Advice on lens sharpness

If you zoom in on the UPC code label, you can see the number of pixels that
the black bars fade to white over. This is virtually identical between your
18-55 and 24-105mm lenses.

What your pictures show is just how good optically the 18-55mm lens is. It
feels cheap, looks cheap, is light and small, but optically it is
considerably better than people give it credit for. You have to spend a lot
to get better image quality. It's not like the old 28-80 and 28-90 kit
lenses that Canon shipped with most of the film SLRs. It is a lot better.

If you work around its limitations, rotate your polarizer or ND grad filter
after focussing, stop down a little, fix the CA with Adobe Camera Raw etc,
you can get very good pictures from the 18-55. Unfortunately Canon charges
you extra for the hood for this lens. Canon does put some good design into
the 18-55mm lens though. It has a circular aperture and one aspheric
element. It also has a fairly large image circle compared to the other EF-S
lenses (except for the 60mm macro). With a 12mm extension tube, I have
mounted it on a Canon Elan II film camera. There is enough coverage above
20mm for the full frame. Of course the coverage would be less without the
extension tube. At 18mm the corners have visibly darkened on a film camera.
This may explain the fairly low light fall-off for this lens compared to
others. I also like how it sort of self centers at 28mm (normal focal
length for the XT). The 18-55 can suffer from bad ghosting flare if a UV
filter is fitted and there are point light sources within the frame or very
close to it. It is important to remove the filter for these situations.

What you are paying for with your 24-105 mostly is a larger image circle,
better build materials and quality, weather sealing, much more glass (F/4 at
105mm needs a 26.25mm clear aperture compared to 9.82mm for f/5.6 at 55mm),
the image stabilizer ($$), internal focussing silent USM focussing motor,
metal lens mount, distance scale, larger range, included hood, 3 aspheric
elements, super UD glass, non-rotating front element etc. These are all
good things and worth the money, but as you have seen, you didn't buy much
more sharpness.

The primary benefits of the 24-105 are in the convenience of use, larger
aperture from 31mm and above (the 18-55 is f/4 or better from 30 and below),
the image stabilizer which is fantastic and longer telephoto range.

The drawbacks to the 24-105mm are of course cost, weight, and size.

Don't get rid of your 18-55 yet. It fits easily in a jacket pocket for when
you need a quick wide angle.


wrote in message
...
Hi,

Came into a bit of money and thought that I would update my EOS350D with
an
L lens. Always wanted one of these since I have a 50E many moons ago.
Did
a bit of research and purchased a 24-105 F4 L. I just wanted the best
walkabout lens that I could afford that wwas not too heavy, this seemed to
fit the bill.

Got it, did the usual photographed some walls and compared the output with
that of the standard efs 18-55.

See the RAW samples here, I may be expecting too much, I don;t know, but
the
difference to my eye does not warrant the expense that I paid for the L
lens. Can someone explain if there is more to it or am I just being
paranoid. To my mind the image is no sharper on the L lens.

Anyway the two raw files in canon format are at www.ukbrown.net/rawtest

default wrote:
If you zoom in on the UPC code label, you can see the number of pixels that
the black bars fade to white over. This is virtually identical between your
18-55 and 24-105mm lenses.

What your pictures show is just how good optically the 18-55mm lens is. It
feels cheap, looks cheap, is light and small, but optically it is
considerably better than people give it credit for. You have to spend a lot
to get better image quality. It's not like the old 28-80 and 28-90 kit
lenses that Canon shipped with most of the film SLRs. It is a lot better.


It is a horrible lens. This review seems to say it's good for the
money ($100) but the pictures clearly show otherwise. You don't see
this radical a difference between any other mfgs entry level and pro
lenses.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
default wrote:
If you zoom in on the UPC code label, you can see the number of pixels
that
the black bars fade to white over. This is virtually identical between
your
18-55 and 24-105mm lenses.

What your pictures show is just how good optically the 18-55mm lens is.
It
feels cheap, looks cheap, is light and small, but optically it is
considerably better than people give it credit for. You have to spend a
lot
to get better image quality. It's not like the old 28-80 and 28-90 kit
lenses that Canon shipped with most of the film SLRs. It is a lot
better.


It is a horrible lens. This review seems to say it's good for the
money ($100) but the pictures clearly show otherwise. You don't see
this radical a difference between any other mfgs entry level and pro
lenses.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout


I don't trust that review. It is very old, from the original 300D and the
original 18-55, but more importantly, the 24-70mm pictures show strong
sharpening halos and the 18-55mm images do not. I suspect that they screwed
up and sharpened one set and not the other. The differences would be
smaller then if both were processed the same.

It is a horrible lens. This review seems to say it's good for the
money ($100) but the pictures clearly show otherwise. You don't see
this radical a difference between any other mfgs entry level and pro
lenses.

Naw (hardly horrible), it is a cheap lens and most folks know that cheap
means compromised. I own one, by the way. Do you own one RichA, by the
way?

Charles Schuler wrote:
It is a horrible lens. This review seems to say it's good for the
money ($100) but the pictures clearly show otherwise. You don't see
this radical a difference between any other mfgs entry level and pro
lenses.

Naw (hardly horrible), it is a cheap lens and most folks know that cheap
means compromised. I own one, by the way.

My condolences. No wonder you use L-glass.

Do you own one RichA, by the
way?

Not unless it was the last DSLR lens on Earth.
Then it would be a toss-up between it and a body cap with a pin-hole
bored through it.

On 25 Oct 2006 18:56:04 -0700, "RichA" wrote:


Charles Schuler wrote:
It is a horrible lens. This review seems to say it's good for the
money ($100) but the pictures clearly show otherwise. You don't see
this radical a difference between any other mfgs entry level and pro
lenses.

Naw (hardly horrible), it is a cheap lens and most folks know that cheap
means compromised. I own one, by the way.

My condolences. No wonder you use L-glass.

Do you own one RichA, by the
way?

Not unless it was the last DSLR lens on Earth.
Then it would be a toss-up between it and a body cap with a pin-hole
bored through it.

And since body caps are made of plastic, I guess that's one more
camera you'll never buy.


TR

Tom Ross wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 18:56:04 -0700, "RichA" wrote:


Charles Schuler wrote:
It is a horrible lens. This review seems to say it's good for the
money ($100) but the pictures clearly show otherwise. You don't see
this radical a difference between any other mfgs entry level and pro
lenses.

Naw (hardly horrible), it is a cheap lens and most folks know that cheap
means compromised. I own one, by the way.

My condolences. No wonder you use L-glass.

Do you own one RichA, by the
way?

Not unless it was the last DSLR lens on Earth.
Then it would be a toss-up between it and a body cap with a pin-hole
bored through it.

And since body caps are made of plastic, I guess that's one more
camera you'll never buy.


TR

Honestly, you can buy a Canon 20D now with the kit lens for just over
$800.00 You'd either have to be crazy to buy the XTi over it or in
desperate need of those extra pixels. The quality and ergonomic
differences between the two bodies is astronomic.
..

Honestly, you can buy a Canon 20D now with the kit lens for just over
$800.00 You'd either have to be crazy to buy the XTi over it or in
desperate need of those extra pixels. The quality and ergonomic
differences between the two bodies is astronomic.

Astronomic? As billions and billions ala Carl Sagan?