[Recovered Thread: 82971]

[mtclimber]

perpatetic-

I agree with your excellent analysis concerning the Canon kit lens.Tagging the Canon kit lens, as I did,was uncalled for, and I apologize to you personally, and to any Canon owner who might have taken offence.

Perhaps it is the particular sample of the kit lens that I own. And I must admit that I have used it in a pinch. It is just not my favorite Canon lens. It works fine, and I am sure that there are other posters in the forumwho value its performance highly.

So please forgivemy rather emotional reaction.

MT

[Idan]

Is there is any good cheap alternative to the kit lens of the Canon Rebel XT ?

[peripatetic]

Well I certainly don't need a personal apology. :?

The 18-55 is poor in many respects. The build quality is not good, the distortion can be quite high, it doesn't have a particularly fast focus, there can be CA under certain circumstances. However, the same is true of most consumer-grade lenses from all manufacturers.

And if you look at the MTF charts it's actually a fairly sharp lens. I got the kit lens with my 20D, because I wanted the camera in time for a holiday and couldn't get the 17-85 as part of a kit. I used it for about 5 months before upgrading and I have to say that at the 55mm end it was plenty sharp, in general I don't do the kind of photography (as most people don't) where distortion is particularly an issue, and any CA was easily correctible.

It served its purpose well, and is certainly better than other cheap lenses I have owned, including a 28-90mm Canon.

I'm sure there are some bad copies out there, but it gets such a bum rap, and IMO is mostly not deserving of it. What do you expect from a $70 lens? And under many conditions you would be very hard pressed to tell the photos it produces from the 17-40L.

It's really not as bad as many people make out, and most of the nasty comments it gets on the internet are due to someone buying and expensive camera and then taking rubbish pictures. Instead of blaming themselves they blame the lens. I find it quite amazing that the more I practice and learn about photography the better my equipment seems to get.

[Idan]

How does the Rebel XT 18-55m kit performs in dim light ?

[JimC]

Idan wrote:

Is there is any good cheap alternative to the kit lens of the Canon Rebel XT ?

What I usually tell someone with no experience with lenses buying their first DSLR type camera is to get the kit lens, unless they have a specific need for something different (for example, a bright zoom for use indoors without a flash).

That goes for the kit lens you can get with the Nikon D50, Canon Rebel XT or KM 5D.

Why? They're very inexpensive when you buy them in the camera kits, and they're small and light with good basic focal range, starting out at a relatively wide angle of view compared to other lenses you'll find of similar quality in their price range considering what you're paying for them in the kits.

If you decide you need something different later, sell it on Ebay. ;-)

You're buying the lens in a kit for less than it's selling for separately, so why not get one? It's not like you're likely to lose much selling it later if you decide you don't want to keep it.

Then, use if for a while until you have a better understanding of your needs, based on where the lens is a limiting factor (not wide enough, long enough, bright enough, sharp enough, etc.). Chances are, you're going to be the limiting factor until you gain some experience, not the lens.

Consider it a learning tool/expense. It's much cheaper than going out and spending a bunch of money on lenses you may not use or need, even if you couldn't sell it later.

[Idan]

Does the Canon Rebel XT kit softness is correctable ?

[JimC]

Idan wrote:

How does the Rebel XT 18-55m kit performs in dim light ?

If you want to shoot moving subjects indoors without a flash or tripod, the kit lenses are not going to cut it.

In a zoom lens, you'll want one with a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout the focal range for indoor use without a flash. That adds size, weight and cost.

To put things into perspective, f/2.8 is 4 times as bright as f/5.6 (which is the maximum aperture available on the long end of the kit lens).

In some lighting, f/2.8 may not be enough either, and you'll want a bright prime.

Regardless of the camera you choose, pick yourself up a bright 50mm f/1.8 (Canon or Nikon) or 50mm f/1.7 (KM) for when you do need to shoot in low light without a flash.

That's your least expensive entry point for a good, sharp and bright lens for existing light use, and you can also use it for when you want sharper photos and/or a shallower depth of field for other purposes like portaits.

[Idan]

Thanks for the reply as far as I read they all performs very good - so it is not much an issue 200 more or less.

[Idan]

I've heard about dust problem on the sensor, did you encountered any dust on your DSLR and if so after how much time since you bought your camera and how do you clean it ?

Why does Olympus is the only one that solved this problem so elegantly ? (SSWF)

[JimC]

Idan wrote:

What about battery life of the leading manufacturers, do them all performs great ? Is it a real issue when deciding which camera to buy ? -- note: I intend to shoot alot

You're asking questions faster than we can respond. LOL

Read the conclusion sections in the reviews for typical battery life from cameras reviewed. You'll see a brief discussion of it there. The conclusion section (last page before samples) is also where you'll find the "meat" of the review (impressions on menus, ergonomics, AF speed/accuracy, image quality indoors and outdoors, etc.).

YMMV since flash use, playback of photos with the LCD, use of menus to change settings requiring the LCD, etc., all drain the battery more than shooting would alone.

But, battery life is very good from all of the entry level DSLR models. Always buy a spare(s), though.