Canon's 18 ~ 55 "Kit" lens examples

"RichA" wrote in message
...


Apologies, for some reason I thought the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro had a
max
aperture of f16, not sure what brain fart led me to that conclusion, it
has
a max aperture of f32. And that's a shot of a 1/18th scale model, not a
full size car.

Now that is funny. I thought it looked kind of "detailess."
-Rich

Try this one. 1/18th 365 GTB/4.
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...Cars&picture=1
A little better detail, but still, what can you expect for $60?

http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares...oduct&ID=83048

Yeah, but that's 1/4 scale, that Ferrari is much smaller, the entire car is
about the length of that engine.
I read about a guy in Italy who built 1/18 scale Ferraris that had actually
functional engines, trannys and suspensions, but the ran in the $15,000
range.

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

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
wrote:

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

wrote:

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

Skip M wrote:

You're right, then, we do.
Not f22, but f16:

Hmm I did say F22 didn't I?



It sharpens very well; try it.


Again I said F22 not F16... Again F22 is going to look pretty soft
compared to f11 or even f16. If it doesn't, the lens must be a REAL POS!

Why did you cut out the actual sentence I replied to, and nothing else:


Because I said --AT F22 IT SHOULD LOOK SOFT-- and you guys start talking
about a shot at f16 downsized to the web and then cranking USM mask into
it? And yes that shot is SOFT even if it was shot at f16.. If he's too
dumb
to actually sharpen images he posts as an example of how sharp a lens at
f16 is, I should do it for him? I doubt you can get that "sharp" without
introducing all sorts of artifacts.

I didn't downsize that image, the site did, so my control over the sharpness
was minimal. And I already said I was mistaken about the image being at max
aperture. Cripes, Stacey, is photography your hobby, or is arguing?


Doesn't look that sharp to me, even downsampled for the web..

??????

You are a sad liar.


A "liar?

So you're trying to claim shots done at f22 look sharp? (which no one has
even posted one yet) And that a small downsampled image from a tamron
macro
lens which you then crank USM into is a "test" of the 18-55 at f22? And
of
course NONE of the sample images posted are with the 18-55 lens which is
the title of this thread?

Au contrair, my post of 7/17, 8:21pm was indeed taken with that lens.
Admittedly, not at f22 or f4 or f5.6, but it is there, as are other samples.
And my post of the image from the Tamron was in response to your shot that
no image at f22 could look good, not any comment about the 18-55. I was
mistaken (as already stated) that f16 was the maximum aperture for that
lens. And f22 should look ok with it, since f32 is its max.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

wrote:


I didn't say anything about that. You can't pick and choose which of
your statements people should respond to.

Sure I can..

You made an absolute,
independent statement that said that the image he linked to was not
sharp, even for a downsampled web image. In a statement like that, the
f-stop has no relevance.

Sure it does when we are talking about sharpness and he supplies an example
shot at a specific f stop to refute my statement. You'd think he would at
least bother to make sure the shot was sharp if trying to prove this point
wouldn't you?



(which no one has
even posted one yet)

I don't care. That's *NOT* what *I* was responding about.

So stay with the program..


And that a small downsampled image from a tamron macro
lens which you then crank USM into is a "test" of the 18-55 at f22?

Don't be stupid. You said the image wasn't sharp. My reply had
absolutely *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with your rant about f-stop. I
told you why it wasn't sharp; it needed to be sharpened, as downsized
images often are.


So lets see the "fixed" one and how many artifacts you introduced making it
look sharp.. It's not my job to prove you are right..

--

Stacey

Skip M wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
I doubt you can get that "sharp" without
introducing all sorts of artifacts.

I didn't downsize that image, the site did, so my control over the
sharpness
was minimal.

I guess that's as good of an excuse as any. Why would you do that anyway? So
the images you display won't look their best?


And I already said I was mistaken about the image being at
max
aperture. Cripes, Stacey, is photography your hobby, or is arguing?


Yea it's a good thing you don't argue about anything here... :-)


Au contrair, my post of 7/17, 8:21pm was indeed taken with that lens.

Way stopped down at it's one "OK" fstop setting..

And my post of the image from the Tamron was in response to your
shot that
no image at f22 could look good,

So you post an image that isn't very sharp, shot at another fstop than we
were discussing to prove what?

--

Stacey

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
I doubt you can get that "sharp" without
introducing all sorts of artifacts.

I didn't downsize that image, the site did, so my control over the
sharpness
was minimal.

I guess that's as good of an excuse as any. Why would you do that anyway?
So
the images you display won't look their best?
Like I said, I didn't do it. They did it to save bandwidth, I presume. One
reason I post my stuff on Pbase, now...


And I already said I was mistaken about the image being at
max
aperture. Cripes, Stacey, is photography your hobby, or is arguing?


Yea it's a good thing you don't argue about anything here... :-)


Au contrair, my post of 7/17, 8:21pm was indeed taken with that lens.

Way stopped down at it's one "OK" fstop setting..

And my post of the image from the Tamron was in response to your
shot that
no image at f22 could look good,

So you post an image that isn't very sharp, shot at another fstop than we
were discussing to prove what?

--

Stacey

The Studio of Foto Ryadia wrote:

Plenty of knockers for this lens in these groups recently. After having
used one for about 1600 clicks and getting images well worth
publication, I can only conclude the deciples of EOS knocking this lens
as "total crap" have never actually used one or they would have a
different story to tell. Sure it's not a $2600 (AUD) "L" series by any
means but it certainly is not deserving of the description piled on it
recently and most definitely is a really nice lens to start with.

I've found my 300D's "kit" EF-S 18-55 to be a very good lens... for
what's essentially a $50 zoom lens.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0529-2, 07/21/2005
Tested on: 7/24/2005 3:10:10 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com