Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 18, 2005, 4:39 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10
Default

is the lens that come with the Canon 300d any good or is it as bad as some say



thanks
happysnapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 18, 2005, 11:28 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

It's a decent lens, it really is. Sites like Photozone give it a much lower rating than it's due. Read a review on Photo.net by Bob Atkins. It's very fair. At the very widest and longest ends it's a little soft if shot wide open. If you stop down to f8 or f11 it will do a very good job across its range. It is extremely cheap feeling. There's no doubt you're shooting with a $100 lens, but the results are better than most $100 lenses.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 1:13 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Default

I guess it depends on what your expectations are. I have had the rebel for about 10 days. i took some photos with the 18-55 and i will never use it again. It performed ok outside in bright light. Inside it was simply hideous. I now have the 17-40 L after returning the Sigma 17-35 HSM. If you have still have doubts i will post a test photo I took inside at my office next week, its so awful its comical. Bad CA on lights unsharp ugly ugly ugly...:shock:
epocenter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2005, 9:26 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi,

The lens is not as bad as everyone says. It does a good job. Everybody compares this lens to higher end lenses, Like comparing Apples to Bannanas.

Learn the lens. It has it quirks just like any other lens. It is not the fastest, But it does the job.

Here is a shot form the recent international ski jumps in my area. I was within 10' of the jumper and they are going about 60 MPH.

bluwing
Attached Images
 
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2005, 11:47 AM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

bluwing is correct:
Quote:
The lens is not as bad as everyone says. It does a good job. Everybody compares this lens to higher end lenses, Like comparing Apples to Bannanas.
This has been discussed before regarding the EF-s series: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...62&forum_id=65


-> Even wide open it's still sharper than the L, see for yourself:

18-55mm: vs: for the 17-40mm L



Now @ the tele:

18-55mm: vs: for the 17-40mm L


It's actually quite a decent... really (i.e. price has nothing to do with it)!!!

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2005, 11:58 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BTW the Sigma 17-35 also bests the 17-40 L in measureable sharpness (even despite the f/2.8 ): :idea:


@ 17mm: and @ 35mm:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2005, 2:19 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10
Default

Thanks for the replys, looks like i will go for the 350d with 18mm-55mmef-s , i can get it for the same price as the D70

thanks
happysnapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2005, 11:24 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Default

graph data is one thing and the real world another, I have the 18-55, had the sigma 17-35 and now have the canon 17-40 and I can say after firing off a few hundred shots on each lens in different conditions the canon 17-40 blows away theother 2, doesnt do as well below 4.0 ....:? I was generally pleased with the Sigma but for 150 more the canon was a no brainer. I am generally happy with the 18-55 outside in bright light, but is shows mucho CA, at least the lens i have.... The 18-55 did much better than the sigma in "macro" mode but did show CA and the sigma didnt.... just my 3 cents....
epocenter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2005, 7:05 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I'm quite please with the Sigma (even in low light corner to corner), and this not a graph:








IMHO the $150 for the L is not as critical as the f/2.8 that the Sigma provided for thoses extra minutes of sunrise/sunset where the sun color can change quite dramatically with moving seascapes... Quite useful at f/2.8 don't you think (notice the shallow DOF or see exif data)?


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2005, 4:17 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Default

A couple photos. This one hand held 1/30 sec. f 3.5 at 18mm.... This is an example of many photos I have taken with this lens in poor indoor lighting with no flash. If you use a flash if improves alot. My 17-40 is way way better in the same lighting...
Attached Images
 
epocenter is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:15 AM.