canon efs 18-55 3.5-5.6

THORHAMMER · Mar 25, 2007

This was the kit lens on my old 300D, and it fits my 20D too,

is there any real use for this lens? I mean Ive tried it completely stopped down for night photography and the results were not very good.

I have yet to really put it through a f11 daylight workout since it seems too
finicky as to when it will decide to be sharp. contrast is also really bad with this lens...

To me its worth it to use my 28-75 2.8, or even the 50mm and just walk back further.. lol Anyone have any tricks m or ideas where this lens would come in handy? I never never use it anywhere, I should sell it to someone who bought a rebel with no lens and just shoots family outings...

any thoughts..? Anyone want it ?

Aquarium Dreams · Mar 26, 2007

While you're at it, does anyone want mine?

I'm looking for a replacement that will cover the same range and not make me want to tear my eyeballs out.

Why did Canon bother making this lens? It's not even biodegradable.

Iron Flatline · Mar 26, 2007

It's a paperweight.

Big Mike · Mar 26, 2007

You have to remember that it's really only a $100 lens (when sold as a kit)....so what can you really expect from such a cheap lens? Day after day, people on this and other forums are trying to figure out what camera to buy...and 95% of them are quite concerned about the price of a DSLR. The camera companies know this...and that's why they make these cheap 'kit' lenses.

It's not actually that bad of a lens...it's not a great lens, by any means...but it's probably just as good or better than the lens on most Non-SLR cameras these days. It's light, which can be good...but that also makes people think it feels like a toy...which leads to many bad reviews. I remember an issue of Popular Photography where they had a photo contest and many of the winning photos were taken with the 18-55 kit lens and appeared at full page size in the magazine.

Canon's kit upgrade is the EF-S 17-85 IS. It's a much better lens, built much better and has IS, which is great. The problem is that this is still a rather 'slow' lens. I have both the 18-55 and the 17-85 IS but I got an even better lens, the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. The large maximum aperture of F2.8 is a fantastic tool to have, even better than a slower lens with IS.

Digital Matt · Mar 26, 2007

I found the sharpness to be pretty good at f/8-f/16. Who is really concerned about lens contrast with a digital body? You can have your pick of contrast in post process. If you use the lens in its sweet spot range, and process the files well, including sharpening and contrast, the lens is totally usable.

thebeginning · Mar 26, 2007

Digital Matt said:
I found the sharpness to be pretty good at f/8-f/16. Who is really concerned about lens contrast with a digital body? You can have your pick of contrast in post process. If you use the lens in its sweet spot range, and process the files well, including sharpening and contrast, the lens is totally usable.

yep. if you're up to the work (usually) involved with using it, then it is certainly capable of getting decent results.

but i will make the statement that there is a difference between lens contrast and PP contrast...i don't know what it is, but for some reason I can't always mimic the quality of one of my nicer lense's contrast on a cheaper lense's shot.

theRossatron · Apr 25, 2007

Try it back to front and see how it works as a cheapo macro lens. You can buy adapters cheaply or use black tape!

DSLR noob · Apr 25, 2007

Ouch guys, way to bash it completely. I've seen some really nice photos with this lens, and it even took a photo featured in last month's Popular Photography magazine.
There is a use for this lens..... how about moderate wide angle for under $100? That is enough to justify it for me. Not all of us have money for larger aperture zooms that can go down to 18mm. If you really don't want them I'll take multiple so I don't have to worry about taking care of mine so much. PM if I get a free lens with no shipping out of this.

xfloggingkylex · Apr 25, 2007

thor, most lenses stopped down all the way wont yield very pleasing results. Like Matt said, f8-16 creates very usable images, and it is THE cheapest wide angle lens you can get. And sometimes, just taking a few steps back doesn't work, unless you can walk and your camera can shoot, through walls.

It's well worth the 100 dollars to get such a wide angle, but other than wide, I dont use mind for anything, simply because a 55mm 5.6 sucks, especially when I have the 50mm 1.4

DSLR noob · Apr 26, 2007

theRossatron said:
Try it back to front and see how it works as a cheapo macro lens. You can buy adapters cheaply or use black tape!

The EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 @ 18mm 3.5 Backwards as a Macro

That is the ribbed edge of a quarter.

EOS_JD · Apr 27, 2007

43 pages of why the lens isn't that bad. I'd never recommend it but if you are on a budget it does a job - not great but not that bad.

darich · Apr 27, 2007

DSLR noob said:
Ouch guys, way to bash it completely. I've seen some really nice photos with this lens, and it even took a photo featured in last month's Popular Photography magazine.
There is a use for this lens..... how about moderate wide angle for under $100? That is enough to justify it for me. Not all of us have money for larger aperture zooms that can go down to 18mm. If you really don't want them I'll take multiple so I don't have to worry about taking care of mine so much. PM if I get a free lens with no shipping out of this.

Agreed.
I took this shot with a Canon 20D and the 18-55 EF-S kit lens.

And i sold it to a calendar in Germany for almost £100 while based in the UK.

International sale from what is a derided lens.
It's actually not too bad if properly used.

EOS_JD · Apr 27, 2007

Cracking image David

Don Simon · Apr 27, 2007

Not Canon-specific but I'm sure it applies...

I like my equivalent cheap kit zoom. Sure it might as well be a paperweight when you have better lenses covering the same focal lengths, but it's a lot better than nothing. If nothing else, mine seems a lot better than the comparable cheap slow 28-80mm zooms that used to come as 'kit' lenses with 35mm SLRs. Thanks to not-very-sensibly pursuing two systems I didn't really have much in the way of wide-angles in my dSLR's mount, and until I can afford to replace it my cheap zoom does a nice job. I tend to use it at 24mm and rarely use either extreme. Yes I wouldn't go wider than f/8 if I could avoid it - and that's the main problem for me; not the optical quality but the fact that it can only really live up to its potential in good light. IMO like one of my favourites for 35mm (an equally cheap Tokina 19-35mm) it's really quite good for the money.

One more thing I like about my kit lens is it's actually not that badly constructed. Has the clutch system that lets me focus manually in autofocus mode; filter ring doesn't rotate when focusing. Oh and it comes with lens hood... lens hood even has little removable tab for turning filters (I am easily impressed)... actually cheap lenses always seem to come with lens hoods. The more you spend on a lens, the less stuff they give you...