-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Canon eos350d 18-55m Lense? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mulderstu
- Start date
jiminlondon99
Well-known member
IMHO I would say a qualified yes, it is a cheap option to get you started and the 27/80mm 35mm comparison range is useful if as you say you are a new user. I suspect a better option would be the new EF 17-40 f4 LUSM. It has a constant f/4 maximum aperture, and offers weather-resistant construction. It is an good quality lens but it would cost a extra £450. You may well find that as you develop your skills some of the other lens options will appeal to you so saving £450 now could be useful.
Good luck in your deliberations
Jim
Good luck in your deliberations
Jim
IanF
Moderator
I think there's been a fair bit of dicsussion on this in the photo magazines. The kit lens has taken a bit of a slating. I think the current edition of AP reckons the Sigma short zoom (c.18-55mm? - sorry left it at work) is a better lens - some retailers are apparently doing this one as a kit option for the same price as the Canon lens kit.
I find that the kit lens is useful for everyday shots - it is fairly wide angle (for landscapes) and will close focus to under 12 inches. However for the extra ~£100 that it adds to the cost of the camera it is probably not worth it - I've also heard that the Sigma 18-50mm is much better and only cost ~£85. Another good option would be to get the Canon 50mm f1.8 (£73) - it's an excellent portrait lens and is ideal if you are going to use the dslr for digiscoping. I'd very happily swap my 18-55mm Canon kit lens for the 50mm f1.8.
jiminlondon99
Well-known member
IanF said:
Ian is right about the the AP article on the letters page about the Sigma f3.5 being the better lens. There was also a lens supplement in the May issue that found the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC the best choice, but at £200 more than the Sigma 18-50 f3.5/5.6. The respective AP scores were Canon =76%, Sigma f3.5 = 83% and the Sigma f2.8 = 91%.
Jim
Last edited:
photo_luver
Well-known member
Everyday shots its a good walkaround lens... but without IS and USM (i think you can get the USM)
Maybe if you have the extra money go for the 17-85 IS USM its a great lense and you wont regret buying it!
What i want to use for a walking around (birding lens) is either the short 70-200 or the 75-300 IS USM.... these are both pretty good lenses for walking around but for birding i would use the very sharp and gives the extra reach bigma!
Maybe if you have the extra money go for the 17-85 IS USM its a great lense and you wont regret buying it!
What i want to use for a walking around (birding lens) is either the short 70-200 or the 75-300 IS USM.... these are both pretty good lenses for walking around but for birding i would use the very sharp and gives the extra reach bigma!
madmike
Well-known member
Wot lens
Hi mulderstu
For what it's worth - I've got the 18-55 lens, and considering the amount of bad comments I've seen about in the press, I actually find it's pretty good. You will (as with most digi stuff) need to work on the images a bit in Photoshop, but I've found it gives me quite reasonable results for the price. In fact for close ups it's very good!
I also have a canon 75-300 IS zoom, and frankly it's rubbish! I've tested it at all settings and the results are POOR or worse! I'm having to really consider going mad and getting the 100-400 IS zoom at £1100 ish!
At the end of the day generally, I guess you get what you pay for!
Cheers,
madmike
Hi mulderstu
For what it's worth - I've got the 18-55 lens, and considering the amount of bad comments I've seen about in the press, I actually find it's pretty good. You will (as with most digi stuff) need to work on the images a bit in Photoshop, but I've found it gives me quite reasonable results for the price. In fact for close ups it's very good!
I also have a canon 75-300 IS zoom, and frankly it's rubbish! I've tested it at all settings and the results are POOR or worse! I'm having to really consider going mad and getting the 100-400 IS zoom at £1100 ish!
At the end of the day generally, I guess you get what you pay for!
Cheers,
madmike
Pied Kingfisher
Active member
Hi, Mike.
I am interested in your "bad" experience with your 75-300 IS zoom. Would you please enlighten me more so that I can decide to drop the idea of getting one of those?
Thanks.
I am interested in your "bad" experience with your 75-300 IS zoom. Would you please enlighten me more so that I can decide to drop the idea of getting one of those?
Thanks.
madmike
Well-known member
Hi Pied Kingfisher,
I have just found the lens is not sharp at all compared to say the 100-400 that I tested a while ago.
I've tried it on all different settings, butnot impressed at all. I think others have had a similar experience.
It may well be OK for many people but I do like crisp images if possible.
I've actually seen some very good photos on BF taken with a shorter prime lens and a 1.4 TC!
I also have a Tamron 75-300 mm lens for a 35mm film camera and that has produced some very good results although how it would be on a digi camera I can't say.
Like I said, I think you get what you pay for. Certainly I don't think paying about £350 for the IS lens is not worth it.The only plus points are that it is very light and the focus is pretty good and quick.
Cheers,
Mike
I have just found the lens is not sharp at all compared to say the 100-400 that I tested a while ago.
I've tried it on all different settings, butnot impressed at all. I think others have had a similar experience.
It may well be OK for many people but I do like crisp images if possible.
I've actually seen some very good photos on BF taken with a shorter prime lens and a 1.4 TC!
I also have a Tamron 75-300 mm lens for a 35mm film camera and that has produced some very good results although how it would be on a digi camera I can't say.
Like I said, I think you get what you pay for. Certainly I don't think paying about £350 for the IS lens is not worth it.The only plus points are that it is very light and the focus is pretty good and quick.
Cheers,
Mike
Pied Kingfisher
Active member
Mike, thanks for the prompt response. Perhaps that explains the relatively less expensive price for the lens at its spec.
Pied Kingfisher
Active member
Hi, Mike. Guess what - I just bought a 2nd hand Canon 75-300 IS zoom for £190. It still has 7 months Canon warranty with it! Please excuse me if it sounds like I have ignored your advice. With your views in mind, I have further studied other reviews from different leads of this forum and understood the pros and cons of the lens. It may not be a perfect lens but is good enough for a newie like me. My philosophy is that I will start my experience at the lower end and enjoy the pleasure of upgrading. I believe the process will be an interesting one. Once again, thanks for your advice.
