Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Sigma 18-50 f2.8 at 50mm, f5.6
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by coldrain; 07-30-2007 at 05:46 PM.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Sigma 18-50 f2.8, 50mm and f8
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by coldrain; 07-30-2007 at 05:53 PM.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    848
    I like the look of the Canon lens, its not overbearing and I like the focus on it not to mention the smooth look

    that lens would definitely be one of my first choices when grabbing a DSLR
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    hands up who hates delobbo !!!!!!
    DeviantArt Gallery

    Flickr

    Canon 450D + Twin Kit Lens + 50mm 1.4
    It doesn't have to be awkward Will

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    The photos were not sharpened, and I think the 18-55 kitlens does a good job. All settings in DPP were neutral, the contrast is good. No strong veil from internal reflections, no vignetting/light fall off apparent even wide open.

    The sharpness seems to be ok too, especially for a lens that costs so little.
    Only the 18mm f3.5 is a bit missfocussed, but if that is my fault or not I do not know (and I can not try).

    The Sigma has a clear colour cast (shot with cloud WB I think, maybe it was "daylight", with both lenses), while the Canon kitlens has no colour cast.

    All in all, the kitlens seems to perform a lot better than what a lot of people claim.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,498
    Great comparison! Yeah, I've taken my share of lumps for saying the kit lens is not so bad. But, the real interesting thing for me regarding your comparison is that for the first time I can clearly see the "yellow" color cast that others around the net have mentioned regarding the Sigma. Not a show-stopper...but it's there all right.

    Based on your results, I would still not hesitate to recommend either lens to the budget conscious.

    Thanks for taking the time to do this!
    Some Gear: Nikon D700; Nikkor AF-S 50 f/1.4 G; Nikkor AF-S 24-85 3.f/5-4.5 G ED; Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 VC; Nikon SB-800; Velbon Maxi-F; Canon Pixma Pro 9000; Canon S3IS, Canon SD500; Epson 4990; Epson P5000; Wacom Intuos 3

    Main Software: Capture NX2; Adobe PhotoShop CS2; Corel Paintshop Pro X2 Ultimate

    Sold: Canon XT/350D, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Sigma 18-200 OS; Canon ET EF 25II; Kenko Pro 300 DG, Canon 430EX, Canon BG-E3.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    61
    This is highly helpful information for somebody like me who is contemplating to get a DSLR. Thanks Coldrain.
    Canon EOS 1000D with 18-55 EF-S IS
    Canon PowerShot A95

    My Flickr Photos

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,456

    @coldrain

    your pix of 18-55 look indeed very nice.
    i also got nice results with trying Canon kit lens for close ups and indoor with flash (pity i deleted my test shots). colors were great and pix had very natural look. but try to shoot landscape with kit lens, this is where it delivers too soft look and rather washed out colors in my humble opinion.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    358

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,456

    @RebelRat

    Sir, is not this photo a bit on soft side? i can compare my 18-55 with Sigma 17-70 and Canon 28-105 II USM, and my impression 18-55 is soft and delivers a bit dull colors at normal setting about which many beginners complain... i agree with you however, 18-55 is usable lens. While not the best the 18-55 is not bad either, but to see what difference it makes between DSLR and decent digital cam one probably needs a better lens IMHO. Even cheapo like Canon 28-105 II gets miles ahead of kit lens :-)))

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,456

    RebelRat, photos taken with 18-55 kit lens

    first two photos are at default setting, other two with saturation and contrast boosted. unfortunately colors are not matching real life in my case.

    of course you should boost sharpness as well, but then i compared bewteen three lenses and kit lens took to the bottom of the list, Sigma 17-70 ranked second and Canon 28-105 II topped my list.

    as i am DSLR amateur i understand that might be my faults too, as many say this is not lens or camera but a man behind the camera and the lens.
    Attached Images Attached Images     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •