Canon 450d kit lens replacement

[cherokee1111]

Ok, having had the camera 2 weeks I can see the limitations of the kit lens especially after a few very experienced people in here told me how to compose my pictures to really make them stand out and the kit lens doesnt seem to have all that so question is what should I replace it with that will do landscapes and portraits? A real walkabout camera lens within a budget of say £200, any good recommendations?

[senu]

Originally Posted by cherokee1111

Ok, having had the camera 2 weeks I can see the limitations of the kit lens especially after a few very experienced people in here told me how to compose my pictures to really make them stand out and the kit lens doesnt seem to have all that so question is what should I replace it with that will do landscapes and portraits? A real walkabout camera lens within a budget of say £200, any good recommendations?

Im pretty sure you can get more out of the kit lens of it is the 18-55 USM IS.. You seem to be having a touch of early onset "upgraditis"
Which "limitations" do you refer to?
The problem is you cannot get anything better for £200 unless it is second hand
The Tamron 17-55 is much better in that it is sharper , faster with aperture f2.8 , therefore able to get shallow DOF,and Bokeh
but
It doesnt have IS ( you may not need it often), AF can be noisy and it does hunt a bit in Low light and will set you back at least £350

There is a Sigma equivalent which is not as good as the Tamron (IMHO) but this is subjective and both the Sigma and Tamron are better tthan the kit lens

With due respect I think 2 weeks is not long enough to write off the kit lens or master the camera

I happily used the much malinged older Canon Kit lens on the 350D for 6 months before getting the 17-85 IS which was better but your current kit lens matches it ( or betters) it for optical ability

Have a think.. use the kit lens and save up or sell it and add the proceeds to £200 and get the Tamron

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is massively better but it is also massively costlier..

[severnsource]

Not sure what you mean when you say "the kit lens doesn't seem to have all that".

The kit lens is slightly lower quality than a prime lens or a good zoom but is more than capable of taking good portraits and landscapes. £200 won't get you anything better, you'd probably need to spend £500+ to get a worthwhile technical improvement. Of course if you want unusual perspective effects you may want something like the 10-22mm zoom, which is a lovely lens, but not really suitable for general purpose use and rather more than £200.

Unless you are a complete natural taking good photographs needs to be worked at. Look at other peoples pictures and work out what you like about them, think about what you are photographing; change the viewpoint to change perspective or the background; think about lighting; would a landscape be better taken early in the morning or late in the evening? and so on and on. There is lots of information on the web and in books to learn from.

Good photographs can be taken with the cheapest and simplest of cameras, it's just enormously easier with a good camera like yours.

[mark.carline]

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 hands down !

Go to your local camera shop and try it out. make sure you dont get one with a loose ring on the front.

[Pirate!!]

Ahoy!

I don't know what's available for your system, but I have the Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro which although not constant f/2.8, makes for an ideal kit lens upgrade. The IQ is excellent and it's affordable @ £219.04 from OSD.

Sigma (UK) lens specs.

Just another option for you.

[weetsie]

Originally Posted by senu

With due respect I think 2 weeks is not long enough to write off the kit lens or master the camera

i disagree!

i decided the kit lens was trash a few weeks after i bought my camera, colour, sharpness, focusing was very slow and in most cases alot worse than on my bridge camera.

i got the sigma f/2.8 24-70 and it sorted out all the things i didnt like about the kit lens, i bought it second hand for £230 so you might find one or the tamron 28-70 f/2.8 for £200 if you shop around.

[senu]

Originally Posted by weetsie

i disagree!
i decided the kit lens was trash a few weeks after i bought my camera, colour, sharpness, focusing was very slow and in most cases alot worse than on my bridge camera.

Having used the much poorer older kit lens ( without IS or USM) ,Im wondering if the OPs copy of this is a poor copy
This kit lens ( The Canon 18-55 IS USM) is not said to be " thrash" at all and is not a freebee bolt on to the camera

i got the sigma f/2.8 24-70 and it sorted out all the things i didnt like about the kit lens, i bought it second hand for £230 so you might find one or the tamron 28-70 f/2.8 for £200 if you shop around.

I find that 24mm minimum focal length on a Crop sensor may be a little long but yours and the OPs Milage may vary in that
In its totality my post merely suggested that it would be prudent to save up and get a better lens ( unless a second hand one was available) as anything better than the kit lens would cost more than £200 and simply swapping round similarly performing lenses might end up being a case of " musical chairs"
I still feel though that the kit lens isnt that bad and the lack of impressive results after 2 weeks of owning it may not be down to a poor lens unless it is indeed a poor copy

[weetsie]

the new kit lens is not USM, it is slow, loud and fails often. there is substantial chromatic aberration or at least there is on my kit lens and it is not sharp even stopped down.

you say its not worth the upgrade even though the sigma fixes all the above problems and gives a f/2.8 constant aperture?

[JagoPlasma]

have to agree that kit lense isnt very good, i found myself using the bigger kit lense all the time as it was better, i then upgraded to the 50mm 1.4 and its much better. its also twice what the OP wants to spend but if they are interested I will take some comparison shots

[cherokee1111]

Originally Posted by JagoPlasma

have to agree that kit lense isnt very good, i found myself using the bigger kit lense all the time as it was better, i then upgraded to the 50mm 1.4 and its much better. its also twice what the OP wants to spend but if they are interested I will take some comparison shots

yes please. great idea

[jradley]

Originally Posted by weetsie

the new kit lens is not USM, it is slow, loud and fails often. there is substantial chromatic aberration or at least there is on my kit lens and it is not sharp even stopped down.

Can you post some example photos that show the optical problems (complete with EXIF info) ? If we can see what you are seeing we may be able to spot a problem.

Whilst the kit lens does have limitations of a budget lens it is (normally) very capable and represents excellent value for money.

Re sharpness when stopped down - don't forget the lens will get softer once you stop down below about f10 or maybe even f8, due to diffraction. Do you have any filters on the front of it ?

Cheers,

John

[weetsie]

this is a crop of a photo of my desk with the kit lens showing chromatic aberration.

[tonkie]

Originally Posted by cherokee1111

Ok, having had the camera 2 weeks I can see the limitations of the kit lens

With due respect I think you are trying to run before you can walk, I know from my experience you will get better,stick with the kit lens for a while then see

[weaviemx5]

Can you post the full image with EXIF info and also is that a 100% crop or larger?

edit: Is that crop taken from the centre of the image or the corner? Pretty much every lens made will be softer at the corners than in the centre.

I used the older 18-55 non-IS kit lens for around 10 months before I chose to upgrade when I knew why I needed to. Although most people write off that lens, it was good enough (in combination with the older-tech 400D) for Digital Photo to run a double-page image as the opener to their Gallery section. I've used the newer 18-55is and, unless you do have a damaged lens, I couldn't see why good images weren't possible with it? Obviously, if you pay out over 3 times the price for a replacemnet (such as the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 that I use now) you will see improvements in focus/aperture etc but that doesn't mean you can't get a good shot when using it correctly.

Cheers
Steve

[weetsie]

Originally Posted by weaviemx5

Can you post the full image with EXIF info and also is that a 100% crop or larger?

100% crop

anyway, the kit lens is fine for what it is but the 3.5-4.5 aperture was not cutting it for me and there are several other reasons that i have said in this thread why i don't like that lens. for £50 its great, but whats wrong with wanting to spend a bit more on a far superior lens?