[nikonuser11]

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

[nikonuser11]

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?

[jradley]

Originally Posted by weetsie

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

The problem with crops is we can't tell by how much it's cropped, and with no EXIF information we can't tell what settings or focal length was used either. The above photo of DVD's on the surface doesn't look great, but I suspect that's a heavy crop of a shot taken at 18mm and maybe wide-ish aperture...

Here's an example I did just now - straight off the camera (standard picture mode) using on baord flash:

55mm/f8.0

100% crop of above

100% crop of shot taken at 18mm

Both crops look sharper than yours, but the one at 55mm particularly so.

I suspect either a technique issue or a bad copy of the lens.

Cheers,

John

[jradley]

Originally Posted by weetsie

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?

Actually I totally agree with that. The problem is we don't know from the OP if his dissatisfaction is due to technique, which won't be fixed by spending £200.

If like you the OP wants/needs to shoot at f3.5 or thereabouts and get tack sharp images then yes, he needs to spend some money. But maybe he's shooting wide open and doesn't realise it and could easily stop down to f5.6 and get brilliant photos for no money. That's why I questioned the info behind the shot.

I posted my shots of the DVD's just to show that the lens is really capable of much better image quality than your shot might imply.

Cheers,

John

[weaviemx5]

As above, there's nothing wrong with spending out for a better lens. My point is just as above, we don't know what the OP thinks is wrong with it?

Obviously, we all get upgradeitis though

Steve

[nikonuser11]

my issue is that its just not sharp enough and in fact my point'n'press did better, maybe its the settings, but I used numerous settings recommended here (larger and smaller fstop, faster and slower shutter speeds, increase and decrease focal lenght) and tried a few different ones but nothing as sharp as the DVD covers.
How can I tell if the lens has issues?

[JagoPlasma]

jradley, i appreciate you were probably just doing rush shots, but you do realise they were out of focus?

I think the most important thing is will cherokee1111 appreciate a higher quality lense?

when i first upgraded to the 50mm 1.4 i couldnt tell much difference, and for a £400 lense it was going straight back! but when i gave it a bit more time and tried difference things i found the colours to be much better (a reason why you should buy it over the 1.8). it was a lot sharper and the twinkle it gave people in the eyes was awesome
(obv there are other good points but im not going to write an essay)

EDIT: After jst reading the OP's last reply, id say you best check for focus issues as it is a common thing on the 450d. definately try manual focusing using live view + 10x magnification

[weaviemx5]

Originally Posted by cherokee1111

How can I tell if the lens has issues?

The best test is to compare your lens to another 18-55is in a static situation, preferably tripod-mounted in good light. Might be worth going into a High Street store like Jessops and ask if you can try a comparison as you're considering a warranty return. If they get the idea that you'd also consider an upgrade they'll let you do whatever you like!

Cheers
Steve

[senu]

Originally Posted by JagoPlasma

I think the most important thing is will cherokee1111 appreciate a higher quality lense?

Probably as the picture will be sharper anyway , but the point about the kit lens is that if you use it to its limits you would appreciate a better lens even more
I guess some of the advise to slow down about buying here is a feeling that the OP is giving up on the lens too quickly...

when i first upgraded to the 50mm 1.4 i couldnt tell much difference, and for a £400 lense it was going straight back! but when i gave it a bit more time and tried difference things i found the colours to be much better (a reason why you should buy it over the 1.8). it was a lot sharper and the twinkle it gave people in the eyes was awesome
(obv there are other good points but im not going to write an essay)

I also have both the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4
My copy of 1.4 was nearer the £220 mark and although it is better than the 1.8 ( Colour, Bokeh, build quality, AF speed Accuracy) it isnt actually sharper IMHO
What is true is that you can actually use it at 1.4 where you would prefer not to go below F 2.2 with the 1.8

[JagoPlasma]

oh yea just checked my invoice, it was £299 for the lense
I couldnt say if the 1.4 was sharper than the 1.8, but it was sharper than my kit lenses. when reading reviews it was obvious that the colours were much better on the 1.4

[nikonuser11]

what about this fellas?
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6

seems to tick a lot of boxes?

[weetsie]

Originally Posted by cherokee1111

what about this fellas?
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6

seems to tick a lot of boxes?

if you were to get the canon 28-135 you would get IS and glorious ring USM and obviously more zoom.

on the downside it would not be as good for portrait or landscape as you would lose even more wide angle (than the sigma 24-70) and knocking the background out of focus for portraits is alot harder at f/4.5 than it is at f/2.8 (on the sigma 24-70 and tamron 28-75).

[dazza74]

top post above

tamron 17-50 2.8 is one of the few lenses that's just wide enough to get away with landscaping and just fast enough for portraits

[senu]

I think you need to be wary of ignoring the wide angle needs of everyday photography
28mm or even 24mm at the lowest Focal lenght on a crop sensor isnt quite wide enough IMHO

[weetsie]

Originally Posted by senu

I think you need to be wary of ignoring the wide angle needs of everyday photography
28mm or even 24mm at the lowest Focal lenght on a crop sensor isnt quite wide enough IMHO

this is what i was wondering before i bought the 24-70, i looked through my photos that i had taken in the last few weeks with the kits lens and about 10% of them were taken at 18mm. this made me thing again about buying the 24-70 but then i realised i was mainly shooting at 18mm to get f/3.5 because i was stuggling to get enough light and i also noticed when looking through the pictures that i was taking photos at 18mm of things really close and i could of easily walked backwards a few yards and taken at 35-55mm.

the bonus of not having such wide angle for me is that it makes me move around and think about composition alot more than i used to.

you could also try using the kit lens at 35mm and no wider to see how you get on, if you find yourself walking backwards into walls it means you need a lens with more wide angle

[RobDickinson]

Shooting what at f3.5 due to low light?

At what ISO?

The kit lens will likely be at its total worst wide open (f3.5) and at 18mm, will give a shallow DOF making things look bad (out of focus) and if your still struggling for speed you will have hand shake. You are waiting for the IS to cut in and steady it up too?

An f2.8 lens will give you barely any more 'light' than an f3.5 one - will still leave you with a shallow DOF and wont have IS to help with the hand shakes (ignoring the 28-135 which isnt worth the bother).

If you are REALY struggling for light you have 3 real options.
1 - use a tripod - if the subject isnt moving this is THE best deal. Now you can shoot at f8 and get a sharp pic.
2 - Use a flash. Subject moving? Then you need to add light , onboard flahs at a pinch .. or ..
3 - buy a very fast prime and shoot high ISO. I shoot indoors with a 50/1.8 and ISO 800-1600 with good enough shutter speeds.

Honestly, unless you want VERY thin DOF or a very fast lens the IS kit lens is fine.

[weetsie]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

Shooting what at f3.5 due to low light?

At what ISO?

The kit lens will likely be at its total worst wide open (f3.5) and at 18mm, will give a shallow DOF making things look bad (out of focus) and if your still struggling for speed you will have hand shake. You are waiting for the IS to cut in and steady it up too?

An f2.8 lens will give you barely any more 'light' than an f3.5 one - will still leave you with a shallow DOF and wont have IS to help with the hand shakes (ignoring the 28-135 which isnt worth the bother).

If you are REALY struggling for light you have 3 real options.
1 - use a tripod - if the subject isnt moving this is THE best deal. Now you can shoot at f8 and get a sharp pic.
2 - Use a flash. Subject moving? Then you need to add light , onboard flahs at a pinch .. or ..
3 - buy a very fast prime and shoot high ISO. I shoot indoors with a 50/1.8 and ISO 800-1600 with good enough shutter speeds.

Honestly, unless you want VERY thin DOF or a very fast lens the IS kit lens is fine.

yes, the kit lens is at its worse wide open at 18mm but its no good saying its better at 5.6-8 when that is not practical for me, just like using a tripod or flash isnt either.

you say unless i want a shallow DOF or fast lens the kit lens is fine but my problems with the kit lens were that it was too slow, not sharp, slow and unaccurate AF, rotating front element when using a polarizer and chromatic aberration.

as for shooting at high iso, i dont know what camera you have but anything past 400 on the 450D is really noisy.

and the best part about getting the 24-70 that i didn't realize at the time is that because of the weight and size of the lens i can properly get my hand around it and rest the body on my arm and dig my elbow in above my pelvis which allows me to take handheld photos down to half a second without blur. on the kit lens because it is so light i get verticle camera shake. see attached pics:

Kit lens, best out of 10, 55MM - 1/2 - F5.6 - ISO400 - IS on
this is obviously far too much camera shake for the photo to be usable

24-70, best out of 10, 45MM - 1/2 - F5.6 - ISO400 - no IS
unlike the kit lens i consider half of them usable.

not only can i take less blurry photos with my 24-70 without IS i also have the option of stopping down twice at 55MM.

you may not understand or agree with my ways of doing things but the 24-70 has made taking pictures aw hole lot easier than before and it is giving me sharper, better quality photos and also more opportunities to get the photos in the first place.