Canon 300D kit lens colours

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1114247141.347431.314970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
> f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
> more vivid and *colourful*
>
> Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
> lens and noticed something similar?
>
> - Siddhartha

The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big improvement.
Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <1114247141.347431.314970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
>> f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are
>> now more vivid and *colourful*
>>
>> Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
>> lens and noticed something similar?
>>
>> - Siddhartha
>
> The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big
> improvement.
> Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).


Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:

http/www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
http/www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
http/www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
http/www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
http/www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > In article <1114247141.347431.314970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
> >> f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are
> >> now more vivid and *colourful*
> >>
> >> Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
> >> lens and noticed something similar?
> >>
> >> - Siddhartha
> >
> > The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big
> > improvement.
> > Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).
>
>
> Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:
>
> http/www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

I've seen those before. The subjects are very high contrast and the
photos are downsampled. It's hardly a good test of a lens that has
problems with low contrast and low sharpness.

The kit lens is very usable. You can crank up in-camera sharpening and
contrast and set the aperture to F/8 to get good photos. It doesn't
leave much adjustment headroom for difficult shooting conditions. Might
as well get a point'n'shoot because they take great photos under perfect
conditions too.

 

[Confused]

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:27:12 -0700
In message <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:
>
> http/www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
> http/www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

Can't comment on expertly edited / reduced images.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob(but not that Bob) wrote:
> The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that
means
> anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
> Pyramid in ambiguity.
>
> I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW -
in
> case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and
the
> lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
> contrast.
>
> Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much,
you'd
> swear it was available.

Pop Photo very rarely rates anything poorly so anything that they say
should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Yep, been seeing those ads from Tokina. Looks like its selling like hot
cakes - backordered on B&H and Adorama.

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
> f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
> more vivid and *colourful*
>
> Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
> lens and noticed something similar?
>
> - Siddhartha


The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
Pyramid in ambiguity.

I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
contrast.

Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
swear it was available.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob(but not that Bob)" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com...
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
> > f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
> > more vivid and *colourful*
> >
> > Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
> > lens and noticed something similar?
> >
> > - Siddhartha
>
>
> The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
> anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
> Pyramid in ambiguity.
>
> I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
> case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
> lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
> contrast.
>
> Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
> swear it was available.

where can u get refurbs?? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:
>
> "Bob(but not that Bob)" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com...
> > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
> > > f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
> > > more vivid and *colourful*
> > >
> > > Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
> > > lens and noticed something similar?
> > >
> > > - Siddhartha
> >
> >
> > The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
> > anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
> > Pyramid in ambiguity.
> >
> > I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
> > case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
> > lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
> > contrast.
> >
> > Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
> > swear it was available.
>
> where can u get refurbs?? Thanks.

National Camera ( http/www.natcam.com ) had some on eBay - they went
pretty fast - don't know if they are getting more.

 

[James]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>,
Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:

Not bad at all, but surely you can understand why the 18-55
is a disappointing lens. It's build quality and feel, just
don't put it in the "fine piece of equipment" category.

It does get the job done, and I've enjoyed using it at the
18mm setting. But it just feels like a crummy lens.
Does your focus ring move? Even with the mirror locked up,
and the camera on a tripod, I'm sure that front element is
vibrating. Yuck. I'm not saying I can measure the aberration
from that effect, bit it can't be a good thing.

Now, the lens I upgraded to probably isn't much better, and may not
even be as good in certain respects (Tamron 28-200XR F3.8), but it
certainly feels better to my hands. I'm sure I'll be investing in
lenses, but I need to recover from buying this 20D, which is way more
camera than I need, and ouch!, but I love it, no remorse at all!

I'm going to a place in May that's worthy of photographs, and I wanted
to have a good camera for the trip. The kit lens and the Tamron should
get me through the summer. (They have to, or else I'd have to go back
to film.)

 

[James]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com>,
Bob(but not that Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"

Good Lord, really?

Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."

I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.

If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
this poor a mechanism.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:
> In article <426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com>,
> Bob(but not that Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"
>
> Good Lord, really?
>
> Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
> in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."
>
> I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
> moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.
>
> If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
> this poor a mechanism.

The front element of the lens has play in MF mode and MF is jerky.
Low-light AF isn't the lens' strong point. That said, I've still kept
the lens. The 18-55mm gives you approximately 28-90mm range and at 190
gms there is no other lens that is light enough for treks. The Sigma
24-135mm I now own weighs 530 gms, the Sigma 18-125mm weighs 385 gms
and the Canon 17-85mm (if I could afford it) weighs 475 gms.

So the lens certainly has it uses.

- Siddhartha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:
>
> In article <426C331C.62BA@nowhere.com>,
> Bob(but not that Bob) <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"
>
> Good Lord, really?
>

Just optically, although they did comment on the "well-made" plastic
barrel and lens mount. Maybe anything that doesn't fall apart in their
hands qualifies.


> Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
> in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."
>
> I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
> moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.
>
> If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
> this poor a mechanism.


This mechanical "quality" is nothing new. Some years ago I picked up an
EOS 750 with a busted plastic zoom lens for $25.

Since the the lens was already in 2 pieces, I could see its innards -
basically empty, with a tiny motor moving a plastic rack attached to a
sliding optical cell as I recall.

A piece of junk compared to all my manual focus Nikon stuff.

 

[James]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1114500106.577635.172370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

>So the lens certainly has it uses.

Sure! I have one and I didn't exactly throw it in the dumpster!
The truth is, it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, if not
THE sharpest. But I'm also enjoying my Tamron 28-200XR, and I haven't
even been tempted to put the 18-55 back on the camera since getting the
Tamron.

I mean, I'm seeing individual plant cells, reading labels on things that
I didn't see with my eye, and needing to check the colors on things I
photographed, because I look at the picture and think "that can't be
right", and then I look at the real thing closer, and it turns out to be
right, but I couldn't tell from my distance. It's scary.

I suspect my next lens will be a WA zoom Tamron. And I think I'd really
like to have the 50mm f/1.4. I don't know if I want anything in the
long telescopic range, but I won't be buying any L's.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:Fsfbe.82730$A31.12700@fed1read03...
> In article <odGdnb1i34gPPPffRVn-vA@giganews.com>,
> Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:
>
> Not bad at all, but surely you can understand why the 18-55
> is a disappointing lens. It's build quality and feel, just
> don't put it in the "fine piece of equipment" category.
>
It is ridiculously cheap, so why shouldn't it look and feel cheap?
It yields far better reults than you might reasonably expect.
It gets a whole raft of people into DSLR photography who otherwise might
have been priced out - and they will "graduate" to more lenses.

I used to teach photography. I had some brilliant pupils with cheap (or no)
cameras, I had equipment freaks who bought (and bragged about) the best of
everything - producing technically acute but artistically mundane images.
And, very rarely, a good photographer with good kit.

Put a good photographer behind a poor camera and he will deliver a brilliant
image.
Put a poor photographer behind a brilliant camera and it's just pot luck
;o)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Sure! I have one and I didn't exactly throw it in the dumpster!
> The truth is, it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, if not
> THE sharpest. But I'm also enjoying my Tamron 28-200XR, and I haven't
> even been tempted to put the 18-55 back on the camera since getting the
> Tamron.

You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote in
message news:ZWsbe.13569$716.7237@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Sure! I have one and I didn't exactly throw it in the dumpster!
> > The truth is, it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, if not
> > THE sharpest. But I'm also enjoying my Tamron 28-200XR, and I haven't
> > even been tempted to put the 18-55 back on the camera since getting the
> > Tamron.
>
> You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?
>

I have the Tamron 24-135 and don't miss the 18mm end. I also have an EF-S
10-22 just in case but rarely use it.

Greg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?
> >
>
> I have the Tamron 24-135 and don't miss the 18mm end. I also have an EF-S
> 10-22 just in case but rarely use it.

Hmm.. when I first started shooting again about 3 or 4 years ago I was
constantly wishing I had a longer lens.. now I am always wishing for wider.
I'm asking myself, how wide would be wide enough. 28mm isn't. 15 might be.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[James]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ZWsbe.13569$716.7237@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

>You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?

Not yet. One of the early decisions I had to make was to accept that
wide-angle is 1.6 times more expensive and difficult now. Having
accepted that, I simply adjust my perception to the parameters of the
new tool.

I'm thinking about a WA, but I'm holding out for a nice wide prime
instead of the zooms I've seen. Although I may snatch the Tamron WA
Zoom, if and when it becomes available.

Meanwhile I have become reluctant to change lenses at all, since reading
some scary stuff about dust and the CCD.

In a couple of weeks, I'm going to a location to shoot some stitched
panorams. I think the 28mm will be fine for this, but one of the two
lenses I have will have to do. I think the Tamron will be fine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> >You don't miss the wider coverage of the 18mm end?
>
> Not yet.
<snip explanation>

Thanks. I'm also thinking about a super wide prime for my 35mm SLR and
wondering if waiting for a dSLR model with full size sensor is worth it. I
cerntainly can't afford any variant of the EOS 1d but I already feel like
28mm isn't wide enough. Would like a 15mm without fisheye if such a thing
exists. But these begin to get expensive and would only be 24mm worth of
wideness on the dSLR I have in mind..

Trying to find the middle Way, but it's not clear to me yet. Something has
to give soon because in just 2 months I've burned 1/2 the price of a new
350/XT in film and lab fees.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com