EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Ok we know that this lens is just a cheap get you going lens thrown in with your Canon dslr but to say its crap is total rubbish! this rubbish len has won me lots of photography competitions and also had my work featured in 4 page spead in international photography mag using this lens.
Even Charlie Waite said my shot was superb so crap no way, if people spent time learning how to use their gear instead of automatically thinking they NEED an L lens etc then not only will they save themselves some dosh but also become a better photographer in the long run.
30 years ago we would have raved about these lenses and Pro toggers would have used lenses that weren't any better and still sold their work? so give it a rest and lets drop this camera gear snobbery and learn how to use what you have.

ok, you cant take pictures with it. mine came with the camera it was not worth just getting the body alone with the deal i had. all i can say is the lens is better than the tamrom 70-300 i also had in the deal. The canon 400D is now looking for a new lens so if anyone wants these they can have them for a price

I own several \"L\" lenses-200L, 70-200L,135L, 50 1.4, Tamron 28-75 and 200-500. I have owned 24-70L. I think what is missing in this string is what this lens is designed to do and how it is used. I have shot with this lens and have gotten some beautiful results.

I mainly use this lens for wide angle shots were a low F-stop is not needed. I no there are variations of this lens as in all lenes of quailty. Mine, luckly is very sharp.

For a first lens it kept up at a good pace. Let\'s face it it\'s a $50 lens that covers a good space and is sharp enough for most pro\'s. The plus side when shooting in places I don\'t have to worry if this lens gets damaged, sanded, or dirty. It will handle some macro as well as wide and is a good companion for a walk about lens. Set it to auto and fire away. Are you going to shoot a wedding with it. No. but used with a flash it is a very versitale and sharp with a great throw away price.

It\'s an objective for first use, for anyone who wants to make some landscape or portrait shots with his new D-SLR and has no more lenses (for rookies, you could say). Experienced users of SLRs - former analog or digital - won\'t be satisfied with it in the long term.

Pros (in addition to the above): relatively large zoom range of 3,05 times, a quick and reliable auto focus, though non USM, a simple substitute for a 28-80 lens with analog SLRs

Cons (-\"-): it\'s a simple construction that doesn\'t meet the quality of Canon\'s other standard lenses in many points, e.g. when shooting high contrast objects at wide angle their edges in the outer parts of the image show up red and blue. This phenomenon is called \"chromatic aberration\" and simply based on the dispersion of white light to its primary colors.
It\'s a simple, inconspicious phenomenon that enrages professionals and experienced hobby photographers and drives them crazy.

Rsum: Recommendation for rookies that don\'t know anything about photography and the range and variety of lenses: yes; for anyone else: no!

I\'m sorry and no offence ment but I don\'t agree with all thats said. I think for what the lens is worth it\'s quite good quality. I mean as said it\'s not in the L standards but the cameras it comes with are only consumer based products also. As a starting point into wide-angle it\'s a very useable option.

Stop this lens down a little f8 or so and the sharpness is fairly good IMO. It\'s not built very rugged, but then your not paying very much at all. I\'ve not had any focus issues at all with several of these. It\'s not pro quality no, but for it\'s cost/value IMO very much worth it and certainly a good starting point.

Ok, I agree with the above remarks regarding the quality of the lens. But I do have to say that you guys are comparing apples and oranges. You cannot compare the 18-55 EF-S lens, that Canon sells as a \"cheap\" lens, with an \"L\" lens, where \"cheap\" is not an option.

I think that my 18-55 mm does a decent job. A great job? Certainly not. Do I want to buy an \"L\" lens? Most definitely. But for the price, the 18-55 has an amazing field of view, and the quality of the pictures is quite decent, really. I can use my pictures, and even post my landscape shots on forums and get some \"wows\" for them. I believe that buying it in the kit was a smart move for me, and I will gladly move to an expensive L lens, but only when I\'ll have the money.

The big down sides of this lens for me is this: because it is cheaply built, it is not very well designed. Hence, the focusing ring on the front of the lens is small, and what is worth is that if you have a polarizer on the lens, focusing will turn your polarizer. Very annoying for landscape pictures...

Cdric

Very marginal lens. Purchased as a \'kit\' lens (as 20D bodies were scarce for awhile) and sold it right away. Not even close in quality to other lenses in Canon\'s lineup. They should be ashamed of themselves for producing it and marketing it with the 20D.

This lens came as part of my 20D which I had to buy in kit form - A CASE OF TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

I do not like this lens. I dont believe it is sharp enough and I think it is a very tacky. I will replace it with a decent wide-angle L lens soon and solve this problem. I do not think it is worth the extra cost in the kit and will dump it as soon as I can. Very much a lens for Postcard/Jumbo Prints - not bigger. It should also be OK for internet use.

Having said the above many people do not want big prints so for those looking at Postcard/Jumbo size prints this lens is a cheap and viable alternative. Also, for those who seldom need a wide angle lens it is an alternative to the high cost L lenses.

I JUST RESENT THE FACT THAT CANON PUT US IN A NO OPTION SITUATION IF WE WANT THE 20D BODY.

Just as a matter of interest, I have tried my best to trade or sell this lens with no results. One dealer suggested that I put it in a dark place and forget about it.