There are far too many aspect that can never be found in performance chart...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!
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: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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Whatever happened to "I shall choose a set of lens that best suit my needs?"
-- not worth that kind of moneyLets 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...
basically much more than that...-- not worth that kind of money
wait, by "priceless" here, you're talking about the right to brag, or the price you have to pay to brag?bragging rights..........
priceless.