howto choose a set of lens??


Status
Not open for further replies.

bokeh1.8

New Member
Jul 6, 2006
271
0
0
#1
hi guys, would like to know the criteria of a good lens, and I understand from one of my friend, that you can read the performance from a chart. Can anyone enlighten me regarding this?? Thanks in advance!
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#2
hi guys, would like to know the criteria of a good lens, and I understand from one of my friend, that you can read the performance from a chart. Can anyone enlighten me regarding this?? Thanks in advance!
There are far too many aspect that can never be found in performance chart...
sharpness, bokeh, CA, distortion, AF speed, AF accuracy, zoom/focus ring stiffness... etc and the list goes on and on...:sweat:
 

cantaresg

New Member
Feb 23, 2007
765
0
0
Woodlands
#3
actually I'm quite confused too. There has been sayings that the kit lenses that canon supplies (the EF-S 18-55mm) is a lousy lens, but nobody ever explains what is so bad about the lens. Can anyone explain please? Thanks in advance.
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#4
actually I'm quite confused too. There has been sayings that the kit lenses that canon supplies (the EF-S 18-55mm) is a lousy lens, but nobody ever explains what is so bad about the lens. Can anyone explain please? Thanks in advance.
its soft wide open, but for a land/nightscaper, it could be a performance lens for budget user since the lens gonna be stop down for those application...:thumbsup:
 

Hoky

New Member
Mar 17, 2004
1,182
0
0
Singapore
hoky.multiply.com
#5
actually I'm quite confused too. There has been sayings that the kit lenses that canon supplies (the EF-S 18-55mm) is a lousy lens, but nobody ever explains what is so bad about the lens. Can anyone explain please? Thanks in advance.
It's not really a lousy lens. It offers very sharp images at f/8 ~ f/11. I have it but I don't use often it as I have other lenses in this range which offers faster focusing, larger apertures or longer range. Colors are a bit washed out in this lens but there's nothing you can't solve with PP.
Once a while, I'll take out the kit lens from the dry cabi and take a few shots of my dog just to "work out" the aperture blades and "smoothen" the barrel.

This is something I realized in CS (that may make you percieve that the kit lens is bad):
A lot of Canonites is that everyone becomes infatuated with L and white lenses that it becomes sort of pride owning one. Everything else "seems" to be inferior, slightly or more.
On the other hand, I don't see Nikonians talking about EX lenses all the time.
This is only my personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

Here's my 20cents:
You can have the most expensive equipment, but without knowing how to use it, it is virtually as good as worthless.
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#6
It's not really a lousy lens. It offers very sharp images at f/8 ~ f/11. I have it but I don't use often it as I have other lenses in this range which offers faster focusing, larger apertures or longer range. Colors are a bit washed out in this lens but there's nothing you can't solve with PP.
Once a while, I'll take out the kit lens from the dry cabi and take a few shots of my dog just to "work out" the aperture blades and "smoothen" the barrel.

This is something I realized in CS (that may make you percieve that the kit lens is bad):
A lot of Canonites is that everyone becomes infatuated with L and white lenses that it becomes sort of pride owning one. Everything else "seems" to be inferior, slightly or more.
On the other hand, I don't see Nikonians talking about EX lenses all the time.
This is only my personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

Here's my 20cents:
You can have the most expensive equipment, but without knowing how to use it, it is virtually as good as worthless.
actually a lot of Nikonians does talk about the more expensive lens, lesser on the kit lens because nearly all the 18-55, 18-70, 18-135 are pretty good in performance. ;)
and also because Nikon doesn't group the lens like Canon did with, "L"-branded.

could be wrong tho.
 

cantaresg

New Member
Feb 23, 2007
765
0
0
Woodlands
#7
it's just that I read in the other threads about how people says that canon provide poor quality kit lens while nikon and olympus provide better kit lens and such. I read about various things like CA, SA among other things. But when I look at my pictures, I don't find things that are really that bad (probably I do not know what to look for).

As for colour-wise, I can't tell whether a picture that is posted on the web is photoshopped or out-of-the-camera quality. Unless I own another similar lens, I will probably not be able to find out either. But if it is the photoshop that makes all the difference, then the L lenses should not call such a high price? Are there any situations whereby the kit lenses make unredeemable differences? Please advice. Thanks.
 

Hoky

New Member
Mar 17, 2004
1,182
0
0
Singapore
hoky.multiply.com
#8
it's just that I read in the other threads about how people says that canon provide poor quality kit lens while nikon and olympus provide better kit lens and such. I read about various things like CA, SA among other things. But when I look at my pictures, I don't find things that are really that bad (probably I do not know what to look for).

As for colour-wise, I can't tell whether a picture that is posted on the web is photoshopped or out-of-the-camera quality. Unless I own another similar lens, I will probably not be able to find out either. But if it is the photoshop that makes all the difference, then the L lenses should not call such a high price? Are there any situations whereby the kit lenses make unredeemable differences? Please advice. Thanks.
Lets see what L lenses have to offer as compared to 18-55.

1. USM. (The 18-55 has the USM version in US and JPN)
2. Lens hood (Comes with the lens)
3. Lens pouch (Comes with the lens)
4. Weather sealing (Very compatible w/ the 1D series in terms of weather resistance)
5. Distance gauge
6. More and better lens elements w/ more aperture blades.
7. Pride...
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,699
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#10
actually I'm quite confused too. There has been sayings that the kit lenses that canon supplies (the EF-S 18-55mm) is a lousy lens, but nobody ever explains what is so bad about the lens. Can anyone explain please? Thanks in advance.
Its a lens that came with the camera. To some people, that's a good enough reason to label it bad or a "toy".
 

mfbatzap

New Member
Jan 24, 2007
363
0
0
Tampines
#11
i'm still using my canon kit lens le.. currently no money to get another lens but I just feel that I've not outgrown it yet... It's really a challenge to take night shots at low light with no tripod... but day shots are sharp for my taste.. :bsmilie:
 

Jan 28, 2007
410
0
16
North of S'pore
#12
I guess at the end of the day, it boils down to understanding the capabilities of your lens, exploiting the full potential of it's capabilities, and staying away from it's weakness (unless there are ways/ techniques to mitigate).

And of cos the set of heaven sent "lens" (your eyes) to frame the shots in your own terms of "Getting it Right" (unless you're taking part in a contest, than it will have to be right to the judges)...

My 2 cents
 

#14
Lets see what L lenses have to offer as compared to 18-55.

1. USM. (The 18-55 has the USM version in US and JPN) -- can't tell the difference
2. Lens hood (Comes with the lens) -- no use to me
3. Lens pouch (Comes with the lens) -- no use to me since i already have a bag
4. Weather sealing (Very compatible w/ the 1D series in terms of weather resistance) -- no use cos camera not weather-sealed
5. Distance gauge -- no use. who uses it when there's AF?
6. More and better lens elements w/ more aperture blades. -- don't care
7. Pride...
-- not worth that kind of money
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#15
-- not worth that kind of money
basically much more than that...
there are:
1. better contrast
2. better color
3. better sharpness
4. 35mm full-frame compatibility
5. Ring-USM... not the micro-USM found in 18-55. (this gives you faster/quieter focusing and of cos manual focus override.)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom