Simviation Forums

Canon EOS Rebel XS/1000D with the 18-55mm kit lens on a blazing hot day. Monochromed then layer masked the flower. Nice bokeh for the kit lens.

Kit lenses often get a bad rap, and I don't know why. My kit 18-55 has served me faithfully for two years now. Still good and sharp, although most non-L Canon lenses focus rather slowly.

Many of the recent Kit lenses are actually pretty nice.  Mine however sucks  :P  I have the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens and all though I still use it (no money for new lens) I'm not a fan of it.  It can do well, but only in ideal circumstances.

The kit lenses for the upper models are nice, but the lower entry-level models are cheaply, and small. It's a nice start but I'm saving up for the Tamron Di-II 18-270mm VC lens. 15x zoom will get you anywhere you want. I might get a Macro Lens instead but I need a better zoom telephoto as well.

Don't let that 15x zoom fool you, that's only means 270mm is 15x more then 18mm. If your comparing it to a 15x zoom point and shoot then your not going to get what you think you are.

Don't get me wrong, 18-270 is a pretty sweet range, but its not as much as you think it is, as they list that 15x zoom to attract buyers. For example, I have a 75-300mm zoom lens. The formula for a lens' zoom is: longest MM setting / shortest MM setting=Zoom. So, 300/75=4 So essentially I have a 4x zoom lens, however my lens is 30mm longer then that one which means it has more "zoom."

Now don't get me wrong, the Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II is probably a fantastic lens. Its just some companies like to tack on these labels that will help sell the lens.

One more note. Make sure you read some professional reviews on the lens' performance. These superzooms often suffer from a decrease in image quality as they require more glass (internal lenses) to accomplish their focal length. More zoom = more glass, more glass = less image quality.

Just my $.02

I know nothing about cameras....
but this shot is great, it looks like one of those default pictures windows always has on a new computer.

The current kitlenses featuring IS are good! The older ones ( like my 18-55 without is) isn't kind of sharp until f8.0.

Remember, lenses perform according to their price. You should always look at what you want to do with a lens, what you expect from it and what your budget is and get the best bang for your bucks... :-)

In your case I'd forget about the tamron superzoom and look for a 55-250 IS lens. She has a good reputation amongst canon users, without costing heaps of money.  ;)

Thanks Omag I will drop the Tamron superzoom and get the 55-250. Because that dropped a good $400 off my budget I'm now looking at a macro lens.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830998384

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830998387

They don't look much different honestly except the latter has the ultrasonicmotor and narrower view than the first. Any suggestions?

LOL, you're gonna hate me now...

Those lenses are rather short. Most people I know using macrolenses, tend to go for insect shots, etc. The more mm's, the more distance you have between the lens and the object. 90 - 100 mm is a good starter for that purpose and very workable, akkording to the people at Belgium Digital. They sugest the Sigma 105, tamron 90 when the budget isn't to big, Canon 100 or sigma 150 if you have more budget room...

But hey, it will teach you lots! I'd go for the 60 mm f2.8 - has usm (=quick autofocus) and more reach. Every macrolens is a fixed focal lens and hence SHARP as a knife! :-)

Good luck with your choice and show us some results when you have it. A macrolens is still on my wishlist...