7D kit lens - crappy?

cjwolff

cjwolff

Well-known member
I shot two stills today. One with the 7D 28-135 at f13, set at 50mm focal length (according to the marks on the barrel. The second lens I used was a 50mm f1.4 set at f13 at the same shutter speed. The two results follow. With the 50mm f1.4 I can actually see the detail in the grill area, leading me to believe it's a higher quality lens than the 7D kit lens. Does anyone disagree?

1270961456.jpg
 
I'd agree. But I think that nice fast primes stopped down will out perform zooms in general from what I have read. So, this is nothing to be surprised about. I wouldn't go as far as to call the kit lens crap either. If you know what its limitations are, you can still get some good stuff with it.
 
Primes will nearly always outperform zooms -- after all, if they were equal, who'd bother with hassling about changing lenses, when you could have one zoom that does it all?

Secondly, kit lenses are rarely top quality.

The kit lens does fine for video, but a good set of primes will outperform it for stills.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I was surprised to see the difference in an informal, poorly lit snapshot. It looks like it's time to save up for a set of primes!
 
cjwolff said:
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I was surprised to see the difference in an informal, poorly lit snapshot. It looks like it's time to save up for a set of primes!
Click to expand...

The kit lenses can shoot some good stills, but the real problem is the variable aperture on all of them. That really causes problems, because you have to correct the exposure in HD every time you move in or out.
Primes are the way to go. Some of the constant aperture zooms are are good to work with also. None of these lenses are really crappy, just a little more work to keep them in line.
You're in AZ so you should start with the best super wide lens you can afford for those big sky shots. That's one scene you can't just take a few steps back to get it all in.
The 11-16mm Tokina is looking pretty sweet, I'd like to have one.
 
ROCKMORE said:
You're in AZ so you should start with the best super wide lens you can afford for those big sky shots. That's one scene you can't just take a few steps back to get it all in.
The 11-16mm Tokina is looking pretty sweet, I'd like to have one.
Click to expand...

The 11-16 is definitely on my list, as well as the 28/1.8. I'd like to have a 17-50ish/2.8 as well.
 
Fixed f/stop zooms as sharp as primes.

Fixed f/stop zooms as sharp as primes.

I agree on the 11-16. I've got it in a Nikon mount that I use on my 7D with a V3 adapter in aperture priority or manual mode - very sharp. I've also got a very good older Nikon 50mm f/1.8 but my next lens is the Tokina 16-50 f2.8.
 
JFreshInEffect! said:
Lets be honest though the 11-16 is for all practical purposes a prime lens.
Click to expand...

True, but there are very few choices out there for an 11mm 2.8 prime lens (maybe none) so there isn't really a prime lens to compare it to. The other thing to note is the level of distortion at the 16mm end seems to be quite low as compared to other 16mm lenses.
So you may think of it as an 11mm 2.8 prime and a 16mm 2.8 prime with almost no barrel distortion, all in one lens.
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
The kit lenses can shoot some good stills, but the real problem is the variable aperture on all of them. That really causes problems, because you have to correct the exposure in HD every time you move in or out.
Primes are the way to go. Some of the constant aperture zooms are are good to work with also. None of these lenses are really crappy, just a little more work to keep them in line.
You're in AZ so you should start with the best super wide lens you can afford for those big sky shots. That's one scene you can't just take a few steps back to get it all in.
The 11-16mm Tokina is looking pretty sweet, I'd like to have one.
Click to expand...

100% agree. The kit lenses are actually very good when used properly. The main problem with them though is the variable aperture and not the quality.

Nothing worse than zooming in and out and having flickering + your light changing, you can edit around this and do other tricks. As of right now till I get more money I am using the kit lens and doing amazing quality.

Know your gear, learn your gear, master your gear.
 
Cieloent said:
Know your gear, learn your gear, master your gear.
Click to expand...



Some situations work for the kit lens. This is a cropped still frame (20% of the frame)

Shot with the "crappy" 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 kit lens in full auto sport mode. In the right situation the kit lens can perform well for a hundred bucks.
I've gotten so lazy with the auto performance of the 550D I didn't even bother setting my own shutter speed. Also shot with one hand which makes the lighter 550D and lens easier to wrangle around.

The other great thing about this lens is it got wet during this shoot and I didn't care that much. Later I got dirt thrown on the glass and I still didn't really sweat it. Try that with a $1,500 lens and you may freak out.
In the long run I may get my best shots from the cheap lens because I care more about the shot than the lens.
 

Attachments

  • Med--IMG_4688.jpg
    Med--IMG_4688.jpg
    369.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Just a note: The bottom pic is a bit more exposed than the first. This is one of the reasons you get more detail in the grill. Just look at the seat..thats where you can tell the exposure is different.
 
It seems more exposed however both shots were exposed with the same iso/shutter/aperture, not a scientific test however ...
 
snp said:
I agree on the 11-16. I've got it in a Nikon mount that I use on my 7D with a V3 adapter in aperture priority or manual mode - very sharp. I've also got a very good older Nikon 50mm f/1.8 but my next lens is the Tokina 16-50 f2.8.
Click to expand...

Is there a adapter to attach my nikon 50mm 1.4f to 7D???????????? How much does it cost?
Is some cons making this?
 
Hi Cjwolff, I fully agree with you. I made the mistake of buying the Canon 7D with the 18-135mm kit lens. My L lenses and my primes are of course so much better than the kit lens. I should have bought just the 7D body. Lesson learned.

Actually, I'd say that the 18-135mm is a good beginner's lens for casual use, but I wouldn't recommend it for serious projects.
 
711 said:
I wouldn't go as far as to call the kit lens crap either.
Click to expand...

I've seen some crappy lenses in my day, and even with the plastic construction of some of these consumer grade canons, i don't think any classify as crap. They all produce quality images and the lower cost ones usually perform way above their pay grade. We all win.
 
I shot part of a short today with the 28-135, and the video came out great. You just have to know how to use it. We had to move quickly, and we had a ton of light, so I stopped the lens down to around f5.6-f8, zoomed/moved as needed to get the frame, and rolled. For that situation, the 28-135 worked perfectly.

For tomorrow's shooting, I'll be using primes. That is just what's necessary.

Not all kit lenses are crap, but some I would almost drop into the trashcan, unless they were the only lens I had: The 18-135 and the 18-55 have a lot of issues. The 18-135 has very poor picture quality (and it was causing vignetting-like aberrations on set earlier today that forced me to grab the 28-135). The 18-55 has the most un-ergonomic focus ring.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I'm wondering exactly how "crappy" the kit lens is. The kit lens is a true piece of work, it has IS, fast focus, accurate focus, and a bit of wide-angle perception at 18mm to boot, all for $100. I read somewhere that the reason any of these lenses may generate slightly blurry results at the 1:1 full view is because the Canon's sensor is bigger than the quality of the lens by a few MP's, which truly means that Canon is only trying to sell more L lenses. No one in the world buying a T2i really needs 18MP, and it seems to only hurt both the photos and video quality, with Nikon's 15MP being a little better for video work and mid-range lens work.

But I'm not really sure, I just know that it seems really weird that the kit lens truly is worse than any other. I haven't seen an example where it truly is, but I've only seen very few tests. My explaination of why other lenses are expensive generally is that 1. The companies know the professionals have to buy the primes/longer focal lengths OR they just don't sell much of them. Or 2. Longer focal lengths and primes may be harder to build. But I haven't seen a lens that I'd ever need that costs more than $300, so thats my opinion.

But I did see a grand comparison once between Canon and Nikon lenses for video, and it seemed that Nikon's lens was a great deal sharper, but I was skeptical to be honest...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top