"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Skip M wrote:


As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled
with my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26
Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that
runs about $100.

I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will do
well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...

Cheers,
Alan.


You're right, f8 at 1/200. But I feel that the lens is in no way as
scabrous as many portray it. Stopped down, or no, there are lenses that
won't perform as well, the Vivitar 17-35 AF lens springs to mind. And it
costs more than the Canon.

I've yet to hear (or maybe remember) anything good about any Vivitar lens.

As I said in another post, some Canon kit lenses are better than their
competitor company counterparts. I'd have little trouble believing the
18-55 is decent too. Having said that, it just occured to me to go to a
source:

... page 159 of the March 2004 (No. 261) issue of Chasseur D'Images
reports on the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6:

scores after measurement as being:

Distortion: 4/5
Vignetting: 3/5
Ctr sharp: 3/5
Edge sharp: 3/5
Overal sco 3/5

Comments:

wide angle /wide open vignetting: poor
f/5.6: good (they say "honorable results" which
from the French also describes whores who overcharged Nazi officers while
giving them syphillis... interpret appropriately)

Chromatic abberations: short FL, noticeable, overall not too bad for an
'economical' lens.

Distortion: bad pincushion from 18 to 28mm, though not "catastrophically
so" for a zoom. From 28 up, negligible.

Optical qualities: "Forget wide open!" If used from f/5.6 to f/16 then
the center sharpness is darned satisying for a lens of this price. On the
edges, 'drags' a bit. [They use the word "fichtrement" ... 'darned', and
"traine" .. 'drags' some things just don't translate well]

Best used f/8 to f/11 is their conclusion ... and I swear I didn't look up
the report for my prev. reply!

The accompanying graphs do show the best sagital/tangential performance at
55mm, f/11 - f/16; and very good at 25mm from f/5.6 to f/16.

If you like, I'll scan the report summary (4" x 8" roughly) and e-mail it
to you... your High School French (or Spanish) should suffice.

Cheers,
Alan.


Nah, that's ok, it's pretty similar to my own experience, it's just that the
lens gets excoriated beyond what's justified. For the price, it's not bad,
that's all.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com