Diffrent lens same thing?

[lloyd]

Hello TPF.

This might sound like a no0b question but that's why I'm posting it here.

I have the kit lens that came with my canon 450d. its a 18 - 55mm it does 3.5f


so why would i want to spent £620 [RRP:£939.99] on this lens?
amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0000C4GAM/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00007EE8P&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1SMF7ES2SJN1P570TKBP

What am i missing here. surely the kit lens does more?


i keep looking at different lens's but whats the point?

[i did buy a sigma 10-20mm for the wide angle]


Thanks

 

[Alter_Ego]

Is the kit lens USM? Im not a pro but usually the Image stablizer and ultra sonic motor lenses are more expensive.
18-55mm is more of a portrait lens (head/shoulders) and 17-40 is a ultra wide angle lens and from what i just googled its hell of a good one!

How much did u get the 10-20mm for? I want one of those!

Dont quote me on any of this since im still a noob too but heres my 2c and welcome to the forum.

 

[clanthar]

Different lenses -- not the same thing. The focal length ranges and maximum f/stops are close, but the 17-40 is an L series lens -- note the red stripe around front of lens -- huge difference, and you're paying for the stripe.

The build quality is worlds apart as is the performance.

 

[lloyd]

Yeah, i get that its an L but its just that. like you say, I'd be paying for the red ring.

seems like buying an apple laptop.....pricey for the sake of being pricey.


So I'm paying for it to focus a few milliseconds sooner and feel more metaly

as for the sigma i forget how much it was but i find it better to just take 3-4 photos and stitch them. if you can

 

[HWesh]

Yeah, i get that its an L but its just that. like you say, I'd be paying for the red ring.

seems like buying an apple laptop.....pricey for the sake of being pricey.


So I'm paying for it to focus a few milliseconds sooner and feel more metaly

as for the sigma i forget how much it was but i find it better to just take 3-4 photos and stitch them. if you can

Don't forget better quality optical glass.

 

[syphlix]

the kit lens is only 3.5 at it's widest

the 17-40 gives you better image quality, build quality, and weather sealing

if that's not worth it for you, then you don't need to buy it

 

[reznap]

It can also be used on a full frame camera, while the 18-55 cannot. But full frame you know... different sensor same thing.

 

[MichiganFarts]

Better build quality, dust and moisture resistant, internal focusing....

I'm not up to date on Canon lenses, but the thing is obviously made for heavier pro use just looking up the specs on Canon's website.

The 18-55 is just a light weight, consumer lens. I can't say anything about whether the lens is optically better or not, but from the reviews on the website, it is.

It seems like you must have just looked at each lenses headlines, and not their specs. Because 2 seconds of research tells you all you need to know.

 

[redtippmann]

Doesn't Canon's 18-55 kit lens stop down to 5.6 at 55mm? Where as this is f/4 at all focal lengths.

 

[enzodm]

Yeah, i get that its an L but its just that. like you say, I'd be paying for the red ring.

seems like buying an apple laptop.....pricey for the sake of being pricey.


So I'm paying for it to focus a few milliseconds sooner and feel more metaly

as for the sigma i forget how much it was but i find it better to just take 3-4 photos and stitch them. if you can

weather sealed, to say one extra (and better construction in general). f/4 on all the range (kit zoom is 5.6 at tele end). EF and not EF-S (our kit zoom does not go with full frame). More resolution. Less CA. I would not buy it too, of course.

In general, here there is a comparison between a kit zoom and a more expensive one (not the 17-40), where you can see some of the differences you could find between a basic and a pro lens in terms of photo quality:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/shootout

For me, this does not mean I need the best. Differences pop out in large prints, not on web sized images or small prints.

 

[pgriz]

Many factors affect the cost and effectiveness of lenses. Some of them are below:


Specification
1) Maximum aperture
2) Constant aperture when zooming
3) Zoom range
4) Closest focusing distance

Optical performance
1) Sharpness across field and across zoom range
2) Flatness across field
3) Chromatic aberration correction
4) Flare reduction
5) Barrel and pincushion distortion correction
6) Image stabilization or vibration reduction
7) Vignetting
8) Contrast

Physical performance
1) Precision of focus
2) Presence or absence of autofocus
3) Speed of acquiring focus when AF
4) Noise (or lack of) while focusing
5) Intelligent IS/VR – used when needed
6) Weight
7) Balance
8) Ability to accept standard filter sizes
9) Ability to interchange on various bodies

Build quality
1) Metal vs. plastic – resistance to damage/wear
2) Weather sealing
3) Ability to resist shock and misalignment of optics and other parts
4) Zoom or focus does not drift if orientation of lens changes
5) Smoothness of manual operation
6) Quality of lens coating
7) Durability of lens coating

Skill level masks a lot of lens defects. As the skill level increases, and the range of shooting environments also increases, these defects start to be come more and more obvious. Which is why as the skill level improves, people upgrade.

However, buying superb gear without having the skills to use it, is, in my opinion, a waste of money. After all, you can't buy composition, or light quality, or abilty to catch the decisive moment. And those things affect the image much more than the difference between a "kit" and "pro" lens.