18-55mm EF-S

I shot a 1951 USAF lens test pattern with the 300D and the Kit lens

on a tripod outdoors at ISO 100, and at every apeture and at 18, 28,

38, & 55mm. This was my attempt to find the lens' sweet spot if you

will.

 

The best combination of sharpness and contrast came from the

following settings (best to worse):

 

38mm 1/500 @ f8

28mm 1/500 @ f8

55mm 1/400 @ f10

18mm 1/640 @ f7.1

 

I wanted to upload some images but they were inadvertently deleted.

Has anyone else tested the lens? I just wanted to know whether the

above numbers sound reasonable.

 

Regards

So your tests show that the lens is sharpest about 1.5 to 2 stops down from wide open. Sounds very reasonable.

 

The bigger question is, how does it compare to a more expensive lens? Say, the 17-40 f/4L.

I'd love to compare with an L series.,,,

 

Anyone want to let me borrow theirs?,...

 

I promise to return it ;-0

 

By the way there have been some posts that suggest that the 28-205 (3.5-5.6) was in fact less sharp than the 18-55. I'm a little wary of this since the majority of reviews are quite positive on this mid range zoom. I've heard it's more rugged than the cheapies, and has good optics. I'm considering this lens in addition to the 50 1.8 to add to my bag. Why am I not looking at the 28-135 IS you ask? Or for this matter the L series lenses. My freinds, its all about the $$.

 

While were on this subject, ... , any advice from fellow patrons on the 28-200?

 

JS

correction 28-105 (previous post)

I too would be wary of such claims.The 18-55 may indeed be sharper than the 28-105...but even if that were true,there is more to how good a lens is than LPM.I've seen laods of nice crisp shots from the 28-105 3.5-4.5 but NONE that i've liked from the 18-55

I haven't done any "tests" per se, just shot about 100 pictures with the Digital Rebel and kit lens. I own the 16-35 2.8L, which is my "standard" lense on my 10D. I also have 5 other L lenses, so I know first-hand how fantastic they are.

 

I walked around today, and shot a variety of subjects with the kit lens, and then printed a couple out on my Canon CP-200 printer. The 4x6 prints were sharp, colorful and pleasing to the eye. All in all, I thought, "Well, why not? The prints look good. The shots look good on my computer screen."

 

Is it an L? No, of course not. Does it take good photos in "general photography" situations? Seems to. It certainly isn't the dog that some have said it is, at least in my experience.

 

Oh, I shot some New Year's Eve party photos with the Digital Rebel and 16-35 2.8L and they were terrific. I don't know if the difference would be all that noticable from the 18-55 kit lens, at a 4x6 print size.