Which would improve image quality more, lens or camera body?

Started 5 months ago | Discussion thread
geepondy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,311
Like?
Re: Which would improve image quality more, lens or camera body?
In reply to iancrowe, 5 months ago

Thank you for your post.  The 18-55 is indeed the image stabilized version as it is written right on the lens.  For my DSLR I do indeed select the center as the active focus point but the confirmation LED on the viewfinder is very small.  Maybe it's like that in all the DSLRs.

Interesting lens reviews.  It's good to know I wouldn't be giving up anything if I chose the 18-135 STM.  I'm assuming still the 15-85 is the better lens.

I was investigating 35mm primes as I thought that might be a viable upgrade at some point but my the good ones are expensive!  More so then a lot of zooms.  Why is this so?  I would think less glass, less engineering involved, easier to make fast, etc.

iancrowe wrote:

geepondy wrote:

Thank you for all the varied and great responses! To answer a couple of questions, the kit 18-55 is the second generation model but one of the earlier ones so I had wondered if the process had been refined at all. I do have the 50mm F1.8 prime but it doesn't go wide enough for the group photos I take plus I think the fine focus is inconsistent although I would have to do more experimentation to confirm. It can be really noisy and scary to use particularly in low light when it's hunting around for a focus point.

It sounds like it is the non-IS Mk II version of the 18-55 kit lens. The IS version Has "Image Stabilizer" printed on a band near the front of the lens and a switch marked "Stabilizer On - Off" at the rear of the lens.

In low light the 50mm f/1.8 will only work reliably with the centre focus point. You should select the centre autofocus point only (this means using P, Tv, AV or M modes only).

As I was looking through some of my photos, I realized in some photos I may be quibbling a bit too much as I found I was looking at them at 200 percent. I also confirmed what a great program DXO Optics Pro is. I know you get more by shooting raw but the difference between a DXO Optics converted raw picture compared to the original from the camera is like night and day.

My biggest gripe about the 1000D is the shallow buffer of image capture and the very small focus confirmation point on the viewfinder. I don't do action photography that much but sometimes do like to take a quick succession of photos and it can only do about three raw photos in succession before the buffer gets full.

There are two two focus confirmations in the view finder 1) the active focus point on the image itself and 2) the focus confirmation indicator at the far right of the status line. Which one do you find too small?

Changing up to the T4i you will see a significant increase in burst performance. The rate goes up to 5 frames per sec and the buffer size to 6 shots. If you want anything more than this then you are looking at a 7D.

If one was to splurge for the T4i with the 18-135 STM lens are you giving anything up in image quality in the 18-55 range of the kit lens?

Looking at the test results from Photozone.de Other than noticeably more barrel distortion on the 18mm end of the 18-135 STM lens there is very little difference between the 18-135 STM lens and the 18-55 IS lens. However there is a significant improvement over the 18-55 non-IS lens.

EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 Mk II lens review

EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens review

EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 STM IS lens review

N.B. If you decide to go with a T4i with the 18-135 lens confirm that it is the STM version of the lens not the older non-STM version as that is a significantly poorer lens optically.

Hope this helps.

Ian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow