peter_rowe Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 To all those new Canon 20D owners who feel their Canon 18-55mm "Kit" lens is not very sharp and are anxious to run out and buy something "sharper", check this out first. The following photo (and I can only hope this works) compares the Canon 18-55mm Kit lens with the Canon 50mm 1.8 II prime lens (widely reputed to be pretty sharp). The image is a screen shot of the RAW image with absolutely no adjustments (*no* sharpness applied whatsoever). Camera settings are Parameter 2 and RAW is left as such. This shot was taken from about 12 feet away at ISO 200, F5.6 and 1/3000 for both shots. The EXIF for the 18-55 reads 49mm instead of an exact 50mm<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Maybe my eyes are back-focusing, But I see a sharp image rendered by the 50/1.8 and a fuzzy image shot with the kit lens... :)<br><br> -- <a href="http://www.subtlelight.net">Yaron</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve santikarn Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 the 50 mm f1.8 prime lens looks to be clearer and a bit more contrasty (to my eyes) than the zoom lens. Are you saying they look the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Not much difference, and it's about what I see when testing them both on a DRebel too. Of course the 50mm f/1.8 is still sharp at f/2.8, something the 18-55 can't do. And in dim lighting I find the faster aperture helps considerably with auto focusing. However, I did find the 18-55 sharper at 18mm, 28mm and 35mm, than it is at 50/55mm. For $100, it's not a bad lens at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbreak Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I agree with SS. What about photos of something with more detail? There aren't exactly any greys in there, that would help look more at contrast, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_rowe Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Yes, to all. I'm not saying the lens are the same -- just that they are not a different as many might suspect. With all the talk of "tack sharp" lenses especially when it comes to "L" lenses, the poor innocent new 20D + kit owner is left thinking their kit lens is hardly worth attaching to the camera. If they go out and buy a "sharper" lens for mucho dollars they are in for a big surprise. I guess the point is to not fret over sharpness before taking a shot. The 18-55mm is plenty good enough to get out there and take some photos. That's the main think I'm trying to say. The other thing is that when you hear of "tack sharp" lenses there's very rarely an un-retouched photo to go along with it -- they are almost always post processed which is really an unfair indication of lens quality to a new user. IMHO, there should be some kind of rule to include an un-retouched photo when speaking of lens sharpness --Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/">Extensive review of 18-55 lens</a> by Bob Atkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokkor fan Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I think the 18-55mm is probably worth what everyone has paid for it.....about $100. It is a great first lens, but shoot the 50mm and the zoom side by side and look at the final images and even on 6x4's the difference in contrast will stand out. Also, by the looks of it your zoom didn't have a hood - best get one for optimum results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrich_brandl Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 IMHO the pictures clearly show the two main weaknesses of th 18-55: - lower contrast - significant chromatic aberration (look at the edges of the numbers) That doesn't mean that you can't take photos with the kit lens. Contrast can be enhanced by post processing and CA is only visible if you have steep contrasts. But the overall quality of the lens is just worth its price, its not a bargain. And a questionable investment if you have paid for a 20D body. P.S.: What we dont't know is the crop ratio of these pictures. I don't assume these to be 100% crops. Ulrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry_minsky1 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 The difference between the 50mm/1.8 and the kit lens is much more dramatic than your test shows; the increased color saturation and contrast, never mind sharpness, are very palpable. I found the kit lens was good, especially stopped down outside in sunlight, or indoors for things closer than about ten feet away. But I didn't like it for landscapes. But the 50mm/1.8 is really in a whole different class of image quality. I just wish my camera were full frame so that I could have the "normal" field of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 There are clear difference between lenses. I have always thought my copy of the 18-55 was sharp, but its color and contrast was inferior to other lenses I have used. It was also better than many too. At the end of the day IMO the difference btween the best and worst lenses is not that great. Whether you value the difference between a kit zoom and the most expensive lenses boils down to how much you value those marginal changes and will be a personal preference dictated by budgets and photogrpahic needs. I think mnay beginners probably wander into this site wonderring how to imporve their photography, hear people raving about L lenses or whatever and think that it is the equipment that makes the difference. In my view it is not. A good photgrapher probably doesn't want equipment to constrain them too much and expensive giear comes with fewer constraints, but an experienced photographer also has the knowledge to work around the limitations of their equipment to get the results that they want. An 18-55 stopped down a bit on a $30 tripod, with a bit of post processing will in many instances look better than a handheld, wide open 17-40L unretouched, but no one in this forum ever says this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanjoseph Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Just too throw in my experiece, I have tested the EF-S 18-55 against my 24-85 F3.5-4.5 zoom, and my 50mm MkII. The EF-S lag behind my 24-85 zoom and 50mm prime considerably in terms of sharpness, CA, and contrast. When I tested both lenses head to head I found the 18-55 at the back in image quality (WAY behind), and found the 24-85 EXTREMELY close with my 50mm prime. Where did the prime beat it? At Anything below F4.5. Ok guys, you can tar and feather me now. Here is the link to my test: http://photobucket.com/albums/v136/fishrule/Lens%20Test/ Sorry I have never bothered too add the 18-55 to the site, too lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanjoseph Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 PS: There pictures were from parameter 1 JPEGs, tungsten white balace, tripod mounted, same shutter speed, checked for focus errors, and shot on a 300D with mirror lockup used (Wasia hack). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Tests of charts are interesting but what ultimately counts are photos. It will take a keen eye to recongise the difference between a well executed shot with a kit lens, and one taken with the most expensive lens. Some, including many pros, will value the difference enough to want to spend the extra money. But I think it is misleading when some posters imply that good pics only come from expensive lenses, and that if someone is dissappointed with their photography then it must be becuase of the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 There's no need to re-invent the wheel. <p> Here's a pretty thorough review of the 18-55 <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/"><b>http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/</b></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_rowe Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 The shot is a 100% crop I totally agree with Geoff Francis comments and I can't improve on that. Bob Atkins scores again, excellent reviews as always. --Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 "An 18-55 stopped down a bit on a $30 tripod, with a bit of post processing will in many instances look better than a handheld, wide open 17-40L unretouched, but no one in this forum ever says this." I've said something similar in a couple of 17-85IS threads...does that count? Anyway, I think there is a reason why a lot of Drebel and 20D owners haven't sold their 18-55 lenses...and why some 10D owners were interested in hacking the EF-S donut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 <p>From what part of the frame is this image taken? Near the center? Try it again at the edge and see how the two lenses stack up. I'm just guessing here but I suspect the difference will be much greater.</p> <p>The 18-55 has a reputation of being pretty good as kit lenses go. That may be damning with faint praise, but at its low price, it's a pretty decent buy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Honestly: the 18-55/EF-S is the only EF-S lens I like. At $100, it is a good buy. I would have considered it at $150 for my 10D, but alas. . .I don't have a hacksaw :) I knock the 17-85/IS not because of quality: I knock it on price. My "recommended" starter kit on a 20D would be a 18-55/EF-S with a 128-135/IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now