At any rate, sure.. there are "replacement" lenses available. But
all for SIGNIFICANTLY more money than $100, which is what makes the
kit lens such a popular item, even if it's NOT the greateast
overall performance ever to come from a ultra-wideangle zoom. One
lens springs to mind, since it's a fairly good match on overall
specs (talking strictly range + aperture): Canon 17-40L but, it's
like $600 or thereabouts? Make no mistake, it's a superior lens,
partly on image quality/performance but also on build quality
(worlds apart on that front).
Anything under 28mm is going to run up the price quickly. Other
options would be to get a more 'normal' wideangle zoom, like the
very highly regarded Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di for $320 (or less, if
you shop well).. and then add a wideangle fixed focal length like a
20mm or something thereabouts to gain back something near the what
was lost on the wide-end of the 18-55. Again, though.. this takes
$$ as wideangle lenses are just not cheap. Period. Except for the
18-55 kit lens, which is why it's hard to beat!
Argh! I have both the 18-55mm AND the Canon 17-40L in my
possession (I own the 18-55, borrowed the 17-40). I've yet to
conduct the tests I intend to, thanks to non-cooperative weather.
From what little I've seen by shooting snapshots around the house,
I'd say the 17-40L will win the race, but in MANY circumstances,
the 18-55 will hold it's own and be quite comparable. One thing
that is notably weaker on the 18-55? Chromatic Aberration, or
Purple Fringing, or whatver you want to call it but it's purple. I
was messing around and shot a pic with a brightly sunlit window
along the left side of the frame and it lit up like a Sony 828! I
don't think I've seen that much purple more than once, perhaps
twice, out of my A70 after nearly 1500 pics (honestly!). So, I
have reservations about the overall performance of the 18-55.. not
that it's
bad (it's not!), but that it's performance envelope is
NOT the equal of the much finer crafter 17-40L.
To echo what you've heard: "What do you want for $100!" ;-) For
$100, it's a bargain, in my firm opinion. It's not like CA will
paint a large percentage of shots.. it's just that in extremes it
is likely to rear it's ugly head. I hope to get out over the next
week.. snow is coming again, so only time will tell if this weekend
gives weather conducive to trekking about with SOMEONE ELSE's $600
lens in tow, or not.
As for macro.. you won't find much of anything on a wideangle zoom
with respect for macro, but I will note that the 18-55 does
respectable "closeups", as does the aforementioned Tamron 28-75
(1:4 max magnification, I believe, on the Tamron.. maybe closer to
1:3-something on the 18-55?). For a true macro, you need to get a
macro lens which will be capable of a more traditional 'macro'
shooting capability of at least 1:2, and more likely 1:1 (Canon
100mm f/2.8 Macro, for example.. doubles nicely as a
telephoto/portrait lens, too!). As for matching the very highly
regarded and price concious 70-200/4L, many people find the Canon
17-40/4L I spoke of earlier as a great pairing (bearing in mind the
price, again!).
I don't think you'll do better than the 18-55 unless your willing
to spend in the $500 or more range? Perhaps check out the newly
released Tamron 17-35, a sibling of the Tamron 28-75? It might be
a good value, but again nothing even remotely close to $100! Maybe
someone here can comment on that lens... it's fairly new and I
haven't read much about it, yet.
icmp
Hi all,
I'm considering getting the 300D kit but most places that have
reviewed the lense give it a poor rating. I will be taking lots of
outdoor nature photos and don't want to give up the 18mm wide
angle. What would you recomend that would cover the kits
approximate range?
I'd also like a Macro at some point and am considering the Canon EF
4.0 70-200mm USM L along with whatever ends up replacing the kit
lense.
A lense that could give me a decent wide angle and good macro would
be perfect to compliment a 70-200 2nd lense.
I've been reading lense reviews all over but can't find anyone to
agree on anything other than the $1000+ lenses which are out of my
price range.
