What do you think about the standard 18-55mm?

Zascar

A lot of people have come to me recently asking about getting into photography. I get this all the time from friends and work colleagues and I usually tell them the same few things - the lens is far more important than the camera body and spend your money on good glass. However no matter how much I tell them almost everyone ignores what I say and they always get the best camera they can – usually canon, 600d etc – but they always go with the standard 18-55mm lens. Personally I think this lens is a total waste of time as you’ll outgrow it very quickly – the quality is very basic and the rang isn’t anything special either. Yes in theory they can add more lenses on but if you get a decent one in the first place you’re more likely to enjoy it and get better results from the beginning. A lot of people feel underwhelmed as to the lack of zoom and the dof is hardly spectacular either.

Am I alone in thinking this, or are you guys the same? What do you recommend people get when they want to buy their first SLR and actually give photography a proper go. Obviously I recommend they get a nifty fifty straight away – and we all know prime lenses are better and ideal but for beginners its usually out of the question budget to have several wise and most people want more versatility than just one prime etc.

What do you guys recommend to beginners?

magicbastarder

if it's a DX DSLR, always the 35mm f1.8. more of an all-rounder than the 50mm.

the standard lens is fine - for a beginner, they probably won't notice much difference between a shot taken at 50mm and f8 on either lens.

jpb1974

Personally I think that the 18-55mm is a good starter lens, the main pros being:

* It's reasonably cheap and allows you hit the ground running without making a huge financial commitment.

* It's going to act as a decent enough portrait / landscape type lens.

I think the user needs to decide how far they want to take their photography before they decide what the next steps will be for them in terms of investing in more expensive equipment.

I started out with a Canon 350D and 18-55 kit lens back in the day and have had no regrets about it. I now allow my young lad to use this camera and lens from time to time.

I don't see anything wrong with starting with the 18-55. I'd only upgrade it when I feel I've started to notice it's flaws regularly, or that I feel I have to work around it, rather than enjoy shooting with it.


I initially didn't mind the 18-55's quality. It was the lack of 'zoom' that made me switch it for the 17-85. Then it was the lack of weather sealing that made me switch the 17-85 to the 24-105 L. Each lens brought it's own jump in image quality, but it was never the reason why I bought it in the first place (to be honest, I didn't really notice the improvement in image quality when moving up the chain. It was only when I was using the L for a while and I looked at some of my older shots that I could notably see any difference).

Kenny Logins

I think it is a decent lens to get you started (Nikon 18-55 is pretty good, Pentax too. No idea about Canon) but I see so many DSLRs now that have probably only ever had the kit lens on that I wonder what's the point in having one...

Nforce

The Nikon DX 18-70mm lens is a great performer and incredibly sharp,for a kit lens.

leche solara

When I stepped up from compacts to my first SLR I was impressed with the the much more consistent picture quality than what I had been used to, but hugely disappointed by the range of the 18-55. Coming down from a 12 x zoom to a 3x was a shock to the system. I don't really know what I was expecting but felt underwhelmed by the 18-55. Very quickly I bought a Tamron 18-270 which now gave me the improved picture quality over the compact. but also added the zoom I missed. Although I've upgraded the camera since, and sold the 450D (with the 18-55 lens), I still have and love the Tamron lens. Have added the nifty fifty and other lenses since, but have no regrets about selling the 18-55.

Zascar

Yeah I agree with you leche. When I first got a dslr I had the 18-55 and was pretty underwhelmed with it. I got a Sigma 17-70 which was a lot better, but I wanted more zoom. I also used a friends Sigma 18-200 loads which I thought was a fantastic lens. Very decent quality and massive range on it. The Tamrom is aparently better quality still. I always tell people to go for either a Canon 18-135mm which is the kid lens on the higher end cameras, or a 18-200 or so. If you just want one lens that is going to do you for most situations (while learning) they do an auful lot.

I eventually got a Canon 24-105mm F4 L - which is an absolute beast and I love it, but sometimes I really miss the range of the sigma. What I want next is a 70-200mm L to match it. An 18-200 or 18-270 etc can't match those two for quality - but at a small fraction of the price and fairly decent quality for a beginner, having all that range in the one lens give it my vote for a great starter lens.

Oh and of course a nifty fifty too

AnCatDubh

leche solara wrote: »

Coming down from a 12 x zoom to a 3x was a shock to the system. I don't really know what I was expecting but felt underwhelmed by the 18-55.

That's a really valuable insight and one I had forgotten about. Image quality improved immensely when moving to a dSLR but from a bridge or compact with 10x or more zoom will leave you very under whelmed. Mind you at that stage you probably don't understand nothing about nothing and when a 10x zoom is your most impressive statistic that you yield about your photographic ability, then you should realise you've lots to learn

The 18-55 kit on the Pentax is pretty decent as far as a kit lens goes - reasonable quality, not bad contrast and ok sharpness. It certainly is not a 50mm prime, probably challenged as to be considered a decent zoom given the range, and slow too. But that said I actually still stick mine on the camera from time to time.

magicbastarder

funny thing is, i'd regard moving from an 'everything and the kitchen sink' zoom in a compact to a good prime as being one of the reasons to like moving to a DSLR, rather than a drawback...

amdgilmore

Zascar wrote: »

I also used a friends Sigma 18-200 loads which I thought was a fantastic lens.

Are you using the newer version of the kit lens? Or the old one?

Because I have both the kit lens and the 18-200, and IQ on the 18-55 IS is actually noticeably better at every comparable focal length.

I think the 18-55 IS is a nice little lens, which gets more stick than it deserves. And I think that's partly because its predecessors were so awful that nobody trusts the kit lenses anymore as a result.

If you're serious about photography you'll come up against its limitations pretty quickly, but it gives exceptional IQ for its price - especially coupled with DPP's lens correction.

I mostly shoot with the couple of primes that I have, but I still regularly find use for the 18-55, especially for wandering around town.

Of course I'd swap it for an L lens in heartbeat... but don't tell it that.

Borderfox

The new kit lens with IS is a great little performer, nice a light and iq is pretty good considering what it is.

Zascar

In fairness yes it was the older non-is version I had years ago. Ironically I got an 18-55mm IS with my 600D, but I bought the 24-105 at the same time so its sitting in its box I have never even used it. I kept it thinking I may need the extra wide angle but its so tiny a difference I never bothered. Might give it a whirl, but I’ll prob sell it or give it away...

amdgilmore

Zascar wrote: »

I kept it thinking I may need the extra wide angle

That's basically the main reason I keep it with me too. Seems a fair bit sharper than the sigma at the wide end. And the IS is surprisingly good on it.

This was wide open, at 18mm, cropped by about 33% to get rid of the foreground:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amdgilmore/7179312574/in/photostream/lightbox/

No work of art or anything, but it'll give you an idea of how it performs. The guy jumping is about 50ft away and the focal point was the blue boat in the centre. In the original size you can pick out the house numbers, and there's little or no CA visible.

True it doesn't compete with the top lenses for sharpness or contrast, but for the price it's hard to complain!