Lens quality difference??

C

Canon Tim

Suspended / Banned
Messages
126
Edit My Images
No
I bought a 450d about a year ago with the standard lens kit 18-55mm.

A week or so later I bought a 55-250 canon lens from kerso on here.


Although both are canon lenses the quality of the pictures taken through the 55-250 is far beyond that of the standard kit lens. It's almost like they aren't as crisp/sharp whatever you want to call it.

Is this to be expected? I don't think it should be the case.

Anyone recommend a good reasonably priced alternative if in fact the lens is just crap?
 
Does the kit lens have IS? that would make a fair bit of difference
 
Pretty sure the 450D comes with the IS version... The kit lens is at least reasonable so should be delivering similar quality to the 55-250...
 
Whilst I know the kit lens is never going to be the sharpest in the world, mine takes relatively sharp photos, enough to keep me happy for the time being (until I can afford better) and especially now i've found the "sweet spot" at around f/11. I also have the 55-250, and I would say they both give pretty good results, considering one is a kit lens, and one is a budget zoom.
 
Check first for focusing issues with the 18-55

If it turns out that you just don't get on with the lens itself (i.e. it's not faulty), then the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is a much better lens, both VC and non-VC (Tamron's equivalent to IS) and comes in at around £260 iirc, depending on whether you go VC or not (The non VC is widely regarded to be the superior lens in terms of IQ, though it's a toss up between VC and IQ).

If £260 is too much, then you'll probably be looking at prime lenses for your IQ, e.g. nifty fifty's (Canon's can be had for £70) or cheap 35mm lenses (not sure about Canon's pricing on those, but Nikon's 35mm 1.8 is roughly £200 as a reference)
 
Ksanti said:
If it turns out that you just don't get on with the lens itself (i.e. it's not faulty), then the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is a much better lens, both VC and non-VC (Tamron's equivalent to IS) and comes in at around £260 iirc, depending on whether you go VC or not (The non VC is widely regarded to be the superior lens in terms of IQ, though it's a toss up between VC and IQ)
Click to expand...

This is the lens i'm going for to replace my kit lens in a couple of weeks time, non VC :)
 
Canon Tim said:
I bought a 450d about a year ago with the standard lens kit 18-55mm.

A week or so later I bought a 55-250 canon lens from kerso on here.


Although both are canon lenses the quality of the pictures taken through the 55-250 is far beyond that of the standard kit lens. It's almost like they aren't as crisp/sharp whatever you want to call it.

Is this to be expected? I don't think it should be the case.

Anyone recommend a good reasonably priced alternative if in fact the lens is just crap?
Click to expand...

The 55-250mm is better in terms of IQ over the kit lens from my experience, its a really good lens for the price and the zoom range, i'd expect it to give noticeably better images than the kit lens. As has been said look at the 17-50mm or 28-75mm Tamron for an affordable upgrade to your kit lens
 
Just because they are both made by canon, it doesn't mean the image quality will be the same!

The 55-250 has much better iq than the kit lens, and this is really to be expected. Yes it's a budget telephoto, but it punches far beyond it's weight and produces better ages than some lenses at twice the price.

It well deserves it's excellent reputation.
 
Last edited:
I would be very surprised if there was any noticeable image quality difference between the 18-55 IS and the 55-250. Both are pretty good for the price.

Can you post pics, with technical details attached (Exif data)?
 
My 55-250 has much better iq than my non IS kit lens (which I got shot of) which I thought we were comparing to! Never used the IS version if the 18-55 so can't comment in that...
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
If it turns out that you just don't get on with the lens itself (i.e. it's not faulty), then the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is a much better lens,
Click to expand...

I just wanted to point out to the OP that it is in fact Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The 17-55 f/2.8 is the Canon and costs way more.

The 18-55IS is supposed to be pretty good for the money, and on a par with the latest kit lens as far as IQ goes.
Photozone gave it pretty good marks but i agree, the Tamorn is in a different league.
Although i have a Canon 17-55IS i did have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and to be honest it was a pretty close call. No idea about the VC version but if i was buying again i would go for the VC because IS is pretty handy to have and would outweigh the slightly (apparently) inferior IQ.
 
I have an 18-55IS and the 55-250IS. I would say the IQ is better on the 55-250, but the 18-55 is no slouch either given it's price point. Assuming the OPs 18-55 is of course the IS version, then it seems strange to me that the difference is so pronounced. It would be good to see some examples to compare.

I could understand there being a noticeable difference if we're talking about comparison of the non-IS with the 55-250.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top