In the Prickle-fruit

[Kazooie]

I like it kinda. Looks a little busy, and I wish the leave tips were more in-focus. I'm starting to think that I need a new lens, the cheapo 18-55 just isn't workign anymore! Thoughts?

[Ads]

[Frequency]

Hey don't blame the lens any more
This is really good....
Especially the combination of green with orange

[Kazooie]

Heh, thanks! I'm finding that the lens is taking longer and longer to focus, that took at least a minute to get it right. I really want to get a 50mm prime as my next lens.

[MTVision]

Heh, thanks! I'm finding that the lens is taking longer and longer to focus, that took at least a minute to get it right. I really want to get a 50mm prime as my next lens.

It might've taken longer to focus because it looks like you are fairly close (maybe right on the minimum focusing distance that lens has). It'll also taken longer to focus in lower light. The 18-55 lens is a great little lens to have but a nice fast prime is always a welcome addition.

[MK3Brent]

You definitely found the lowest dof.

[Kazooie]

Heh, thanks! I'm finding that the lens is taking longer and longer to focus, that took at least a minute to get it right. I really want to get a 50mm prime as my next lens.

It might've taken longer to focus because it looks like you are fairly close (maybe right on the minimum focusing distance that lens has). It'll also taken longer to focus in lower light. The 18-55 lens is a great little lens to have but a nice fast prime is always a welcome addition.

That could be, but it's even starting to do that in landscapes. Either way I want a nice sharp lens.

You definitely found the lowest dof.

Yep, f4.0 to be exact!

[Buckster]

I like it kinda. Looks a little busy, and I wish the leave tips were more in-focus. I'm starting to think that I need a new lens, the cheapo 18-55 just isn't workign anymore! Thoughts?

If you wish the leaves were more in focus, maybe you should choose something other than f/4.

You don't need a new lens; You need to learn to work this lens first, and then it will in turn work for you.

[GnipGnop]

I agree. You haven't pushed the boundaries of what the lens can produce optically simply by saying it takes a bit too long to autofocus.

[Kazooie]

I know, but I want a new lens. Kinda like when a lady wants new shoes!

[Buckster]

I know, but I want a new lens. Kinda like when a lady wants new shoes!

Then just say that, instead of stuff like, "the cheapo 18-55 just isn't workign anymore!" That's the kind of stuff that makes noobs think those lenses aren't any good.

[Kazooie]

Aww, now I feel bad.

Just kidding, I see what you mean. I should have phrased as 'I would like to replace this 18-55 mm with a 50mm prime, because I would like too"?

[Buckster]

Aww, now I feel bad.

Just kidding, I see what you mean. I should have phrased as 'I would like to replace this 18-55 mm with a 50mm prime, because I would like too"?

You can phrase it however you like, but it's silly to blame your equipment when it can clearly do better if you'd just learn how to use it, and then to basically say you need to replace it because it sucks, when in fact, it's operator error.

Just sayin'...

[TCampbell]

The "cheapo 18-55" isn't a bad lens at all. Let's talk about lenses.

There are a LOT of attributes people pay for in lenses... does it have internal focusing (does the end it rotate as you focus); does it have internal zoom (does it get longer/shorter as you zoom); does it have a constant focal ratio or does the focal ratio vary as you zoom; is it a parfocal zoom; does it control barrel distortion; does it have chromatic aberration issues (aka color "fringing"); how is it's resolution & contrast; is it weather sealed; how many aperture blades and are they "rounded"; does it have fast focus motors; does it have image stabilization; etc.

The 18-55 economizes by not offering a lot of features that, frankly, you can live without. It doesn't have internal focusing or internal zoom. It doesn't have USM focusing motors. It's not parfocal (VERY few zoom lenses are... even expensive lenses). It doesn't offer a constant focal ratio as it zooms (you pay a lot of money for lenses that offer this.) The focus motor is slow and maybe even a little noisy. It's not weather sealed.

But when it comes to image quality (resolution, contrast, ability to control flare, etc.) it's actually not a bad lens. It's not a fast-action sports lens. If you're trying to shoot hand-held in very poor lighting without having to crank the ISO, there are better options out there. But if you're not in a hurry to take a photo... it can take a very nice photo -- especially when you're not trying to create a lot of background blur (aka bokeh).

Don't believe me? Go to Canon's website ( Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF Lens Lineup ) and look at the 18-55 kit lens, scroll to the bottom and look at the MTF curves. Then open a 2nd browser window and look at the highly coveted $1000+ 17-55 f/2.8 (probably the best EF-S zoom lens made) and look at those MTF curves. Compare. Note that the "black" lines on the MTF curves are measuring contrast & resolution at "wide open" and since one is a constant f/2.8 and the other is a variable f/3.5-5.6 it's not a fair comparison. But look at the blue lines... these measure contrast & resolution at a fixed f/8 aperture (so that's an apples to apples comparison.)

It's not that no lens is better... you could go compare the new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and... note that this is a "full frame" lens so the MTF curve measures out to 22mm away from center whereas the curves for an EF-S lens only measure quality out to about 14mm from center so if you only compare the first 14mm worth of the MTF graph on the EF "L" series lens... yes, it's a much better lens. But I should hope so considering the price tag. Point is... you don't just have to spend a little more money to get a better lens that what you have... you have to spend a LOT more money and then that's only to have the "potential" to notice the difference -- assuming you're doing everything right to squeeze out every bit of performance that lens can offer.

Basically the "glass" in your lens isn't bad. It's "all the other features" that make people lust after the better lenses. You can force strong bokeh in the 17-55mm f/2.8 *because* it can maintain a constant focal ratio of f/2.8. But in your photo... you actually wanted more in focus, not less.

This may all sound a little contradictory because everyone who asks if their gear is good enough is told their "kit" lens isn't going to cut it. But most of those people are asking about cases where they have to shoot hand-held shots in really lousy lighting (sports, weddings, events, capturing snaps of the kids who won't sit still (see "sports"), etc.) They need lenses with faster focusing motors and which collect more light in lousy lighting conditions while hand-holding the camera to shoot moving subjects.

Your shot, on the other hand, has quite the opposite problem compared to most of these people. You're basically looking at optical quality AND you wish more were in focus... which is easy to achieve with any lens: increase the depth of field (DoF) by selecting a higher f-stop.

The pineapple isn't moving. That means you can select a high f-stop and let the shutter expose for as long as it needs ... just use a tripod (you may surprise yourself at how much better images start to look when you take your time to setup the shot and use a tripod) if there isn't enough light for a safe hand-held shot. If I really really care about the quality of a shot (e.g. I'm taking a shot that'll get published, etc.) and I *can* use a tripod (because I don't have to be in a hurry and I'm not in some place where tripods are verboten) then you can bet I'm using a tripod.