Canon 300D kit lens colours

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha

In article .com,
"Siddhartha Jain" wrote:

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha

The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big improvement.
Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article .com,
"Siddhartha Jain" wrote:

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are
now more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha

The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big
improvement.
Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).


Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:

http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

--
Frank ess

In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article .com,
"Siddhartha Jain" wrote:

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are
now more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha

The 18-55mm kit lens is very poor. Most lenses are a big
improvement.
Add a hood to get even cleaner color (less grey haze).


Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:

http://www.fototime.com/DE8DD65B8DB8087/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/0DBE26779B62704/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/5DC4BAE5B4F82BA/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/02F7F893884157A/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/55DA1C3096F2952/orig.jpg

I've seen those before. The subjects are very high contrast and the
photos are downsampled. It's hardly a good test of a lens that has
problems with low contrast and low sharpness.

The kit lens is very usable. You can crank up in-camera sharpening and
contrast and set the aperture to F/8 to get good photos. It doesn't
leave much adjustment headroom for difficult shooting conditions. Might
as well get a point'n'shoot because they take great photos under perfect
conditions too.

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha


The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
Pyramid in ambiguity.

I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
contrast.

Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
swear it was available.

"Bob(but not that Bob)" wrote in message
...
Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha


The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
Pyramid in ambiguity.

I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
contrast.

Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
swear it was available.

where can u get refurbs?? Thanks.

Dirty Harry wrote:

"Bob(but not that Bob)" wrote in message
...
Siddhartha Jain wrote:

Hi,

I recently replaced the kit lens on my 300D with a Sigma 24-135mm
f/2.8-4.5. One thing I immiediately noticed is that the colours are now
more vivid and *colourful*

Anyone else here who moved to the Sigma 24-135mm from the Canon kit
lens and noticed something similar?

- Siddhartha


The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that means
anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
Pyramid in ambiguity.

I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW - in
case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and the
lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
contrast.

Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much, you'd
swear it was available.

where can u get refurbs?? Thanks.

National Camera ( http://www.natcam.com ) had some on eBay - they went
pretty fast - don't know if they are getting more.

Bob(but not that Bob) wrote:
The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific" - if that
means
anything, with those color-coded lens reviews that rival the new Food
Pyramid in ambiguity.

I just picked up a DRebel (pristine refurb for $599 delivered BTW -
in
case anyone wonders why anyone would, now that the XT is here), and
the
lens seems OK, but a little flat - perhaps the Sigma just has more
contrast.

Speaking of Pop Photo - Tokina's advertising that 12-24 so much,
you'd
swear it was available.

Pop Photo very rarely rates anything poorly so anything that they say
should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Yep, been seeing those ads from Tokina. Looks like its selling like hot
cakes - backordered on B&H and Adorama.

- Siddhartha

In article ,
Frank ess wrote:

Please comment on the quality of these "kit lens" photos:

Not bad at all, but surely you can understand why the 18-55
is a disappointing lens. It's build quality and feel, just
don't put it in the "fine piece of equipment" category.

It does get the job done, and I've enjoyed using it at the
18mm setting. But it just feels like a crummy lens.
Does your focus ring move? Even with the mirror locked up,
and the camera on a tripod, I'm sure that front element is
vibrating. Yuck. I'm not saying I can measure the aberration
from that effect, bit it can't be a good thing.

Now, the lens I upgraded to probably isn't much better, and may not
even be as good in certain respects (Tamron 28-200XR F3.8), but it
certainly feels better to my hands. I'm sure I'll be investing in
lenses, but I need to recover from buying this 20D, which is way more
camera than I need, and ouch!, but I love it, no remorse at all!

I'm going to a place in May that's worthy of photographs, and I wanted
to have a good camera for the trip. The kit lens and the Tamron should
get me through the summer. (They have to, or else I'd have to go back
to film.)

In article ,
Bob(but not that Bob) wrote:

The Pop Photo May issue says the kit lens is "terrific"

Good Lord, really?

Nobody who has ever held a Hasselblad or even a Zeiss lens
in his hand will ever dub the 18-55 kit lens as "terriffic."

I mean, the lens has a front focusing element that visibly
moves from the shutter vibration! It *feels* like junk.

If the optics are good, it's a waste of good glass to be in
this poor a mechanism.