PDA

View Full Version : 18-55 range for XT



Rhys
05-06-2005, 07:45 PM
I heard the Canon XT kit lens 18-55 was poor. Can anybody recommend an alternative I could get with my Canon XT body?

I need something that will give me the equivalant of 28mm to 85mm or slightly beyond this range.

TheObiJuan
05-06-2005, 08:19 PM
the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR DI is a great lens, very sharp, and fairly inexpensive.

Bluedog
05-06-2005, 08:40 PM
the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR DI is a great lens, very sharp, and fairly inexpensive.

I'll bouch for that. The lens is awesome to say the least. Its now my all around use lens on my XT?

DiJ
05-06-2005, 10:36 PM
Below is taken with the kit lens 18-55mm MkII at 18mm f/6.3. See the 100% crop and judge for yourself.

DiJ
05-06-2005, 10:39 PM
100% crop unedited

DiJ
05-06-2005, 10:40 PM
100% crop + sharpening at 245, 0.3, 0

DiJ
05-06-2005, 10:45 PM
Notice the fine lines near the bottom. You already see faint moire patterns. For those who say this lens is worthless, its already outresolving the 8mp sensor.

jamison55
05-07-2005, 03:19 AM
I'm pretty impressed with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. You can get it for around $400 new on EBay, and it is a pretty solid performer... In case you missed it, I did a lens comparison a couple of months ago with the Sigma 18-50 vs Tamron 28-75 vs Kit lens vs Canon 50 f1.8. http://rain.prohosting.com/jwexler/lens_comparisons.htm

jamison55
05-07-2005, 03:24 AM
I heard the Canon XT kit lens 18-55 was poor. Can anybody recommend an alternative I could get with my Canon XT body?


Wait a minute, I just realized who started the post...Rhys, did you finally bite the bullet and buy an XT, or are you haveing some fun stirring up the pot again...? :)

jeisner
05-07-2005, 04:05 AM
Notice the fine lines near the bottom. You already see faint moire patterns. For those who say this lens is worthless, its already outresolving the 8mp sensor.

So all those people buying L glass are spending all that money for no reason??? Sorry but those pictures don't look very sharp to me, you would also be better off choosing a sample image without CA, it doesn't help your case ;)

I agree with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 suggestion it is a mighty fine lens, as is the Tamron 28-75

/me crawls back in his hole...

Rhys
05-07-2005, 08:32 AM
Wait a minute, I just realized who started the post...Rhys, did you finally bite the bullet and buy an XT, or are you haveing some fun stirring up the pot again...? :)

Not yet bought it but decided it's the one I will buy. I'm trying to match the camera to a decent lens at the moment though. I'm also trying to minimise cost. Perhaps I'll have a look at Amazon now. As far as I can see, what I'll need to use for wedding photography is:

2 batteries
XT
28 - 85 (equivalent)
x - 135 (equivalent)
Tripod
Flash.

I have the tripod. I just need the other bits.

How does the Sigma 18-125 lens compare? IS it any good?

jamison55
05-07-2005, 12:21 PM
Not yet bought it but decided it's the one I will buy. I'm trying to match the camera to a decent lens at the moment though. I'm also trying to minimise cost. Perhaps I'll have a look at Amazon now. As far as I can see, what I'll need to use for wedding photography is:

2 batteries
XT
28 - 85 (equivalent)
x - 135 (equivalent)
Tripod
Flash.

I have the tripod. I just need the other bits.

How does the Sigma 18-125 lens compare? IS it any good?


Haven't tried it personally, but it looks like a really good consumer lens. Not sure how useful it would be at weddings, since it is quite slow. Many churches do not allow flash during the ceremony, so I tried to buy the fastest lenses I could. The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 was the best compromise between price and performance I have found in that range.

If you really want to maximize your price/performance you can do it pretty inexpensively with a few primes... The Sigma 20 f1.8 ($300 used), Canon 50 f1.8 ($70 new), Canon 85 f1.8 ($300 used). That gives you the range you want with sharp, fast, clear glass for lest than the price of the cheapest "L".

My most used wedding lens is my Tamron 28-75, though I missed the extra wide end before I bought the Sigma...

Bluedog
05-07-2005, 01:15 PM
How does the Sigma 18-125 lens compare? IS it any good?

Look in my PBase gallery below in my sig. for samples using this lens.

D70FAN
05-07-2005, 05:52 PM
Not yet bought it but decided it's the one I will buy. I'm trying to match the camera to a decent lens at the moment though. I'm also trying to minimise cost. Perhaps I'll have a look at Amazon now. As far as I can see, what I'll need to use for wedding photography is:

2 batteries
XT
28 - 85 (equivalent)
x - 135 (equivalent)
Tripod
Flash.

I have the tripod. I just need the other bits.

How does the Sigma 18-125 lens compare? IS it any good?

Here are some shots with the Sigma 18-125. In fact most of ths gallery is with the Sigma. But for weddings, I think Jamie can aim you in the right direction.

http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

jeisner
05-07-2005, 05:53 PM
The Sigma 20 f1.8 ($300 used),

I have this lens and can recommend it, fast and sharp, although a little bulky, although that may make you look more professional ;-) LOL

TheObiJuan
05-08-2005, 02:58 AM
hehe, I just purchased one the day before yesterday. I am eager to use it. The f/1.8 is so soft that it is very similar to .4-.8 SF settings from the 135SF lens.

I paid 200 dollars and my PS2 for it btw. ;)

jeisner
05-08-2005, 04:41 AM
hehe, I just purchased one the day before yesterday. I am eager to use it. The f/1.8 is so soft that it is very similar to .4-.8 SF settings from the 135SF lens.

I paid 200 dollars and my PS2 for it btw. ;)

I got mine new so around US$360 ;-)

Interesting rergarding the softness, mine is far from soft at 1.8, below is a linked sample at f2.0 I did for someone else online who wanted to know how soft it was... Is your softer than this???

Resized picture
http://img191.exs.cx/img191/4336/flower3io.jpg

100% crop
http://img191.exs.cx/img191/8751/flowercrop9ks.jpg

Sample at f2.8
http://img100.echo.cx/img100/7893/flower15jz.jpg

Bluedog
05-08-2005, 05:38 AM
Gee thanks jeisner ... something else to consider adding to my arsenal ... :rolleyes: ... those results look pretty nice to me

24Peter
05-08-2005, 07:37 AM
I'm not sure what you mean when you say the kit lens has a limited range. Do you mean in focal length (i.e., mm) or apeture (f stops). In any event, having tested many lenses with my XT over the past month (including the Sigma 18-125, Tamron 28-75, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 28-135 IS, Canon 28-105 as well as several telephoto lenses, I can say the kit lens is worth the $100 you'll pay new (or follow Juan's lead and pick up a used one for less).

My current favorite is the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 (sometimes with the Tamron 1.4X teleconverter). At 3.5-4.5, it isn't the fastest lens on the block. And I'll defer to Jamison about whether or not it will get the job done inside a church with no flash, but for $229 I think it's a tough lens to beat with my XT. My $.02

TheObiJuan
05-08-2005, 09:11 AM
jeisner,
At f/1.8 it is soft, and the white starts to diffuse. At f/2.2 that is gone, completely. At f/2.8 the sharpness becomes very acceptable, and at f/4 I am a happy camper.

I am not a pixel peeper so I don't need very sharp images, I am content with the images it produces at f/2-f/2.2. And sometimes there will be situations where I might want a softer focus, hence the f/1.8.

jeisner
05-08-2005, 04:12 PM
jeisner,
At f/1.8 it is soft, and the white starts to diffuse. At f/2.2 that is gone, completely. At f/2.8 the sharpness becomes very acceptable, and at f/4 I am a happy camper.

I am not a pixel peeper so I don't need very sharp images, I am content with the images it produces at f/2-f/2.2. And sometimes there will be situations where I might want a softer focus, hence the f/1.8.

Ahh OK, there a lot of people that complain on other forums that it is soft to the point of unusable up until f4, and I was curious if your was one of those, as I was wondering if it was a different model EX rather than EX DG or just bad samples etc. but sounds like yours sharpens up anyway...

TheObiJuan
05-09-2005, 02:54 AM
people on forums talk a lot of trash, even without owning the lens. They pixel peeop other people's photos and all of a sudden become experts. I find it fumny when people criticize my lens purchase, telling me it is way too soft for real use, but then in another thread they compliment the pictures I take with it. If they new that it was the "soft" lens taking the pics I wonder if they would still compliment?