It's Time to Praise the Kit Lens

[I chase light]

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]

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

[I chase light]

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

[Daniel Browning]

Thanks. I think they look very similar.

[jhga22]

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

[HiFiGuy1]

[quote=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:


[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]


[/quote]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[/url]).


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/17_5F00_40_5F00_18_5F00_55BrighterWeb.jpg[/img]
<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]

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

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

[Jon Ruyle]

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]

James-


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


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! []. (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]

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.