Replacement for a Canon 18-55 kit lens

ChrisJB · #1 (**permalink**) 19-02-2011, 05:18 PM

I'm toying with the idea of replacing the above mentioned kit lens that came with my Canon 450D. I have to say I am not that impressed with it really and I'm considering saving up for a quality replacement. The two I have narrowed it down to are the 17-55 and the 17-40L. Both get very good reviews, but the L glass one is quite a bit cheaper, more compact and lighter. As you can probably guess, I'm leaning towards the 17-40L, but one reservation is that it doesn't have Image Stabilisation. Will I miss not having it?
Primarily it will be used on the camera whilst I am on my walks, so mainly landscapes and sometimes flowers. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks in advance.

Chris

Geoff F · #2 (**permalink**) 19-02-2011, 07:51 PM

If you are using a tripod you won't need IS anyway.

ChrisJB · #3 (**permalink**) 19-02-2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff F

If you are using a tripod you won't need IS anyway.

That's the thing Geoff, I won't be using one. I'm just someone who tries to take half decent pictures whilst I'm out on a walk. The kit lens will do, but I don't find it that sharp and can't be bothered sharpening my photos all the time. I'm after something that will give me sharper photos without resorting to Photoshop too much.

Chris

Lancashire Lad · #4 (**permalink**) 23-02-2011, 09:59 PM

The 17-40L lens has the better glass. As one of the "L" series, it has both aspherical, and ultra low dispersion glass elements. Although, to be fair, both of these lenses are quality items.

I wouldn't think that its f4 max aperture would be much of a disadvantage over the f2.8 offered by the 17-55.

You should be able to take crisp, shake-free photos, hand held at 1/60th second and faster with either of them.

You would need to decide whether the loss of the 40-55 focal length range would be any great disadvantage for the type of photos that you envisage taking if you went for the 17-40.

When I'm photographing landscapes, I usually find myself wanting more coverage, always tending towards the widest angle settings. I can't remember when I last used (or wanted) anything other than my Sigma 12-24mm for landscapes.

As for sharpening, I'd definitely recommend post camera sharpening in Photoshop/Paintshop Pro or similar.

Your 450D has integral custom settings to enable in camera sharpening (levels 0 to 7) but the downside of sharpening in camera, is that once it's done, you can't undo it later on, and it offers less options for personal choice.

You may find that it does suit your needs, but this is one subject where most would agree that sharpening out of the camera would be the preferred way to go.

Regards,
Mike.

ChrisJB · #5 (**permalink**) 24-02-2011, 08:50 PM

Thanks Mike. You have certainly given me some things to consider.

Chris

Jim Ford · #6 (**permalink**) 24-02-2011, 09:10 PM

You may be using the earlier kit lens that's often referred to having the performance of a 'coke bottle bottom'! The later kit lens is considered to be better:

Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Jim

ChrisJB · #7 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

You may be using the earlier kit lens that's often referred to having the performance of a 'coke bottle bottom'! The later kit lens is considered to be better:

Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Jim

Cheers Jim. I'd also heard about the earlier model, but thankfully mine is the later one.

Chris

Jim Ford · #8 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

Cheers Jim. I'd also heard about the earlier model, but thankfully mine is the later one.

Gosh - if your're "not that impressed" with the later and better one, just how bad must the earlier and worse one be!

To my mind it seems a cynical ploy by Canon to market such poor items, relying on their reputation to dupe the unsuspecting public!

Jim

squishy · #9 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 02:40 PM

well it is the second cheapest lens canon make.
I've had a play with one and thought it was pretty good for a cheapo lens, certainly no worse than the other kit-lenses I've had a look at (except the pentax one which was built better with a better manual focus ring).

Jim Ford · #10 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squishy

well it is the second cheapest lens canon make.
I've had a play with one and thought it was pretty good for a cheapo lens, certainly no worse than the other kit-lenses I've had a look at (except the pentax one which was built better with a better manual focus ring).

But were you looking at the 'MK1' version of the 18-55mm or the 'MK2'?

Jim