EFS 18-55 compaired with EF28-20 on Digital Rebel

[arthur_byrnes]

Many folks who have been thinking about buyng the new Digital Rebel,

are wondering if they should buy the kit with the lens or just the

body. <br>

 

I wondered too since I already owned the EF 28-80 USM but since my

lens was 6 years old and I read about people having problems with

some lenses.<br>

 

Well the EF works fine, so I tried a test where I compared the 2

lenses to see how close the lenses operate. <br>

 

I have posted the web page describing the test with the images at

<a href="http://www.ajb.com/eos">http://www.ajb.com/eos</a>

<br>

As an extra, the first picture give an idea of the difference between

the viefinder coverage, snd the actual photo output.

[matthias_meixner2]

At the wide end the lens seems to have horrible chromatic aberrations in the corners.

 

BTW. the photos at the long end are not really helpful, since they do not show any structure but a blue face.

[jim_larson1]

I think most people consider the 18-55 and 28-80 to be similar in quality and price (except that the 18-55 only works on ONE camera).

 

Most people would recommend buying slightly better lenses as a starting point for any camera, but especially the expensive digitals. Specifically, good starting lenses include the 24-85/3.5-4.5 and 28-105/3.5-4.5 (NOT the 28-105/4.5-5.6). I would suggest saving the $100 on the 18-55, and put it towards one of these two lenses.

 

Many suggest the 17-40/4L as the ideal STARTER lens for a DSLR. I disagree for two reasons: (1) Frankly, it is expensive ($700) for a starter lens, and (2) it is a bit on the short, wide angle side.

[Ken Katz]

The example gives a good indication of the angle of view, but not much with respect to quality.

 

Unfortunately, the Canon midpriced zooms (like the 28-105USM or 24-85USM) are not short enough with an APS C sized sensor, if you care at all about having any wide angle coverage. The 18-55 seems to be a reasonable choise for $100 unless you can spring for a 17-40L or go the to third party 17-35 or 15-30 lenses (or the new small sensor Sigma zooms that have been anounced).

[maureen_m]

<i>Many suggest the 17-40/4L as the ideal STARTER lens for a DSLR.</i><p>I don't think anyone suggests the 17-40L as a <i>starter</i> lens. This implies that the user would be upgrading at some point, and the 17-40 would be hard to improve on. The 17-40 is simply <i>THE Ideal Lens</i> for a Canon DSLR. No upgrades necessary. It gives the view of 27.2mm - 64mm with superb results, as opposed to the suggested 28-xx lenses which give 44.8mm at their widest end with good results.<p>Anyone desiring wider shots will indeed need to upgrade from a 28-xx lens, so why not get it up front? I went on vacation with a 10D and took a 24mm, 28-135 IS, and 50mm 1.8 with me. Constantly switched between the 24mm and the wide end of the 28-135, and not only was this very inconvenient, it rarely let me get everything I wanted in the frame. As soon as we got home, we sold the 24 and bought the 17-40 and it basicly lives on the camera now.<p>My advice is to start with the widest lens you can on a DSLR, whether the 18-55, 17-40, or (gasp! I can't believe I am about to suggest this,) Sigma's new 18-50. Then build up the focal range of your lenses from there.

[maureen_m]

Now that the caffeine has kicked in, I see that Jim could have meant "first lens" when he said "starter lens". I was thinking he meant something like a "starter lens which would be set aside when better glass is obtained." But I still think the widest zoom lens possible is the best to start with on a DSLR.