Printable View
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultima16888
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...3_12-16-31.jpg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultima16888
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
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!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Agreed. For example, if weight is the primary concern, the kit lens may be chosen over any other lens on that factor alone.
OK people, post your kit lens photos!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
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 (www.jamesducat.com).
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/17_5F00_40_5F00_18_5F00_55BrighterWeb.jpg[/img]
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
(18-55) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3341443873_dd73c8d96b_o.jpg
Let's hear what YOU think!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/17_5F00_40_5F00_18_5F00_55BrighterCrop100.jpg[/img]
Very interesting. Thanks, James.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I chase light
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 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
yousendit is one free option. I'll host the raw files on my server after I get them.
Daniel, I couldn't p2p so I just tried to fix it myself then reposted the results in the original posts...
Thanks. I think they look very similar.
Just a couple I like...
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.58/Sacramento-Statue.jpg[/img]
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
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.58/Fiji.jpg[/img]
Bounty Island, Fiji
Canon 40D w/ 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM at 28mm, f/11, 1/250, ISO 100
[quote=I chase light]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhga22
Beautiful! Did you use a polarizing filter? The sky is fantastic!
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).
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!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
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.
Nice shots Steve! Good job!
Never happened to malign kit lenses, but never used one either...[*-)]
Thanks!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.91/IMG_5F00_0638.jpg[/img]
Taken with kit lens (18-55mm) only a week after purchasing my first SLR.
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/20...t_Grimsley.jpg
http://fc15.deviantart.com/fs33/f/20...t_Grimsley.jpg
http://fc28.deviantart.com/fs31/f/20...t_Grimsley.png