Those who have / had both - 18-55 and brick

Started 1 month ago | Questions thread
Flat view
EOS GUY Senior Member • Posts: 5,024
Those who have / had both - 18-55 and brick

Right. To the chase.

Some of you may have seen me deliberating and humming hand hawing over brick or no brick and also know I don't like spending money.

Does this match what you saw / see

My observations of the type of photography I want to do - good city art prints, cathedrals etc

18-55 - from 18mm to aprox 30mm - I cannot fault it. It is sharp corner to corner about f5.6 to f11. It just is. Cannot fault it. At 23mm it is NOT 100% up to my 23mm F2 but I am talking a tiny bit, and only seen at 100% or more and even then it's 'almost nothing' and after looking at prints for sale like the ones i do - they have worse IQ for the most part so why worry? Again it's only like less than 5% not as good as the 23mm F2 and that's only extreme peeping, so I write that off

from aprox 35mm - 55mm not quite sharp across the frame outside centre. Just not 'prime time' as I feel and see it pretty much 98% is at 18- aprox 33mm

Again prints for sale - and I'm talking hundreds of GBP to even thousands and those I've gone and looked at in the markets I;d want to hawk to - web and also B&M high end boutiques, bistros, coffee shops, cafes, stores etc are not up to these exacting standards either.

But should I aim higher?

Then I would ask you - from aprox 33mm to 55mm at distance (I cannot fault it if it's a 33mm to 55mm close up of architecture, it doesn't fall short there, it's only if a mid -wide shot like shooting the dome of St Pauls from pavement level at 35mm and filling the frame from there) is the brick then noticeably better.

Examples - JPEG out of camera

Example A - wide angle, I can't find fault in acuity and this is before I even bother sharpening as I don't feel it even needs it... do you...?

B. Zoomed in 39mm, clearly not perfect details outside or even in centre but does it matter when I'm seeing worse IQ than this in prints on walls in locations and also online for hundreds to thousands of pounds...?

BUT - C with a very small amount of sharpening it holds up well everywhere!

So based on A and C - am I right in thinking the 16-55 won't give me much more for my money?

Obviously I have zero business experience when it comes to photography (though enough sense to have done research at least you might argue)

those who've had / have both -

Brick or no brick?

I didn't use a tripod either so maybe should have for this second shot and it would be as good as the first in terms of sharpness but then after a sharpening in post it's fine anyhow and it took one minute

Also Indoors say this same location - F2.8 VS OIS and through the range only aprox half a stop 18mm- 35mm and a stop faster at 55mm...?

I think that is where it could matter. 18-33mm the 18-55 is only half to 3/4 a stop slower and has OIS...... BUT yes at 55 it is a full stop and that is real but OIS...? and 55mm inside a cathedral...? Not very likely but maybe

And finally post the same shot 18mm and 16mm and maybe that could sway me...


Brick or no brick?

-- hide signature --

My Instagram -
The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Before you say (or post in our context) = THINK.
Is what you're going to say - True. Helpful. Important (or Inspiring.) Necessary. Kind.
I have G.A.S, - gear avoidance syndrome.

 EOS GUY's gear list:EOS GUY's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Canon EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM +6 more
This question has not been answered yet.
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow