-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
If you can't get good enough photos with the 18-55 - it may not be the lens' fault :P
- Thread starter EOS GUY
- Start date
jm10
Senior Member
Thanks for posting this. He is a pretty talented photographer who can create great photos with any equipment...
jacob
Yeah I posted it as a lot of people think a prime in the same range will make their photos better.
And it might as one works differently with a prime I find if one finds their favourite focal length
But you can just discipline yourself to set say 23mm or 35mm on the zoom and not change it the whole day (I do this but will change once or twice In a day if a great opportunity comes and calls for wider usually)
It takes more discipline than one might imagine but I can do it now...
So then unless you need longer or wider than 18-55 or want to do bokeh.... and if you are like me and were blessed with a perfect copy well it can be good to look at videos like this and get inspired that what you have may be enough
May be. Not saying has to be but just that it's worth a consideration
And it might as one works differently with a prime I find if one finds their favourite focal length
But you can just discipline yourself to set say 23mm or 35mm on the zoom and not change it the whole day (I do this but will change once or twice In a day if a great opportunity comes and calls for wider usually)
It takes more discipline than one might imagine but I can do it now...
So then unless you need longer or wider than 18-55 or want to do bokeh.... and if you are like me and were blessed with a perfect copy well it can be good to look at videos like this and get inspired that what you have may be enough
May be. Not saying has to be but just that it's worth a consideration
Can verify. I've seldom had occasion to blame my photographic failures on this lens, which lived on several of my Fuji bodies almost exclusively for years. And even then, an AF misstep was typically involved, but that's probably more (2013 era) body than lens.
TonyGN10
Leading Member
Thank you for posting this link - some truly stunning (and moving) photographs in this video - fantastic!!
tacogeoff
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 347
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 363
love the 18-55 it was my first fuji lens. It did everything quite well. I ended up going with the 23mm f2 and 56mm 1.2. The 56 takes care of all my portrait needs. the 23mm full fills all of my landscape, street, environmental and group photo needs. ultimately the 18-55 was rendered useless to me and was traded in. BUT it is a very great lens to start with and i would highly recommend it to people just coming to fuji.
Heh heh yeah I'm glad I saw this video too as was recently going to sell for a few primes in the Focal range... I have the 23mm F2 also
But the 18-55 my copy is so good at every FL that unless I want to do bokeh or need lower light photography such as city streets without street lighting (I wouldn't be doing that anyway I hate boring light) with moving subjects there's just no reason. Never needed weather sealing.
I keep trying to find fault with the kit lens but just can't. I got spoiled with my copy I think but many people report same quality also... F4 at 55mm can throw b/grounds for portraits, F2.8 at 18mm is pretty good even for say a wedding, perhaps not in a dim church no but in a marquee even.... I just cannot justify using anything else, not even keeping the 23mm f2 really as you have to shoot it at F2.8 or further for best results and the 18-55 is F3.2 at 23mm and I'd say 90% as good in terms of IQ which you HAVE to pixel peep to even see the difference.....
Of course I need wider so that means a wide prime at some point as an 18-55 cannot go longer or wider than 18-55
I'm not shooting pro or wedding etc just street, documentary and architecture and travel when I do so yeah I mostly want to be stopped down most of the time and at night F2.8 is enough for night street etc.... I'm usually in capital cities so with ambient light usually sometimes am at F4 and okay even...
But the 18-55 my copy is so good at every FL that unless I want to do bokeh or need lower light photography such as city streets without street lighting (I wouldn't be doing that anyway I hate boring light) with moving subjects there's just no reason. Never needed weather sealing.
I keep trying to find fault with the kit lens but just can't. I got spoiled with my copy I think but many people report same quality also... F4 at 55mm can throw b/grounds for portraits, F2.8 at 18mm is pretty good even for say a wedding, perhaps not in a dim church no but in a marquee even.... I just cannot justify using anything else, not even keeping the 23mm f2 really as you have to shoot it at F2.8 or further for best results and the 18-55 is F3.2 at 23mm and I'd say 90% as good in terms of IQ which you HAVE to pixel peep to even see the difference.....
Of course I need wider so that means a wide prime at some point as an 18-55 cannot go longer or wider than 18-55
I'm not shooting pro or wedding etc just street, documentary and architecture and travel when I do so yeah I mostly want to be stopped down most of the time and at night F2.8 is enough for night street etc.... I'm usually in capital cities so with ambient light usually sometimes am at F4 and okay even...
Robmas4229
Senior Member
Thanks for sharing the link. Some very good photography there.
Also just goes to prove that I shouldn't worry too much about my 18-55 not being WR.
-Rob
Also just goes to prove that I shouldn't worry too much about my 18-55 not being WR.
-Rob
Miguel-C
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 2,685
This is clickbait hype. You just made the guy money. My photographic mentor and one time advisor made the comment that Edward Weston could smear emulation on a bath math and produce a better print and 99.99% of the photographers in the world - that W. Eugene Smith throws better negatives in the trash than 99.99% of photographers will ever make. The key is not the lens - the key is the photographer's understanding of his equipment and what each component of the equipment can do and figuring out how to make it do what he/she wants. Do we really think W. Eugene Smith sent back an excuse from the WWII front while embedded with the Marines in the Pacific front to Life - "you know if I had a better lens I could capture people dying better." Yea right. Didn't happen and wouldn't happen since Smith understood his equipment and how to get the best out of it.
But we have a youtube scammer, racking in the cash laughing all the way to the bank. The problem with photographers is not their equipment. The equipment today is far better than 99.999% of the people using it. The problem is vision.
I'm sure. I bought a used one before that was awful and returned it. Again I am fortunate that my copy I bought new seems perfect (no scientific tests but I did pixel peep it.)
When I had a Nikon D5300 and 18-55 VR II which was the best kit lens to date and then did upgrade to a Sigma EX DC OS HSM 17-50mm F2.8, it really was like comparing prime image quality to a lesser compact.
My Copy of the 18-55 is like that Sigma - while not being as fast through the range - and as much as I do try to find reason to replace it with something else in that range Unless I need F2.8 as I zoom in which I don't YET or more compressed DOF, not something I really have ever been that interested in, I cannot find reason.
I would like 24mm though as I love that FL but instead of a brick I'll more likely spring for a Samyang 12mm or the 16mmF2.8 if and when I need it.
I don't really need my 23mm as in comparisons, the 23mm F2 was a tiny bit better than the 18-55 at 23mm I had to go to 100% to really notice it and I am not producing paying work for anyone. But I do sometimes just enjoy having a small prime on and 35mm is my favourite FL. If i was going commercial, I have zero doubt I would go two bodies with primes, the 16mm, 23mm, 25mm and 56mm F1.4. I have to admit I would likely go FF just for sheer ease of exposures with lower ISO
I guess I'm still at the stage where I'm not limited for what I do most - street, documentary, travel and now architecture (but not strictly architectual, trying to get the truest straightest lines etc more arty than true mint architectural prints) and again my copy is excellent especially at 18mm, 23mm and 35mm (it's likely decent at 55mm too but I rarely shoot that long.)
At least I'm explaining my rational instead of just saying _______ lens is better than _________lens -you must have it! Which is the best way to go.
But for beginners who may not understand it is learning composition and new ways of seeing and technique rather than gear - these type of videos are great.
Here's another
and another
And this girl is quite endearing and funny as she learns and takes not the most exciting shots but the IQ and capability of the lens does shine in her photos and not seem at all wanting. She only uses the 18-55 and 50mm-200mm
Again all of them and I seem to have been fortunate with copies.
When I had a Nikon D5300 and 18-55 VR II which was the best kit lens to date and then did upgrade to a Sigma EX DC OS HSM 17-50mm F2.8, it really was like comparing prime image quality to a lesser compact.
My Copy of the 18-55 is like that Sigma - while not being as fast through the range - and as much as I do try to find reason to replace it with something else in that range Unless I need F2.8 as I zoom in which I don't YET or more compressed DOF, not something I really have ever been that interested in, I cannot find reason.
I would like 24mm though as I love that FL but instead of a brick I'll more likely spring for a Samyang 12mm or the 16mmF2.8 if and when I need it.
I don't really need my 23mm as in comparisons, the 23mm F2 was a tiny bit better than the 18-55 at 23mm I had to go to 100% to really notice it and I am not producing paying work for anyone. But I do sometimes just enjoy having a small prime on and 35mm is my favourite FL. If i was going commercial, I have zero doubt I would go two bodies with primes, the 16mm, 23mm, 25mm and 56mm F1.4. I have to admit I would likely go FF just for sheer ease of exposures with lower ISO
I guess I'm still at the stage where I'm not limited for what I do most - street, documentary, travel and now architecture (but not strictly architectual, trying to get the truest straightest lines etc more arty than true mint architectural prints) and again my copy is excellent especially at 18mm, 23mm and 35mm (it's likely decent at 55mm too but I rarely shoot that long.)
At least I'm explaining my rational instead of just saying _______ lens is better than _________lens -you must have it! Which is the best way to go.
But for beginners who may not understand it is learning composition and new ways of seeing and technique rather than gear - these type of videos are great.
Here's another
and another
And this girl is quite endearing and funny as she learns and takes not the most exciting shots but the IQ and capability of the lens does shine in her photos and not seem at all wanting. She only uses the 18-55 and 50mm-200mm
Again all of them and I seem to have been fortunate with copies.
I don't get where you are coming from.
No clickbait and the guy makes stunning images.
You're off base here Truman. All I have said is based on true experience and meant as a pep talk to others in my shoes
Was recently ready to sell the 18-55 off and spend a whole ton of money and thought I'll just see if others out there feel the 18-55 is as good as I think it is (and others who have pm'd me) and then saw these videos and looked through my own photos with the lens and realised it was just a GAS attack and I need to go out and shoot more again and get creative again and now i'm hyped up and excited about the weekend (been recovering from surgery past 6 weeks and then another illness in spring and summer so not shot since January!) I'll be spending shooting with the X-T2 and just this lens.
Don't know why that would upsecat anyone.
I haven't and will never say if anyone doesn't like this lens or prefers the 16-55 F2.8 or primes etc (I LOVE PRIMES) they are bad or attack them out of any context whatsoever like you have done. In fact i hav recently asked and seriously mulled over the advice and feedback of many in this forum about my recent potential purchase of the 16-55 or various primes (thanks again all)
Hope this honest and sincere thread is not going to be derailed into one of those contentious threads.
I'll do this up front not by PM to show my sincerity. Jerry Astro could you weigh in here and make a judgement on whether Truman's post is fair play or not.? Because I see nothing in my OP or anywhere else in my posts in this thread that warrants those terms or aspersions. If so then please delete everything I wrote.
No clickbait and the guy makes stunning images.
You're off base here Truman. All I have said is based on true experience and meant as a pep talk to others in my shoes
Was recently ready to sell the 18-55 off and spend a whole ton of money and thought I'll just see if others out there feel the 18-55 is as good as I think it is (and others who have pm'd me) and then saw these videos and looked through my own photos with the lens and realised it was just a GAS attack and I need to go out and shoot more again and get creative again and now i'm hyped up and excited about the weekend (been recovering from surgery past 6 weeks and then another illness in spring and summer so not shot since January!) I'll be spending shooting with the X-T2 and just this lens.
Don't know why that would upsecat anyone.
I haven't and will never say if anyone doesn't like this lens or prefers the 16-55 F2.8 or primes etc (I LOVE PRIMES) they are bad or attack them out of any context whatsoever like you have done. In fact i hav recently asked and seriously mulled over the advice and feedback of many in this forum about my recent potential purchase of the 16-55 or various primes (thanks again all)
Hope this honest and sincere thread is not going to be derailed into one of those contentious threads.
I'll do this up front not by PM to show my sincerity. Jerry Astro could you weigh in here and make a judgement on whether Truman's post is fair play or not.? Because I see nothing in my OP or anywhere else in my posts in this thread that warrants those terms or aspersions. If so then please delete everything I wrote.
Every time you post a youtube video - you are advertising. Every click on the video - well guess what his cash register goes ch-ching. Yep you are advertising his click bait - intentionally or not.
But he made a video of excellent photos with a lens extremely relevant to this forum. Posting it was very in keeping with the purposes of this forum.
Plus there's no ads.
Hmmmm
--
My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/
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.
Plus there's no ads.
Hmmmm
--
My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/
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.
Last edited:
Marriott
Senior Member
Truman, EOS GUY made it possible for me to see some wonderful, powerful, images this morning. What do you think these forums are? Click bait that makes money for DPReview and Amazon. So what? Is your spirit not generous today? Hopefully tomorrow will be better. We all have our ups and downs.
PhilT_UK
Well-known member
Agreed. 99% of the internet is funded by ads so, by that argument, any external links would be clickbait!
Robmas4229
Senior Member
Hi Truman.
Regarding your statements in bold above, can you please explain? I'm not trying to be a PITA about this or anything, just would like to understand your points.
Personally I enjoyed the video but I simply took it for what it's worth. From my POV, if the photographer is going to put in the work and share his photographs and this is how he makes a living then that's what it is. I didn't even notice any advertisement interruptions.
No argument intended, just trying to understand and perhaps learn something I've overlooked.
-Rob
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum