is this lens good too?

stephyg · Jan 11, 2011

Big Mike · Jan 11, 2011

I'm not sure, but I'd guess that it would be fairly similar to the Canon 18-55mm 'kit' lens.

A much better option would be the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 or the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.

bazooka · Jan 11, 2011

Just consider, you get what you pay for. Lenses are competitively priced so if you're paying $100 for a lens, you're getting $100 worth of lens... unless you buy used and find a good deal. What I'm trying to say is don't expect much for $100. First and foremost, what have the reviews you've read about this lens told you? Haven't read any? That should be your first stop imo.

Markw · Jan 11, 2011

+1 Completely agree for the most part, besides in terms of primes (IE..50/1.8)
Though, the Nikon 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6G goes for 'roundabout $85-100, and I think it is an amazing lens for the price. Super sharp, nice color rendition, great macro. Penny pinching, you can't go wrong with that one. Wonderful lens IMO.

Mark

Novux · Jan 11, 2011

Yikes, that's cheap.

Can't say I'd feel confident buying that lens. Maybe wait a little longer, add to the budget, and invest in something a little longer/faster?

bigtwinky · Jan 11, 2011

My first instinct was similar to Mike's... looks pretty much the same as the kit 18-55 that comes with most entry level cameras. I know the canon version has IS (Image Stabilization), which I don't think the listed lens does.

Considering third party lenses like Tamron and Sigma typically focus slower in the dark and can be somewhat noisier, and that you dont seem to have IS, I think it would be a step down from the kit lens.