It's Time to Praise the Kit Lens

[ultima16888]

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]

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:





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]

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]

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:


[url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&amp;Camera=396&amp;Sample=0&am p;FLI=1&amp;API=0&amp;LensComp=100&amp;CameraComp= 396&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp=1&amp;APIComp=0][/url]


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 [b]better[/b] 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 [b]is[/b] 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]

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]

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]

OK people, post your kit lens photos!

[I chase light]

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:

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 (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]

[I chase light]

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]

[Daniel Browning]

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.