Ranking the worst of the kit lenses

Basic Wedge wrote:
My own results agree. I rate the Olympus 14-54 as a good, sharp lens.
I've
also seen good results from the Nikon 18-70. I have heard the Canon
17-55 is
a lens to avoid, while the 17-85 is a better choice. Did I hear
correctly,
some of Konica Minolta's lenses are actually made for them by Tamron?

If you have the money then you can avoid the 18-55mm. But if you are on
a budget then the Canon 18-55mm offers very good value for money. It
can't be used in MF very well because the MF is a bit wobbly and you
won't get much out of it in low-light but other than that the image
quality is pretty good given its price.

- Siddhartha

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

" Stan Birch wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:17:48 -0400, RichA wrote:

For the most part, the Canon 18-55 kit lens is not all that bad, and
serves a significantly credible purpose.

I bought a 50 1.8 having been told about its outstanding qualities.
I was shocked to find test shots of similar subjects taken using the 18-55
and 50 1.8 were indistinguishable on screen.


It's easy to convince one's self of anything.

Greg

Tumbleweed wrote:
I bought a 50 1.8 having been told about its outstanding qualities.
I was shocked to find test shots of similar subjects taken using the
18-55
and 50 1.8 were indistinguishable on screen.
Pulling up the corners and edges 'till the pixels were obvious they
were
still on a par.
Either I've got a flukey good 18-55 or an inferior 50 1.8

But who cares about MTF data - the image is everything ;o)

True. I compared my 18-55mm with a Pentax Super Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.7.
I couldn't tell much difference.

- Siddhartha

"G.T." wrote in message
...

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

" Stan Birch wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:17:48 -0400, RichA wrote:

For the most part, the Canon 18-55 kit lens is not all that bad,
and
serves a significantly credible purpose.

I bought a 50 1.8 having been told about its outstanding qualities.
I was shocked to find test shots of similar subjects taken using
the 18-55
and 50 1.8 were indistinguishable on screen.


It's easy to convince one's self of anything.


That's true, even if it isn't germane to a specific instance.

--
Frank ess

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:59:22 -0400, Stacey wrote:

RichA wrote:



Where did you gather this? The olympus kit lens (both the 14-54 and the
cheap 14-45) has been ranked as one of the best kit lenses by several
testers.

So the weak point I've seen is actually the Olympus camera, the E-300
itself?


ZzYawn...

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...der_id=1189841

Yea, this camera really is ****ty..

Your shots are excellent, saturated and sharp


Really?- those ducks look as though they're swimming in an oil slick - the
result of noise post-processing?, or the infamous in-camera noise
'smearing'?

RichA wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:59:22 -0400, Stacey wrote:

RichA wrote:



Where did you gather this? The olympus kit lens (both the 14-54 and the
cheap 14-45) has been ranked as one of the best kit lenses by several
testers.

So the weak point I've seen is actually the Olympus camera, the E-300
itself?


ZzYawn...

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...der_id=1189841

Yea, this camera really is ****ty..

Your shots are excellent, saturated and sharp.

Exactly and look great printed 11X14 and up as well..


"Problem" doesn't mean bad, just not as good as similarly priced
cameras from other manufacturers.

I've seen the color saturation of some of these "better" cameras and for me
they don't look better, YMMV which is why people buy different cameras.


In most tests I've
seen they've scored it lower for overall image quality
than Canon's Rebel XT and the new Pentax, principally because
of noise.

Looking at 100% crops, I agree the canon is better. But I don't view images
at 100% do you?


So it's unlikely you'd see the problem much in well-lit
shots where you can use low ISO speeds.
Shots like this might be an issue though;

http://www.photozo.com/album/showpho...cat=500&page=1


Might be, then again might not. BTW several of those shots at my site where
shot at ISO400, some at ISO 100. Can you pick out which is which without
looking at the EXIF data?

--

Stacey

Parker wrote:


"RichA" wrote in message


Your shots are excellent, saturated and sharp


Really?- those ducks look as though they're swimming in an oil slick -

I suppose you have never heard of "selective focus"? That shot was done with
the lens wide open so of course -only- the front duck is going to be in
focus...

Typical ignorant coment from an OM basher..

--

Stacey

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Stacey wrote:
Where did you gather this? The olympus kit lens (both the 14-54 and
the
cheap 14-45) has been ranked as one of the best kit lenses by several
testers.

The 14-45mm is cheap? Its listed at $250 at B&H.

And the "kit" is only $100 more with the lens... Why would you buy the body
only and then the lens?



--

Stacey

Siddhartha Jain wrote:


True. I compared my 18-55mm with a Pentax Super Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.7.
I couldn't tell much difference.



LOL
--

Stacey

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:00:48 -0400, Stacey wrote:

RichA wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:59:22 -0400, Stacey wrote:

RichA wrote:



Where did you gather this? The olympus kit lens (both the 14-54 and the
cheap 14-45) has been ranked as one of the best kit lenses by several
testers.

So the weak point I've seen is actually the Olympus camera, the E-300
itself?


ZzYawn...

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...der_id=1189841

Yea, this camera really is ****ty..

Your shots are excellent, saturated and sharp.

Exactly and look great printed 11X14 and up as well..


"Problem" doesn't mean bad, just not as good as similarly priced
cameras from other manufacturers.

I've seen the color saturation of some of these "better" cameras and for me
they don't look better, YMMV which is why people buy different cameras.


In most tests I've
seen they've scored it lower for overall image quality
than Canon's Rebel XT and the new Pentax, principally because
of noise.

Looking at 100% crops, I agree the canon is better. But I don't view images
at 100% do you?


So it's unlikely you'd see the problem much in well-lit
shots where you can use low ISO speeds.
Shots like this might be an issue though;

http://www.photozo.com/album/showpho...cat=500&page=1


Might be, then again might not. BTW several of those shots at my site where
shot at ISO400, some at ISO 100. Can you pick out which is which without
looking at the EXIF data?

I don't think so. Maybe the duckie one was at 400?
But I'm wondering why you'd need to shoot at 400 unless
you were doing really close-in macro without a flash or there was some
major action involved since all the shots appear to have
been taken in sunny weather?
-Rich