How bad 18-55mm is ?

R

RED ROBOT

Alright.

Everybody all over the internet is crying how you should change your kit lens as soon as you can as it is the crappiest lens in the world .

I was wondering what's the big deal about it ? Frankly I think for Youtube if you have good enough lighting with 18-55 you can outperform any L lens .

If you actually see comparison between the Canon kit lens for example with super expensive L lens glass you can't actually notice any difference when uploaded to Youtube .

So why would you spend so much money on lenses when you can actually get much better lighting/audio etc.

Now I am talking about Youtubers and people uploading on the web .

I seems to be alone on this one so I decided to actually ask for opinions . What do you guys think ? Why is all the hate regarding those kit lenses ?
 
Last edited:
My target is not youtube so I buy the best glass I can afford.

But I do download quite a few youtube files using:

http://keepvid.com/

Some files are very low res and a small size but some are 'HD' and 300mb+ for a few minutes. The 'HD' files even look good on my 60" home plasma. The low res files look awful.
 
Last edited:
It's slow and it's not constant aperture, the focusing ring is bad, it's build like a plastic toy, there is a lot of distortion in the wide end and it's pretty soft (but it is designed for stills larger than 1080p frame so it looks sharp enough on Youtube).

p.s. I sent you e-mail on the VFX thing
 
That's the thing that gets lost a lot in the discussions of lenses - it's not just sharpness that differentiates better lenses from cheaper ones. Build quality is one of the biggest differences - L lenses are better built to take more abuse, weather-sealed, and often ergonomically better. That's all stuff that's important to a pro, but may have little or no impact on your use of the lens.

Constant & faster aperture is probably the one thing that does potentially have an impact. If everything you do is well-lit that's probably not as big a deal, although a constant aperture means you could set up a medium shot and zoom in for a close up without having to increase either lighting or ISO to compensate for the aperture change. Of course you can avoid that by always using the lens at it's slowest minimum aperture or higher - so it's certainly possible to work with. You have to make that call based on your own workflow.
 
In Dutch people call the kitlens very often a kutlens, which translates roughly as shitlens. :-p

My girl has a kitlens on her 350D (no filming indeed!) and it's really soft.
I put a newer kitlens on it with OS and it's slightly better now.

I guess you can have luck (or not) with kitlenses. And that's what people don't like: uncertain quality.
 
that lens was the worse thing I ever encountered, its focusing ring is awful, the ability to focus is atrocious, I used it maybe no more than 10 times in the 1 year that I had it before selling it.

once I had the 50mm sharpness never looked so good.

Also you talk about good lighting? im sorry but that lens could never be as good or sharp as a good L lens.
 
8salacious9 said:
Also you talk about good lighting? im sorry but that lens could never be as good or sharp as a good L lens.
Click to expand...

Once you get into the middle aperture range (~ f/5.6) even cheap lenses tend to be decently sharp. Don't forget we're talking about lenses generally designed to resolve enough detail for 12MP and up - and we're only shooting 2MP images. And then once you figure in the line-skipping used by most video DSLRs you're not even resolving close to the full 2MP resolution. I'm sure a good cinematographer could get very similar results out of the kit lens and a much more expensive lens under controlled and well-lit situations.

Now handheld, low-light, trying to pull focus on the lens barrel by hand - that's where the better lenses will be worth the difference.
 
The kit lens is pretty damn soft, and even stopped down it doesn't perform all that well, at least in comparison to better lenses. There's much more apparent aberration than any other lens I've ever used/seen, and the edge-to-edge sharpness isn't incredible. It isn't very fast, which makes it pretty average for anything other than daylight shooting.

It's a lens, and it will get you an image. Light the image well, and it will even get you a decent image. There's certainly a difference though. Perhaps on YouTube, I would imagine the way YT recompresses the image would make the differences less apparent.

Lenses and lighting are both important to your image.
 
Last edited:
I say fuck the world. Use the lens that works for you. And that doesn't just mean that you get the best lens. That also means that you get the lens that fits your needs!

Nickys, I have no clue what your specific plans and aspirations are. So what I'm about to tell you might not apply at all. But part of me wonders if the fact that you have to ask this question might make what I'm about to say really relevant.

Everybody doesn't have to be a cinematographer. What's more, everybody shouldn't be a cinematographer. If it's not something that completely grabs your interest, then why would you pursue it?

For what it's worth, me personally, I'm not gonna spend any of my hard-earned dollars on lenses that I don't need. Because I'm not a cinematographer. When I really need the image to look gorgeous, I'll rent a better camera and lens kit, and hopefully be able to hire someone who knows how to use them better than I do.

Again, I may be way off-base. Also, IDOM and Rox give some REALLY good advice on here, and none of what I've said should negate what they have said. You might wanna get a couple more (cheap) lenses, but unless you have an obvious interest in that kinda thing, I don't see the point in it.
 
I guess I should add here that whilst I will push for better lenses, and prefer to work with better lenses and will always make a case as to why we need x lens over y lens - at the end of the day, not everyone can afford Ultra or Master Primes, or s4/i's, or even mini s4/i's.

That doesn't mean I turn down the job, or tell them that 'you'll never get a good image without x lens' because that's not really true. Whilst a certain lens will give you a better, or more appropriate looking image, a cheaper lens still gives you an image. That's why I say lenses and lighting, and if I was forced to choose one, it'd be lighting. I'd rather shoot with a truck full of lighting and grip gear, on a 5D with CP.2's than an Epic with Ultra Primes and not one light or piece of grip equipment.
Ideally, you have both, but often you have to find a happy compromise/middle ground.

Also, I'm a fan of renting the right tool for the job. If you want to be an owner/operator and/or are shooting mostly your own projects then you might be interested in owning your own equipment, and perhaps better lenses, but it really comes down to your own personal situation.
I also only suggest purchasing if you know you'll have enough work to pay off your purchase within the next 1-1.5 years, at least if you're looking to make this your job/profession as opposed to a hobby.
A hobby is also fine, but as a hobbyist cinematographer/filmmaker, you shouldn't need to spend the world on equipment purchases.
 
Last edited:
jax_rox said:
If you want to be an owner/operator and/or are shooting mostly your own projects then you might be interested in owning your own equipment, and perhaps better lenses, but it really comes down to your own personal situation.
I also only suggest purchasing if you know you'll have enough work to pay off your purchase within the next 1-1.5 years, at least if you're looking to make this your job/profession as opposed to a hobby.
A hobby is also fine, but as a hobbyist cinematographer/filmmaker, you shouldn't need to spend the world on equipment purchases.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I meant to say, but Rox said it more eloquently, and without the f-bomb. Regardless of your plans, if you want to spend the money, then by all means do. Just don't do it to keep up with the Joneses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top