Okay, this came up in another thread, and now I kind of want to put my money where my mouth is.

The claim: That the 18-55 isn't a great value lens and could be better.
My counterclaim: the 18-55 is a fine lens and undervalued because of the yahoos that use it.

The challenge: To shoot a salable image on a paid (yes, I said PAID) photoshoot with the 18-55 (either IS or not, I don't care).

The Problem: I don't have an EF-S capable camera, and even if I could modify the 18-55 to fit my cameras, that would kind of be missing the point, IMO. I'd love it if someone could find me a super cheap, beater rebel XT or similar. I'd be happy to borrow one or buy a really cheap one.

I will not let an entire paid shoot hinge on what the lens produces, but I will try to get a usable, salable image (i.e., one that I actually deliver to a real client).

lmao, this should be interesting...

Originally Posted by Bone

lmao, this should be interesting...

I hope so!

Do you think CPS would let me get a loaner T2i or similar?? Serious question.

define paid shoot Mark? My landscapes are meant to make me money, and I get orders from them, but they're paid after the fact?

all three are 18-55 IS shots:

Originally Posted by Markitos

Do you think CPS would let me get a loaner T2i or similar?? Serious question.

yeah, why not? Their point is to sell you ****. So they could be loaning it to YOU as a small/travel setup, or for you to play with to recommend to someone else.

Paid shoot like my shoot with Dovid last week, or part of a wedding, etc. Something that someone is paying me to do. Not something on my own time that I sell later. Something that is shot with the intent to deliver with other, paid photos.

Oh, and I guess I could just ask CPS for a 7D loaner...

Mark- I got an Xti or a 30D that you can borrow.

Originally Posted by jjswee

Mark- I got an Xti or a 30D that you can borrow.

Word. I'll PM you my address and pay you for shipping--send me either one, I don't care. And keep in mind, this challenge will be harder for me because I shoot a LOT of shallow DOF portraits with fast lenses.

i support this, good luck getting a camera
ive used that lens a lot. (paid work)

Originally Posted by dangerwoman

i support this, good luck getting a camera
ive used that lens a lot. (paid work)

I've sold several images off of mine as well, I'm not saying that you can't. My point is that you just have a better base to start with on a better lens... hence the reason the lens costs a **** load more...

Originally Posted by Bone

I've sold several images off of mine as well, I'm not saying that you can't. My point is that you just have a better base to start with on a better lens... hence the reason the lens costs a **** load more...

Oh, don't back down now! I've already got a camera pledge, and I'm going to get a lens!

Originally Posted by Markitos

I'm going to get a lens!

mine is actually french's dude, he and I were up to this same thing, just w/o announcing it so people wouldn't be looking...

I just figure I'm a great candidate for this because of my current gear lineup. It seems like a pretty contradictory thing for me to say!

I only have the 2 kit lens and the 11-16 but I don't get paid for anything I do. I can't see why you couldn't produce sellable images with the gear though unless the concept of the image is beyond the physical ability of the lens eg super fine DOF. I think they work just fine.

Originally Posted by Markitos

Oh, don't back down now! I've already got a camera pledge, and I'm going to get a lens!

lol, i'm not... i'm just making what i say clear as to what i was saying...

I still sell images from my 18-55is all the time. it's all i have right now in that range as i've been too cheap to replace it just yet. I'm saving up for something much better. the one I want is damn near a grand. I'm also working on getting my hands on a 70-200mm is usm mkII

Originally Posted by Warus

I only have the 2 kit lens and the 11-16 but I don't get paid for anything I do. I can't see why you couldn't produce sellable images with the gear though unless the concept of the image is beyond the physical ability of the lens eg super fine DOF. I think they work just fine.

yeah, basically that or action/low light shots where the apertures hold you back AND IS won't help.

And just for the sake of consistency, which lens am I buying? Do I get IS or no? Do I get the mkI or the mkII? I can get a mkI, non-IS for $43 so that's kind of what I'm leaning towards. You all tell me.

well what is the kit lens that came with the 40D?

Originally Posted by Bone

well what is the kit lens that came with the 40D?

The 40D came with a 28-135 as a kit lens, so that's not helpful.

Also, what happens if I fail my challenge?

I suggest you buy the one that's appropriate for the situation you intend to use it in as cheap as possible. So non IS for a shoot in a situation where IS wouldn't be required anyway?

Or is there a way to see which is the most common kit lens sold? It would make sense to choose the one most used.

Originally Posted by Warus

Or is there a way to see which is the most common kit lens sold? It would make sense to choose the one most used.

I bought the $43 one... I figure that's about as "kit" as you can get. It's the kit lens for the XT, 20D, and 30D... non IS.

It's on like Donkey Kong

Originally Posted by Markitos

The 40D came with a 28-135 as a kit lens, so that's not helpful.

did it really, i thought the 40D is a cropper just like mine? That's just odd.

Well what is the Kit lens of that period? say the one that was on the XTi? is that about the same time frame?

I would think it should be at least a model with IS.

Originally Posted by Bone

did it really, i thought the 40D is a cropper just like mine? That's just odd.

Well what is the Kit lens of that period? say the one that was on the XTi? is that about the same time frame?

It is a cropper. The one on the XTi is a 18-55. The 28-135 was to give the consumer a more "flexable lens"

Originally Posted by astockwell

It is a cropper. The one on the XTi is a 18-55. The 28-135 was to give the consumer a more "flexable lens"

wow, yeah but it's really not that "flexible" indoor shots would be rather hard on a 28 end. I mean doable but I know when I'm indoors I end up near the 15 end a lot. just seems like an odd pairing..

I didn't realize that the 7D comes with either the 28-135 or the 18-135 which they just dropped the price on the 18-135 model to the same as the 28-135.

maybe that 18-135 is a lens that the OP in the other thread should be looking at?

I've been saying this for years. Good work, Mark.

I used a 18-70 sony kit lens during the last wedding I shot

my widest prime in my set up is a 28 so when things get tight I normally use teh 18-70

then again I shoot with a Sony in a world of Nikons and Canons

This sounds like a cool 'experiment'! Good luck and keep us posted.

I would like to know if the client is able to spot the photo that came from the kit lens.


-A

I say you go with the cheapest thing you can get. I'm not sure what Canon offers but I know the Nikon standard is now the 18-55 and 55-200 VR. I don't think you should worry with VR/IS on this little project.

There are a few better options for kit lenses if people want to go for this on a Nikon body. Most notably are the 18-70mm (D70-80) and some of the D5000/D90 came with the 70-300VR.

I really think this is a no-brainer. You'll make great photos with any lens you've got, but I understand why this is fun.

Yup, Kit lenses suck...
OMG, Pentax 18-55 even.....


I thoroughly support this thread and experiment.

the 24-105L is a great lens

Mark, FYI the non IS 18-55 sucks. The 18-55 IS was a HUGE IQ improvement as well as adding IS.

Originally Posted by danm

the 24-105L is a great lens

pfffft, you didn't even keep it.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Mark, FYI the non IS 18-55 sucks. The 18-55 IS was a HUGE IQ improvement as well as adding IS.

Then that should be all the more reason to use the non-IS version.

And he is going to use a rebel dslr. It should be a good challenge.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Mark, FYI the non IS 18-55 sucks. The 18-55 IS was a HUGE IQ improvement as well as adding IS.



pfffft, you didn't even keep it.

like you would trade it for a 24-70 for the 24-105 +$100

Originally Posted by danm

like you would trade it for a 24-70 for the 24-105 +$100

depends on what I was shooting. I'm actually shopping for a standard zoom again now and the 24-105 is in the lead. Price, size, range and IS win for me. When I want thin DOF I just use primes and that's all the 24-70 brings to the table for me -vs- the 24-105...

I could honestly see owning both, but if I were to go that route I'd do the canon 24-105 and a tamron 28-75...

I use my Nikon kit 18-55 all the time.

For sale on my web site.


For sale on my web site.


For sale on my web site.


From a paid shoot.

Originally Posted by jm2e

Anxiously waiting for this to morph into a debate about canon vs nikon kit lenses.

The Nikon 18-55 VR is fantastic! Its an insanely good value for the money. Its slow and slow to focus but takes great shots. I sold mine to MoLS because I didn't use it much but I wish I did more with it when I had it.

18-55 and cruddy HDR processing (before I knew better ). Still gets lots of great comments (20x30" canvas in my office).


capitol hdr 1 by French Brown, on Flickr

Bumping this thread so JJSwee will remember to send me his loaner Rebel.... my kit lens is languishing on my desk!

I just found a box to ship it in yesterday actually. I haven't bought anything bigger in a while. It will be out this week, its all boxed up ready to go.

Originally Posted by jjswee

I just found a box to ship it in yesterday actually. I haven't bought anything bigger in a while. It will be out this week, its all boxed up ready to go.

Nice! I really do appreciate it. I have a few gigs coming up soon, so I'm hoping to bring it with me on one of them.

No L glass for paid work?! Yuck!