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

[CR Backup Admin]

Wow, that is a lot better.  No more fringing.  I like the blue look but now it looks kind of extreme.  I might have to rethink my tendency to always shoot at daylight color balance, which is a bad habit I picked up from shooting slides.  Or at least be more conservative about it.  Thanks for the advice.

There is not a whole lot you can do, the high amount of white fools the automatic color balance in the camera, no matter what the setting.  Just correct it in post processing.  it can be done in jpeg, but you have more leeway in RAW.  Otherwise whites will be gray or bluish. 

[Policar]

I would like to blame the camera, but it actually got spot on at 7500K and I changed it to daylight.  I use the daylight (5200K) preset because I'm used to shooting slides (4x5 velvia) and so when my late day shots aren't blue I freak out.  Which is really a bad habit with digital, because obviously a neutral white balance is better most of the time and I would use photoshop to get closer to one if I were shooting slides.

[CR Backup Admin]

7500K is getting too cool, but its easy to fix in photoshop or lightroom, or most other software, for that matter.  The setting only applies to jpegs, in raw, lightroom or photoshop allows you to set color temp.

With slide film, you need to be right on, unless you are scanning it, in which case, it can be corrected at the time of scanning, or later in photoshop.  We all prefer to be right on, of course.

I did my own film and print developing back in the 1960's, I could develop ASA 64 ektrachrome color slides, but they always had a hint of blue green, so I just stuck with ASA 25 Kodachrome II and Kodak developing for the best results.  I recall also trying AFGA ASA 10 slide film, it was a disaster, not enough light.

I gave up on the dark room when I moved to a different house, and my kids were growing up and I was working long days and long weeks for years.

I admire those who have the patience to use slide film, particularly 4 X 5. 

[Policar]

I admire them, too.  I have only been doing photography for about a year and when I decided to move to 4x5 a few months ago I thought it would be great, but the cost of film is too high for just practice.  So now I am trying digital to develop my eye before going back to 4x5, but it is frustrating leaving behind the colors of velvia, which digital cannot imitate.  If you still shoot slide film at all, try it out; it's great!  Don't use 100, which is bad.

Except for the color and grain (which is a matter of taste), there's no point shooting anything other than 4x5 or 8x10 if you shoot color film.  You need a drum scan of 4x5 to surpass a full frame dSLR, and some would argue the dSLR is better than 4x5.  8x10 is the only format that really is noticeably better than digital, imo, but I do not own an 8x10 camera.  That said you will never get visible distortion or chromatic aberration with 4x5, even with wide lenses.  I'm looking forward to trying it again soon.

[dtphoto]

The  18-55 IS is a fantastic lens. It's lightweight, has IS, covers a fantastic range, and is just as sharp as the 17-55IS f/2.8. E.g. from the photozone.de reviews:

Copywrited Images Removed by moderator.  Its not cool to post someone elses work! A link to the article is more appropriate.

I've scoured reviews and weighed up every possible standard wide zoom for APS-C Canon and the conclusion I always come back to is none of them are worth the money over the kit lens given it's relative performance.

I won't be upgrading until I go full frame with the 5D Mk3.

Pics:








Obviously images of this size don't show much about lens performance, but it does show the utility of the focal length range. I even use mine for still life/product shooting and general stock photography:

[Policar]

Not entirely as wild about the third one, but those are all really great shots.  I agree about image quality.  This thing isn't perfect, especially toward the long end, but it's outrageously good for the price.  Pictures like those remind me that my money is probably better spent in classes (or on trips to places worth photographing) than on more gear, which is kind of too bad since I like gear.

[CR Backup Admin]

Not entirely as wild about the third one, but those are all really great shots.  I agree about image quality.  This thing isn't perfect, especially toward the long end, but it's outrageously good for the price.  Pictures like those remind me that my money is probably better spent in classes (or on trips to places worth photographing) than on more gear, which is kind of too bad since I like gear.

I think that most of our contributors and viewers are interested mainly in gear.  That includes me!.  I love fine tools, no matter if its a camera or lens, or woodworking, or any tool.

However, in the final analysis, its what you do with the tools that counts.

[jnskyliner34]

I find this lens quite sharp at f/8-11

1000D + 18-55 kitlens

Barossa Valley. Adelaide, South Australia


Makati City Skyline. Manila, Philippines


Flying above Australia

[irphotorumor]

I think that most of our contributors and viewers are interested mainly in gear.  That includes me!.  I love fine tools, no matter if its a camera or lens, or woodworking, or any tool.

However, in the final analysis, its what you do with the tools that counts.

I couldn't have put it together better myself. Count me in.
I've enjoyed reading your experiences guys, and lovely shots out there too! Thanks,
Ivan

http://irbque.blogspot.com/

PS. I would love to post some 6x6 shots here per (tangentially) our earlier discussion but it would be inappropriate for this thread.

[irphotorumor]

My milk frother replacement finally arrived, and so to celebrate the affair, I sprang for the kit lens.
35mm @ f/4 +1/2 (max(min?) for the focal length).
The central focal point (square) was bigger than the opening in the foam. Focus achieved.

Now that we all mangled the words under our breaths that lens quality doesn't matter for good photography, in my upcoming post, I will try to make the kit lens squirm under the scrutiny of other glass :-)!
Thanks,
Ivan

http://irbque.blogspot.com/

[Canon Rumors]

I met a girl while travelling in Bali, we headed to Hong Kong together. All she had was a T1i and 18-55 and wanted some shots of the Hong Kong skyline at night. It's been eons since I used a wide lens that slow!

These 2 shots are from a boat crossing the river (forget the name of it).

[jamesthepeach]

Despite all its short comings, the focal range of this lens is quite useful on a 1.6x crop body:


Catch the Train by jamesthepeachli, on Flickr

[branden]

I actually think Canon gives a very useful lens as the kit lens. It's compromises are well known and don't need to be repeated, but it gives an all-in-one solution that cover photography's most useful focal ranges.

[afira]

I think its a very versatile lens for the price. Little frustrated by the noise, but it cleans up well.


Emerald Tree Python by afiradr, on Flickr

KL by afiradr, on Flickr

Double Sun by afiradr, on Flickr

Paronella Park by afiradr, on Flickr

[dr croubie]

These 2 shots are from a boat crossing the river (forget the name of it).

That'd be the Star Ferry? Love the shots of the island, last time i was in HK i thought i'd film the light show in full HD for the hell of it. Even my 15-85 wasn't wide enough to fit it all in, looks like next time i go back i gotta buy a 10-22...