Canon 18-55 "Kit" lens

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yesterday was La Jolla Classic cars-in-the-park-at-the-cove day. My
first genuine "assignment". I started with the "Kit" lens, changed to
the 10-22 EF-S, and faded out _via_ the Nikon CP8700.

To this point I have processed two raw images from the Canon 20D and Kit
lens combo:

at 1/125, f/16, 100 ISO, 18mm, a really yellow Corvette
http/www.fototime.com/044C270ADFD6B72/orig.jpg

with a full-size crop to demonstrate branches-against-the-sky, as well
as the view from La Jolla to the San Gabriel Mountains south and east of
Los Angeles. Maybe it's the San Bernardino Mountains. Either way, it's
90 miles or more
http/www.fototime.com/19B53EBF87B56EB/orig.jpg


at 1/125, f/22, 100 ISO, 28mm, a really white Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A
http/www.fototime.com/83703B9B47E5F5C/orig.jpg

its dashboard at 1/125, f/5.0, ISO 100, 28mm
http/www.fototime.com/7A643AE8F6EAD2E/orig.jpg

a full-size crop from the dashboard picture
http/www.fototime.com/D8C6950F728A8EB/orig.jpg

and its dash-mounted manufacturer's ID plate
http/www.fototime.com/0F71383DBC46F6D/orig.jpg


In Photo Shop CS RAW, I used Exposure slider to fill the histogram to
the right.
That is all.

Once in PSCS, I applied Unsharp Mask at 50%, 1.3, 4.
Stair-step to size at 10% decrements
Another identical dose of USM
Save for Web at 60 quality.

The crops are from the USM'd full-size image.


Make your own judgements about the quality of the Canon $100 "Kit" lens,
but let me tell you, a mild Santa Ana wind from the east met the sea
breezes to stalemate in a near-calm at the shoreline, temperature in the
mid-70s F. January 16. Marvelous.


--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:LO2dnQXGtPKionHcRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
> Yesterday was La Jolla Classic cars-in-the-park-at-the-cove day. My first
> genuine "assignment". I started with the "Kit" lens, changed to the 10-22
> EF-S, and faded out _via_ the Nikon CP8700.
>
> To this point I have processed two raw images from the Canon 20D and Kit
> lens combo:
>
> at 1/125, f/16, 100 ISO, 18mm, a really yellow Corvette
> http/www.fototime.com/044C270ADFD6B72/orig.jpg
>
> with a full-size crop to demonstrate branches-against-the-sky, as well as
> the view from La Jolla to the San Gabriel Mountains south and east of Los
> Angeles. Maybe it's the San Bernardino Mountains. Either way, it's 90
> miles or more
> http/www.fototime.com/19B53EBF87B56EB/orig.jpg
>
>
> at 1/125, f/22, 100 ISO, 28mm, a really white Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A
> http/www.fototime.com/83703B9B47E5F5C/orig.jpg
>
> its dashboard at 1/125, f/5.0, ISO 100, 28mm
> http/www.fototime.com/7A643AE8F6EAD2E/orig.jpg
>
> a full-size crop from the dashboard picture
> http/www.fototime.com/D8C6950F728A8EB/orig.jpg
>
> and its dash-mounted manufacturer's ID plate
> http/www.fototime.com/0F71383DBC46F6D/orig.jpg
>
>
> In Photo Shop CS RAW, I used Exposure slider to fill the histogram to the
> right.
> That is all.
>
> Once in PSCS, I applied Unsharp Mask at 50%, 1.3, 4.
> Stair-step to size at 10% decrements
> Another identical dose of USM
> Save for Web at 60 quality.
>
> The crops are from the USM'd full-size image.
>
>
> Make your own judgements about the quality of the Canon $100 "Kit" lens,
> but let me tell you, a mild Santa Ana wind from the east met the sea
> breezes to stalemate in a near-calm at the shoreline, temperature in the
> mid-70s F. January 16. Marvelous.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>
I had to miss that show, just found out about it on Saturday, had plans that
it was too late to change for Sunday.
Wish I'd gone. You got some nice images there.
Isn't San Diego marvelous? Record rainfall and 54F last Sunday, sunny and
70 this week. Don't like the weather? Just wait a week...
Point of information, those are the San Bernardino Mtns. not the San
Gabriels.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There must be many versions of that lens or the quality control is
terrible. I've had two of the 300D 18-55 kit lenses and they're both
barely worth the $100. Images have two pixels of blur and there's
strong flaring off the aperture blades. People I've talked to using the
20D 18-55 USM kit lens have also said that it is blurry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-2AD942.17043517012005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> There must be many versions of that lens or the quality control is
> terrible. I've had two of the 300D 18-55 kit lenses and they're both
> barely worth the $100. Images have two pixels of blur and there's
> strong flaring off the aperture blades. People I've talked to using the
> 20D 18-55 USM kit lens have also said that it is blurry.

Maybe the QC isn't what it should be, but here's an example from my 18-55 on
my 20D:
http/www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%20images/Day%20at%20the%20Races&picture=26
Reasonably sharp and no flare. I'll admit it gets a little flary shooting
into the sun, but no more than my 28-135 IS.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'll agree that the kit lens delivers optically very good photos.
Every time I use it I am amazed at the quality, compared to my 28-70L lens.

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:LO2dnQXGtPKionHcRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
> Yesterday was La Jolla Classic cars-in-the-park-at-the-cove day. My first
> genuine "assignment". I started with the "Kit" lens, changed to the 10-22
> EF-S, and faded out _via_ the Nikon CP8700.
>
> To this point I have processed two raw images from the Canon 20D and Kit
> lens combo:
>
> at 1/125, f/16, 100 ISO, 18mm, a really yellow Corvette
> http/www.fototime.com/044C270ADFD6B72/orig.jpg
>
> with a full-size crop to demonstrate branches-against-the-sky, as well as
> the view from La Jolla to the San Gabriel Mountains south and east of Los
> Angeles. Maybe it's the San Bernardino Mountains. Either way, it's 90
> miles or more
> http/www.fototime.com/19B53EBF87B56EB/orig.jpg
>
>
> at 1/125, f/22, 100 ISO, 28mm, a really white Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A
> http/www.fototime.com/83703B9B47E5F5C/orig.jpg
>
> its dashboard at 1/125, f/5.0, ISO 100, 28mm
> http/www.fototime.com/7A643AE8F6EAD2E/orig.jpg
>
> a full-size crop from the dashboard picture
> http/www.fototime.com/D8C6950F728A8EB/orig.jpg
>
> and its dash-mounted manufacturer's ID plate
> http/www.fototime.com/0F71383DBC46F6D/orig.jpg
>
>
> In Photo Shop CS RAW, I used Exposure slider to fill the histogram to the
> right.
> That is all.
>
> Once in PSCS, I applied Unsharp Mask at 50%, 1.3, 4.
> Stair-step to size at 10% decrements
> Another identical dose of USM
> Save for Web at 60 quality.
>
> The crops are from the USM'd full-size image.
>
>
> Make your own judgements about the quality of the Canon $100 "Kit" lens,
> but let me tell you, a mild Santa Ana wind from the east met the sea
> breezes to stalemate in a near-calm at the shoreline, temperature in the
> mid-70s F. January 16. Marvelous.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
news:8DXGd.24082$tF.21481@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> I'll agree that the kit lens delivers optically very good photos.
> Every time I use it I am amazed at the quality, compared to my 28-70L
> lens.
>

Best accidental lens purchase I ever made! (The only way I could get our
second 20d was to buy a kit.) I, too, am continually amazed at the quality
of a $100 lens.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:

> Yesterday was La Jolla Classic cars-in-the-park-at-the-cove day. My
> first genuine "assignment". I started with the "Kit" lens, changed to
> the 10-22 EF-S, and faded out _via_ the Nikon CP8700.

Congratulations on your "first genuine 'assignment'"!

> To this point I have processed two raw images from the Canon 20D and Kit
> lens combo:
>
> at 1/125, f/16, 100 ISO, 18mm, a really yellow Corvette
> http/www.fototime.com/044C270ADFD6B72/orig.jpg
>
> with a full-size crop to demonstrate branches-against-the-sky, as well
> as the view from La Jolla to the San Gabriel Mountains south and east of
> Los Angeles. Maybe it's the San Bernardino Mountains. Either way, it's
> 90 miles or more
> http/www.fototime.com/19B53EBF87B56EB/orig.jpg
>
>
> at 1/125, f/22, 100 ISO, 28mm, a really white Isotta Fraschini Tipo 8A
> http/www.fototime.com/83703B9B47E5F5C/orig.jpg
>
> its dashboard at 1/125, f/5.0, ISO 100, 28mm
> http/www.fototime.com/7A643AE8F6EAD2E/orig.jpg
>
> a full-size crop from the dashboard picture
> http/www.fototime.com/D8C6950F728A8EB/orig.jpg
>
> and its dash-mounted manufacturer's ID plate
> http/www.fototime.com/0F71383DBC46F6D/orig.jpg
>
>
> In Photo Shop CS RAW, I used Exposure slider to fill the histogram to
> the right.
> That is all.

That's a good place to start, certainly!

> Once in PSCS, I applied Unsharp Mask at 50%, 1.3, 4.
> Stair-step to size at 10% decrements
> Another identical dose of USM
> Save for Web at 60 quality.

That seems like really excessive USM use. However, the photos look
good on the web, so it can't be "wrong" .
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http/noguns-nomoney.com/> <http/www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http/dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http/dragaera.info/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:
>

<snip>

>
>> Once in PSCS, I applied Unsharp Mask at 50%, 1.3, 4.
>> Stair-step to size at 10% decrements
>> Another identical dose of USM
>> Save for Web at 60 quality.
>
> That seems like really excessive USM use. However, the photos look
> good on the web, so it can't be "wrong" .

Do you mean excessive in "too many times", or "too much of one parameter
or more"?

My poor eye doesn't really see the effect at viewing size. I've
forgotten where I got the choices I use. Some authority or other, I
suppose.


--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>> Once in PSCS, I applied Unsharp Mask at 50%, 1.3, 4.
>>> Stair-step to size at 10% decrements
>>> Another identical dose of USM
>>> Save for Web at 60 quality.
>>
>> That seems like really excessive USM use. However, the photos look
>> good on the web, so it can't be "wrong" .
>
> Do you mean excessive in "too many times", or "too much of one parameter
> or more"?

More "too many times". The rule of thumb I've been taught over the
years is to do USM at final size only, as pretty much the last step in
the workflow, hence my surprise at your approach. But as I say, the
final result is what actually matters.

> My poor eye doesn't really see the effect at viewing size. I've
> forgotten where I got the choices I use. Some authority or other, I
> suppose.

Interesting. My values I can certainly see the results.

Also, my values are based on very rough eyeballing, and not much
theory; it's an area I feel weak in, and I'd be fascinated to learn
more about how people decide what's a suitable level of USM for
various purposes. *Especially* for printing at various sizes, where
judging by eye on the screen *can't* be the main criteria (can it?).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http/noguns-nomoney.com/> <http/www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http/dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http/dragaera.info/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> There must be many versions of that lens or the quality control is
> terrible. I've had two of the 300D 18-55 kit lenses and they're both
> barely worth the $100. Images have two pixels of blur and there's
> strong flaring off the aperture blades. People I've talked to using
> the 20D 18-55 USM kit lens have also said that it is blurry.

I understand there were two version of the lens. I don't know what the
difference is or was.

The one I have I would rate good, but not great. I think a lot of the
complaints have nothing to do with results but rather the feel of the lens.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <CIZGd.30836$re1.950@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I understand there were two version of the lens. I don't know what the
>difference is or was.
>
> The one I have I would rate good, but not great. I think a lot of the
>complaints have nothing to do with results but rather the feel of the lens.

Wasn't the original a silvery-grey? I'm pretty certain I picked up a
DRebel in B&H when they first came out, and it had a grey/silver lens,
18-55. The one that came with my 20D was black.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <m2llarr02e.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

>> Once in PSCS, I applied Unsharp Mask at 50%, 1.3, 4.
>> Stair-step to size at 10% decrements
>> Another identical dose of USM
>> Save for Web at 60 quality.

>That seems like really excessive USM use.

Excessive *radius*, I think. To me, any radius around 1.0 or slightly
above is for trying to add some contrast when there is no real
sharpness, like when the lens is soft. Overcoming the AA filter
generally only requires 0.3 to 0.5, with 150 to 400%, depending on the
camera.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <CIZGd.30836$re1.950@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand there were two version of the lens. I don't know
>> what the difference is or was.
>>
>> The one I have I would rate good, but not great. I think a lot
>> of the complaints have nothing to do with results but rather the
>> feel of the lens.
>
> Wasn't the original a silvery-grey? I'm pretty certain I picked up a
> DRebel in B&H when they first came out, and it had a grey/silver lens,
> 18-55. The one that came with my 20D was black.

Could have been. I got mine with my 20D also and it was also black.

>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
>> <<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:mcmurtri-2AD942.17043517012005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>
>>There must be many versions of that lens or the quality control is
>>terrible. I've had two of the 300D 18-55 kit lenses and they're both
>>barely worth the $100. Images have two pixels of blur and there's
>>strong flaring off the aperture blades. People I've talked to using the
>>20D 18-55 USM kit lens have also said that it is blurry.
>
>
> Maybe the QC isn't what it should be, but here's an example from my 18-55 on
> my 20D:
> http/www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%20images/Day%20at%20the%20Races&picture=26
> Reasonably sharp and no flare. I'll admit it gets a little flary shooting
> into the sun, but no more than my 28-135 IS.
>

Good shot Skip.

nick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z4mdnXbcW9Azlm3cRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> news:mcmurtri-2AD942.17043517012005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>
>>>There must be many versions of that lens or the quality control is
>>>terrible. I've had two of the 300D 18-55 kit lenses and they're both
>>>barely worth the $100. Images have two pixels of blur and there's
>>>strong flaring off the aperture blades. People I've talked to using the
>>>20D 18-55 USM kit lens have also said that it is blurry.
>>
>>
>> Maybe the QC isn't what it should be, but here's an example from my 18-55
>> on my 20D:
>> http/www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%20images/Day%20at%20the%20Races&picture=26
>> Reasonably sharp and no flare. I'll admit it gets a little flary
>> shooting into the sun, but no more than my 28-135 IS.
>>
>
> Good shot Skip.
>
> nick

Thanks. In case you wondered, it is a 1911 Stutz Bearcat.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nick c wrote:
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> news:mcmurtri-2AD942.17043517012005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>>
>>> There must be many versions of that lens or the quality control is
>>> terrible. I've had two of the 300D 18-55 kit lenses and they're
>>> both barely worth the $100. Images have two pixels of blur and
>>> there's strong flaring off the aperture blades. People I've talked
>>> to using the 20D 18-55 USM kit lens have also said that it is
>>> blurry.
>>

I have returned my kit lens (Norwegian EOS 20D) bought in December because
of rainbow-colored halos around bright lights
(sun/moon/flashlights/streetlights/candlelights...)
After one week Canon still have not had time to look at it...
Nice camera, but missing wide angle while I use my old EF 22-55.

--
Frode P. Bergsager

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I'll agree that the kit lens delivers optically very good photos.
>Every time I use it I am amazed at the quality, compared to my 28-70L lens.

Once again, I'd like to make a plea to those of you who have these
(and other) newer lenses: Can you take 60 seconds to add a user-report
to the on-line database:

http/www.exc.com/Photography/Lenses.cgi

It used to have several hundred entries, and the re-building process
has been slow.

Thanks.

-Joel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>> I understand there were two version of the lens. I don't know
>>> what the difference is or was.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>
>> Wasn't the original a silvery-grey? I'm pretty certain I picked up a
>> DRebel in B&H when they first came out, and it had a grey/silver lens,
>> 18-55. The one that came with my 20D was black.
>
> Could have been. I got mine with my 20D also and it was also black.

It wouldn't be surprising for Canon to offer a better lens with the
20D than with the DRebel, right? Sounds like this is an important
issue to work out.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http/www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have not noticed this problem.

The build quality is the kit lens is not good, but optically it is not too
bad, bit soft at the edges but otherwise OK.

I have not heard of this in reviews.

Do you have a filter fitted, lens hood?

I am using my one with the specified hood and a UV filter so you should be
OK.

"Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
news:8UlUd.1917$NC2.1757@fe09.lga...
>>>> I understand there were two version of the lens. I don't know
>>>> what the difference is or was.
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>> Wasn't the original a silvery-grey? I'm pretty certain I picked up a
>>> DRebel in B&H when they first came out, and it had a grey/silver lens,
>>> 18-55. The one that came with my 20D was black.
>>
>> Could have been. I got mine with my 20D also and it was also black.
>
> It wouldn't be surprising for Canon to offer a better lens with the
> 20D than with the DRebel, right? Sounds like this is an important
> issue to work out.
>
> -Joel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases:
> http/www.exc.com/photography
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------