it still can be sharp, its not like canon makes its cheaper lenses unsharp on purpose, rather it will make it as good as they can while keeping it inexpensive. Heck, I love my 50mm f1.8, and thats the cheapest lens canon makes.

Steve Eisenberg

03-03-2009, 11:04 PM

Thanks all for your great photos!!

If you are reading this thread, and aren't sure if your photo is "good enough", POST IT. If you are proud of your skills, and what you have accomplished, show it off. This is not the critique thread.

There are alot of unregistered users here. Sign up and show off our work!! (Yes, that's an order)

Itheone

03-03-2009, 11:11 PM

I get great use out of my kit lens:

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.97/KITLENS.jpg

Relax, I'm just trying to be funny.

Keith B

03-03-2009, 11:54 PM

I for one am very impressed with my kit lens and have use it in many professional applications.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/583987.jpg

Colin

03-04-2009, 03:24 AM

I get great use out of my kit lens:

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.97/KITLENS.jpg

Relax, I'm just trying to be funny.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Mission accomplished!

Rob Gardner

03-04-2009, 03:33 AM

I, for one, applaud the OP's intent here - and take it as a challenge to dig up a kit lens and see what I can really do with it. Pushing our boundaries as photographers helps us to grow, and I think this is a perfect opportunity!

STL

03-04-2009, 09:52 AM

Here's mine :

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.07/IMG_5F00_4881.JPG

Canon EF-S 18-55mm II @ 18 mm, f/8, 2s, 100 ISO

This was taken in Montreal, Quebec (Canada) last summer during the International des Feux Loto-Québec, a major international fireworks competition that takes place each year. This was the South Korea display, which had to be replanned using a canadian supplier' products because the South Korean team's shipment had been delayed. Although they did not win the competition, I think that it was the best display that year (and I've seen them all), especially considering that it was planned and built almost from scratch in only one week.

My girlfriend and I were then seated in section 9, which is close from being the worst (if not the worst) place to be seated within the Bronze zone. Having paid 10 $ or so per seat (plus our annual membership fee to La Ronde, the theme park where the competition takes place), we were stunned to see that half of your field of view blocked by tall trees.

Somehow, I managed to get this picture with my kit lens and I consider it being my best of the season. The next day after I took this picture, I bought the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM. Even if the IQ and the sharpness are much better with the Sigma, I have not been able to get a picture that is as appealing as this one, at least in my opinion.

Although my kit lens somehow disappoints me with its slowness, I still wanted to pay a tribute to this 200$-ish piece of glass.

Steve Eisenberg

03-04-2009, 11:46 AM

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]These are Texas Mountain Laurel, taken this morning...<o:p></o:p>

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]Canon XTi, 18-55 Kit Lens, Speedlite 540EZ Flash Bought in 1995, Lumiquest Promax Softbox, camera and flash on Manual, ISO 100

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]55mm, f16, 1/100

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3581/3327994895_306a821491_o.jpg

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]18mm, f16, 1/100 (I should have used a faster shutter speed to darken the background). Note the additional depth-of-field with the shorter focal length.

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3328800760_9233312acf_o.jpg

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: #000000; font-family: Arial;"]

Mark L

03-04-2009, 04:17 PM

GSPhoto

03-04-2009, 05:37 PM

LOL First off, This is an AMAZING forum and site. I have gone from extreme beginner to a skilled beginner from all of the great info and help from pics posted here. I think the sunset/sunrise pictures you took are great. It is about luck first hand, skill second hand and gear third hand. I love that there are so many beginners to experts that write on this site. It makes me a better photographer reading the critiques and experiences of all that post on this forum. Meta data on the sunset pics would be appreciated. Look forward to seeing any pics posted with a 1Ds MIII or a digital rebel XT. Thanks again.

Steve Eisenberg

03-04-2009, 06:13 PM

LOL First off, This is an AMAZING forum and site. I have gone from extreme beginner to a skilled beginner from all of the great info and help from pics posted here. I think the sunset/sunrise pictures you took are great. It is about luck first hand, skill second hand and gear third hand. I love that there are so many beginners to experts that write on this site. It makes me a better photographer reading the critiques and experiences of all that post on this forum. Meta data on the sunset pics would be appreciated. Look forward to seeing any pics posted with a 1Ds MIII or a digital rebel XT. Thanks again.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Thanks. The sunset/sunrise picture data is - 24mm, f4, 1/40, ISO100 and 21mm, f4, 1/50, ISO 100

I learned a little trick from Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Put the camere in "P" mode, and point the viewfinder above the sun itself. That is, no sun in the frame. Then push the the Exposure Lock button. It's the one with the asterisk "*". Then recompose the viewfinder and shoot. You can do a ton like that in a short period of time. For every exposure, find a new piece of sky.

Dallasphotog

03-04-2009, 11:00 PM

I think the kit lens has a lot of great uses. It serves as a good paper weight. It's an OK hammer when the tripod locks get jammed and my small dog likes to chase it across the floor.

Please stop the insanity!LOL Next, we'll have a thread on the superior IQ of camera phones.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

In this case, I’m sorry for posting here; I did not realize that this forum is dedicated only to professionals. So, if my lens is not an “L”-lens, then, according to your theory, I can’t achieve a “wedding photographer professional’s” image quality, and therefore may not post, comment, or admire others’ work derived from using a non-1xD body, and a kit lens? It’s a good thing that we’re all entitled to our opinions, and are free to express them regardless of how tactful (or not), and smug we may sound.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I didn't say a thing about who could and couldn't post, etc. I hope everyone enjoys this forum and Ithink they should feel free to post whatever they like. My original post was totally tongue-in-cheek.

The simple answer to your question is you cannot achieve the same results with a kits lens that you can "L" series glass. The "L" series lens are simply far better quality andmost allow much larger aperatures at comparable focal lengths. If your work requiresenlargements or you are interested intop image quality you'll gravitate towards this equipment.

I don't only shoot weddings.I shoot sports for the local paper and ado large volume of merchandise workfor calendars and brochures. Tomorrow, I'm shooting helicopter instrumument panels. All of my workrequires image quality beyond what I could achieve with theentry level lens supplied with theRebels.

HiFiGuy1

03-04-2009, 11:07 PM

Okay, here's some stuff I shot today. All images are with a 40D, EF 28-135 mostly at 135, various ISO, various apertures mostly f/5.6.

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/_MG_0625.jpg

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/_MG_0619-1.jpg

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/_MG_0623-1.jpg

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/_MG_0578.jpg

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/_MG_0575-1.jpg

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/IMG_0528-1.jpg

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/IMG_0524-1.jpg

Enjoy or destroy, let me know either way.

Dallasphotog

03-04-2009, 11:20 PM

And to everyone I apparently upset...

I have no gripe with amatuers, beginners, professionals or anyone else using this forum. Have fun, post what you like. My original post wasmeant to be funny.

I know the other professionals on this forum have had the same experiences with cell phone cameras and point-and-shoot jockeyswho believe megapixel count equals quality. I don't shoot a wedding these dayswhere there aren't twenty people with cell phone cameras shooting over my shoulder.I have to find that a little funny. I just imgine them goingdown to Eckerds and blowing that baby up to 36 x 54. I know it takes a picture...it just won't look like mine!

I do take image quality seriously becuase my customers enlarge my work and in more than twenty years of photography I've learned the lens is much more important than the body. Ido own a 1DMKII, but I use my XTiall the time. It delivers great results with great glass screwed on the front.

All you offended kit lens guys, don't be so defensive. Have fun and shoot to make yourselves happy.

HiFiGuy1

03-05-2009, 12:19 AM

Dallas,

I don't think anyone took serious offense.

And BTW, here's one of my friends playing a gig at Mardi Gras this year.

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/IMG_0296.jpg

Handheld (as are almost all my shots) 40D, 28-135, not sure of the focal length or other data without looking it up.

Steve Eisenberg

03-05-2009, 08:29 AM

And to everyone I apparently upset...

I have no gripe with amatuers, beginners, professionals or anyone else using this forum. Have fun, post what you like. My original post wasmeant to be funny.

I know the other professionals on this forum have had the same experiences with cell phone cameras and point-and-shoot jockeyswho believe megapixel count equals quality. I don't shoot a wedding these dayswhere there aren't twenty people with cell phone cameras shooting over my shoulder.I have to find that a little funny. I just imgine them goingdown to Eckerds and blowing that baby up to 36 x 54. I know it takes a picture...it just won't look like mine!

I do take image quality seriously becuase my customers enlarge my work and in more than twenty years of photography I've learned the lens is much more important than the body. Ido own a 1DMKII, but I use my XTiall the time. It delivers great results with great glass screwed on the front.

All you offended kit lens guys, don't be so defensive. Have fun and shoot to make yourselves happy.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
I've re-read your posts and you are a troll who was called out. Cover your butt all you want. You came here anonymously to denigrate, not to participate in the positive spirit of this thread. Now you call people upset and offendedand think that makes it ok, while still defending something inappropriate. Am I upset? Am I offended? I despise anonymous posters (who troll)like you. And here's my name, on my thread. And I don't need to defend or apologize for anything I say here.

You could use your real name, and even help your own business with all the good folks who come here. You could meet people and make connections. But I guess you need to leave yourself a way to say what you want, and then CYA when called out.

Meanwhile, people are contributing their really greatphotos, and you're still here. Great.

Joel Bookhammer

03-05-2009, 10:13 AM

Steve I have also reread his posts, not just the onesabout the kit lensbut all of his posts on this site, and he has put alot of positive information out there for people to read. He is not a "troll" sure his comment could of been taken the wrong way and apparently has. He hasmade his peace on the subject. Also he is not the only individual posting information and not using his "real" name.

But back to the kit lens. One of thethings I usethe kit lens for is"macro" photography.The kit lens came with this little adapter thingy (for lack ofbetter words) That you can put on the end of the lens and it decreases the minimum focusing distance by alot. The image quality really takes a hit but Its still fun to mess around with, I got a great shot with it this past year while being infested with cicada's.

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/128/l_b91e41cec32315f5f7f13c63cd26a223.jpg ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=24487309&a lbumID=1022573&imageID=17982634#a=1022573&i=147902 42)My favorite "kit" lens pic.

The only gripe I have about my"kit" lenses is that the one, I think its a 75-300 froseup while I was taking a shot ofa lunar eclipse. Itnow will notauto focus at all and is extremely hard to manually focus. I also own a 70-200 so its not that big of a deal to me but still wishI had theextra 100mm of lensfor some things. Im not sure ifit was the cold that caused the malfunction or thelunar eclipse....<g>

I've never studied the lenses "elements" in depth but wonder how the "kit" lenses compare to older photographic lenses weather they be canon, pentax, nikon etc. How much more "technology" is in the glass compared to their much older conterparts.

Thanks

Joel Bookhammer

Steve Eisenberg

03-05-2009, 10:45 AM

Steve I have also reread his posts, not just the onesabout the kit lensbut all of his posts on this site, and he has put alot of positive information out there for people to read. He is not a "troll" sure his comment could of been taken the wrong way and apparently has. He hasmade his peace on the subject. Also he is not the only individual posting information and not using his "real" name.

But back to the kit lens. One of thethings I usethe kit lens for is"macro" photography.The kit lens came with this little adapter thingy (for lack ofbetter words) That you can put on the end of the lens and it decreases the minimum focusing distance by alot. The image quality really takes a hit but Its still fun to mess around with, I got a great shot with it this past year while being infested with cicada's.

My favorite "kit" lens pic.

The only gripe I have about my"kit" lenses is that the one, I think its a 75-300 froseup while I was taking a shot ofa lunar eclipse. Itnow will notauto focus at all and is extremely hard to manually focus. I also own a 70-200 so its not that big of a deal to me but still wishI had theextra 100mm of lensfor some things. Im not sure ifit was the cold that caused the malfunction or thelunar eclipse....<g>

I've never studied the lenses "elements" in depth but wonder how the "kit" lenses compare to older photographic lenses weather they be canon, pentax, nikon etc. How much more "technology" is in the glass compared to their much older conterparts.

Thanks

Joel Bookhammer

Hi Joel. I appreciate what you're saying. If people feel the need to be anonymous, no problem. It's when they engage in negativity without wanting to be exposed, that is a problem. I want people to know that they can, and should participate in this community no matter what their equipment, and that was the point of this positive thread. When Bryan created this community, he asked people to use their first and last names. And for the first time ever, I have done so. And you know what?It feels pretty good.

"Dallasphotog" might have all kinds of great posts here, but he damages himself when denigrating instead of simply participating. And yes, folks might be too sensitive to post here if they get the impression it's a site for the high-end equipment owners only.

To your points about build and image quality. The kit lenses are definitely not as robust as even the mid-priced lenses, but I wouldn't want to test that out with any lens! I have a 28-80 and 75-300 from 1995. Over time the 75-300 has developed a loud squeak when/if it focuses. Sometimes I have to help it alongby zooming out, then back in. But the 28-80 works just fine. The light weight is definitely nice, as others have mentioned. But the price paid is with fewer elements, and less built in image corrections (aberrations, distortion,etc).

I heard it said that digital pictures are scrutinized more closely than film pictures (probably heard it at this forum!). I look at my printed photos with the kit lenses and am amazed at the quality. Sharp, colorful, beyond what I ever expected. With DPP and PS you can mitigate distortion, noise and chromatic aberration. Maybe someone that owns kit lenses, and L lenses could do a head to head comparison. Take an ordinary photo with both lenses. Run the kit lens photo through DPP's Lens Aberration Corrections (it has built-in lens profiles), as well as any other tools within DPP and Photoshop. And see how they compare.

Are today's kit lenses better than the lenses that our Dads had? I don't know the answer to that one. I assume they got what they could afford at the time. We couldn't afford a Cadillac in 1964, so his equipment probably wasn't professional grade. But man, he took some great pictures!

mukul_chou

03-05-2009, 01:54 PM

Dallas,

I don't think anyone took serious offense.

And BTW, here's one of my friends playing a gig at Mardi Gras this year.

Handheld (as are almost all my shots) 40D, 28-135, not sure of the focal length or other data without looking it up.

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

The other data [based on the file U h'v uploaded] is

Shutter speed: 1/50 sec

Aperture: f/5

Focal length: 65mm

ISO: 1600

In other topic in this thread you said

So, after having seen some of these pics, remind me again why I just spent $900 on a 40D kit? ../emoticons/emotion-2.gif

Probably you could not get this shot with a P&S... on P&S anything beyond ISO 200 is unusable and ISO 1600 I don't know howmany can support it even. This shot without a flash is probably way beyond the capalblity of any P&S. I'm not sure about the newest P&S like SX1 IS or G10 but I have used SX100 and sure they does not deserve even a comparison with a DSLR. Keep patience and continue enjoying phoytography.... [Y]

Jon Ruyle

03-05-2009, 02:41 PM

My addition to the kit lens pile:

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.5d+first+10000/sarah-and-nathan.JPG

105mm @ f/4 iso 640

mattsartin

03-05-2009, 06:42 PM

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/SW5MT8cKrLI/AAAAAAAAGk0/6HFxujv3a8w/s720/IMG_1840.jpg

Canon XTi 18mm 25s f/9 ISO 200

I chase light

03-05-2009, 07:40 PM

This was taken by a student of mine yesterday with the lowliest of the lowly kit lenses, the non-IS 18-55. Pretty darn decent bokeh for a hockey puck/chair caster ;)

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/Student-Shot.jpg

ShutterbugJohan

03-08-2009, 01:20 AM

You all have some great pictures! Keep up the good work!

Hi Joel. I appreciate what you're saying. If people feel the need to be anonymous, no problem. It's when they engage in negativity without wanting to be exposed, that is a problem. I want people to know that they can, and should participate in this community no matter what their equipment, and that was the point of this positive thread. When Bryan created this community, he asked people to use their first and last names. And for the first time ever, I have done so. And you know what?It feels pretty good.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Mr. Carnathan said "(please use your real name for your user name ("/forums/p/152/264.aspx#264))" I hope it's OK that I just used my first name.

Johan

HiFiGuy1

03-08-2009, 03:33 PM

You all have some great pictures! Keep up the good work!

Hi Joel. I appreciate what you're saying. If people feel the need to be anonymous, no problem. It's when they engage in negativity without wanting to be exposed, that is a problem. I want people to know that they can, and should participate in this community no matter what their equipment, and that was the point of this positive thread. When Bryan created this community, he asked people to use their first and last names. And for the first time ever, I have done so. And you know what?It feels pretty good.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Mr. Carnathan said "(please use your real name for your user name ("/forums/p/152/264.aspx#264))" I hope it's OK that I just used my first name.

Johan
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I didn't realize that Bryan had made that request. I apologize for not following the spirit of the rules. It was assuredly unintentional.

ultima16888

03-08-2009, 06:33 PM

nice shots steve.. I guess in this case it's the photographer that matters... but seriously there's nothing to be worth praising about the kit lens haha.. if you zoom in enough you'll see all the ugliness the kit lens produce.. it's only when it's shrunk down to web thumbnail that makes the shot... the reason being your great composition and understanding of light and intuition ... good eye... bad lens i'd say.

Daniel Browning

03-08-2009, 07:13 PM

but seriously there's nothing to be worth praising about the kit lens haha

I kindly disagree.

Even the old cheap 18-55 non-IS had good resolution and contrast under many circumstances. Would you expect it to out-perform the 17-40 f/4 L that costs about 7 times as much ($700)? Well it does. See for yourself:

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-Lens/Crop1/2007-02-03_12-16-31.jpg ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=1&API= 0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =1&APIComp=0)

Of course, that's only one focal length (24mm), and at f/4. When you stop down the 17-40 starts to pull ahead. But that's only the older non-IS kit lens: the new IS kit lens has even better optics.

My point is that if such a cheap kit lens can produce image quality than an L, at least some of the time, then there is something "worth praising" about it.

Steve Eisenberg

03-08-2009, 08:09 PM

nice shots steve.. I guess in this case it's the photographer that matters... but seriously there's nothing to be worth praising about the kit lens haha.. if you zoom in enough you'll see all the ugliness the kit lens produce.. it's only when it's shrunk down to web thumbnail that makes the shot... the reason being your great composition and understanding of light and intuition ... good eye... bad lens i'd say.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

You've hit on a really crucial point here...no need for me to to expand on it.

And thanks for the praise! I'd like to see more people posting their work.

Steve Eisenberg

03-08-2009, 08:11 PM

but seriously there's nothing to be worth praising about the kit lens haha

I kindly disagree.

Even the old cheap 18-55 non-IS had good resolution and contrast under many circumstances. Would you expect it to out-perform the 17-40 f/4 L that costs about 7 times as much ($700)? Well it does. See for yourself:

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-Lens/Crop1/2007-02-03_12-16-31.jpg ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=1&API= 0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =1&APIComp=0)

Of course, that's only one focal length (24mm), and at f/4. When you stop down the 17-40 starts to pull ahead. But that's only the older non-IS kit lens: the new IS kit lens has even better optics.

My point is that if such a cheap kit lens can produce image quality than an L, at least some of the time, then there is something "worth praising" about it.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Thanks for reminding people that the optics are awfully good for the price.

I don't have any IS gear myself, I hear it's nice!

Tim

03-08-2009, 08:28 PM

I'm not here to say that the 18-55 is bad, but looking at just the sharpness of a lens isn't enough. Yeah it might seem as sharp as the 17-40, but the it lacks in everything else, such as build quality, focus, and resale value.

Daniel Browning

03-08-2009, 08:42 PM

looking at just the sharpness of a lens isn't enough
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Agreed. For example, if weight is the primary concern, the kit lens may be chosen over any other lens on that factor alone.

Steve Eisenberg

03-08-2009, 09:11 PM

OK people, post your kit lens photos!

I chase light

03-09-2009, 02:45 PM

Even the old cheap 18-55 non-IS had good resolution and contrast under many circumstances. Would you expect it to out-perform the 17-40 f/4 L that costs about 7 times as much ($700)? Well it does. See for yourself:

[/url]

Completely coincidentally, last week I decided to try a comparison of the non-is 18-55 to my 17-40. The subject matter is a nonfactor here, except that it was a beautiful evening. :)This was less than scientific perfection, but it lends some more evidence to the discussion, I think.

Shooting specs - ISO 200, f/8 and 1/30 of a second handheld on an XSi body, sharpness at plus 3. I matched the focal lengths to the best of my ability but they are not exact; EXIF data shows the 18-55at 22mmand the 17-40at 21mm. No one should ever call me a scientist; sorry to those of you who are better or more demanding at this. I trimmed them all andpasted the 100% crops together in Photoshop. I will post them the "full" web size and a 100% crop from each in separate postings.

PS, I am sorry that I did not know about using one's real name either. My name is James Ducat ([url="http://www.jamesducat.com]www.jamesducat.com ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=1&API= 0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =1&APIComp=0)).

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/17_5F00_40_5F00_18_5F00_55BrighterWeb.jpg

I chase light

03-09-2009, 03:09 PM

My post, part two.

[EDITED - at Daniel's excellent suggestion, I brightened the 18-55 to match the 17-40. Hope that makes the comparison easier!]

A remarkable thing one notices in the 100% cropsis that at 200 iso and 1/30 - on the XSi,noisebecomes something to deal with at 400 iso - photographer stillness may play as much of a role in the clarity of the shot as sharpness of the lens does. you can find links to full size jpegs of these at: (17-40)http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3341262407_b86026ae7e_o.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3341262407_b86026ae7e_o.jpg)

(18-55) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3341443873_dd73c8d96b_o.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3341443873_dd73c8d96b_o.jpg)

Let's hear what YOU think!

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/17_5F00_40_5F00_18_5F00_55BrighterCrop100.jpg

Daniel Browning

03-09-2009, 03:31 PM

Very interesting. Thanks, James.

The kit lens seems to have more saturation

I think a big part of this is the difference in brightness. The 18-55 has 11 elements (1 less than the 17-40), but it must have much cheaper lens coatings, so that it is not as transmissive. In other words, it must have a narrower T/stop than the 17-40.

It would be easier for me to compare these two images if the brightness were equalized in post processing. May I have your permission to modify and post your images? EDIT: Actually, it would make more sense to do it from the source raw file.

I chase light

03-09-2009, 03:41 PM

It would be easier for me to compare these two images if the brightness were equalized in post processing. May I have your permission to modify and post your images? EDIT: Actually, it would make more sense to do it from the source raw file.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
I knowRAW would be better - and I do have the files, not sure how to get them to you - butcan you do it from the full size jpgs on Flickr?

Daniel Browning

03-09-2009, 03:46 PM

yousendit is one free option. I'll host the raw files on my server after I get them.

I chase light

03-09-2009, 04:35 PM

Daniel, I couldn't p2p so I just tried to fix it myself then reposted the results in the original posts...

Daniel Browning

03-09-2009, 04:41 PM

Thanks. I think they look very similar.

jhga22

03-14-2009, 01:32 PM

Just a couple I like...

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.58/Sacramento-Statue.jpg

World War II Memorialin downtown Sacramento

Canon 40D w/ 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM at 80mm, f/5, 1/100, ISO 400

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.58/Fiji.jpg

Bounty Island, Fiji

Canon 40D w/ 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM at 28mm, f/11, 1/250, ISO 100

HiFiGuy1

03-14-2009, 03:49 PM

Even the old cheap 18-55 non-IS had good resolution and contrast under many circumstances. Would you expect it to out-perform the 17-40 f/4 L that costs about 7 times as much ($700)? Well it does. See for yourself:

[/url]

Completely coincidentally, last week I decided to try a comparison of the non-is 18-55 to my 17-40. The subject matter is a nonfactor here, except that it was a beautiful evening. :)This was less than scientific perfection, but it lends some more evidence to the discussion, I think.

Shooting specs - ISO 200, f/8 and 1/30 of a second handheld on an XSi body, sharpness at plus 3. I matched the focal lengths to the best of my ability but they are not exact; EXIF data shows the 18-55at 22mmand the 17-40at 21mm. No one should ever call me a scientist; sorry to those of you who are better or more demanding at this. I trimmed them all andpasted the 100% crops together in Photoshop. I will post them the "full" web size and a 100% crop from each in separate postings.

PS, I am sorry that I did not know about using one's real name either. My name is James Ducat ([url="http://www.jamesducat.com]www.jamesducat.com ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=1&API= 0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =1&APIComp=0)).

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/17_5F00_40_5F00_18_5F00_55BrighterWeb.jpg
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I like the saturation of the sky and the look of the mountains more in the 17-40. Not sure if it is a result of the processing you applied, but it seems more saturated than the otherwise nearly identical shot below it. The 18-55 shot has a seemingly more detailed foreground, though.

HiFiGuy1

03-14-2009, 03:51 PM

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.58/Fiji.jpg

Bounty Island, Fiji

Canon 40D w/ 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM at 28mm, f/11, 1/250, ISO 100
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Beautiful! Did you use a polarizing filter? The sky is fantastic!

Jon Ruyle

03-14-2009, 04:28 PM

James-

One obvious advantage of the 17-40 is that it makes the horizon straighter. [;)]

Where were those pictures taken? It looks exactly like that in the San Jacinto, Ca area now. Those yellow flowers are all over Riverside county. (Of course, for all I know, you took the picture in Iceland).

I chase light

03-14-2009, 05:24 PM

James-

One obvious advantage of the 17-40 is that it makes the horizon straighter. /emoticons/emotion-5.gif

Where were those pictures taken? It looks exactly like that in the San Jacinto, Ca area now. Those yellow flowers are all over Riverside county. (Of course, for all I know, you took the picture in Iceland).

<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Horizon straightening is one of the oft overlooked features of the 17-40. Good thing it has it, too, 'cuz otherwise I am done for! [:D]. (I spent so much time worrying about matching framing I forgot about level!)

This is in Redlands, as it happens, facing the San Bernardino mountains (Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead are right there), not far from San Jacinto at all.

I chase light

03-14-2009, 05:30 PM

I like the saturation of the sky and the look of the mountains more in the 17-40. Not sure if it is a result of the processing you applied, but it seems more saturated than the otherwise nearly identical shot below it. The 18-55 shot has a seemingly more detailed foreground, though.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

There is no post-processing other than thechange I madeto the brightness of the 18-55 at Daniel's suggestion to match the lenses.

As I suggested in the earlier post, look at the 100 % crops, the 1/30 sec shutter speed (and shakiness of the photographer, whoever that was; that guy couldn't even get the horizon straight!) had as much to do with the clarity of the shots as lens choice did.

Benjamin

03-15-2009, 02:14 PM

Nice shots Steve! Good job!

Never happened to malign kit lenses, but never used one either...[*-)]

Steve Eisenberg

03-15-2009, 03:39 PM

Thanks!

patagoniaboarder

03-28-2009, 04:18 PM

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.91/IMG_5F00_0638.jpg

Taken with kit lens (18-55mm) only a week after purchasing my first SLR.

Garrett-Grimsley

03-28-2009, 04:32 PM

These were taken within days of my getting my first DSLR, a Canon 350D, almost three years ago. Of course all taken with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.

http://fc35.deviantart.com/fs35/f/2008/296/9/4/Doggie_Number_Dos_by_Garrett_Grimsley.jpg

http://fc15.deviantart.com/fs33/f/2008/296/c/6/Doggie_Number_Uno_by_Garrett_Grimsley.jpg

http://fc28.deviantart.com/fs31/f/2008/232/d/4/Margaritaville_by_Garrett_Grimsley.png