Today, at the local camera store....

A couple had come in with two Rebels, one a 300 the other an XT.
They were trying out different lenses to see if they could get
better pictures. The store clerk was blunt; She told them to get
rid of the 18-55mm zooms. She repeatedly told them the lens
"wasn't very good." Luckily, the couple listened because they wanted
something with more range to be able to use them more often.
I think they settled on a pair of 17-85s. Funny thing was, the store
wouldn't take the 18-55s in-trade, only consignment!
-Rich

 

Going from bad to mediocre right?


*************************************
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However" replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Stephen Crane

 

What is with you and the Canon kit lens? Did one molest you in a back
alley? My God man, let it go or get therapy!

 

YOU in a camera shop?
You weren't actually considering the purchase of a camera were you?

 

A couple had come in with two Rebels, one a 300 the other an XT.

The 18-55 is quite good. My girlfriend takes tack sharp photos with it.

 

Because I believe that the lens should exceed the sensor, not the
other way around. Or, why should anyone use a $100 lens to hobble
an $800 camera, OR would you put a $1000 paint job on an S-series
Mercedes....
-Rich

 

In that case, you shouldn't be allowed to use a 28-135 IS on a 1Ds mkII.
"Exceed the sensor?" Few lenses will do that, and only expensive ones, at
that...

 

Coming from someone that doesn't even own a DSLR makes this a pretty
damn comical statement. So a person that can only afford a 350D with a
kit lens shouldn't bother buying the camera at all? You put way too
much importance on your opinions. Especially considering they are
illogical, irrelevant and rarely listened to with any seriousness.

 

Mr. J, I just have to ask.
What does PE stand for?
T.W.

 

Usually, Professional Engineer

 

Slack is right. It stands for "Professional Engineer". The reason I
include it in my user name is a long story that I won't bore you with.

 

Thanks for the info. I would not have guessed it stood for "Professional
Engineer"
My official title is SCE. Any guesses as to what that means?

T.W.

 

It's interesting. Another poster on another group said the opposite.
I wonder which is true?
-Rich

 

But thanks for listening AND responding anyway!
-Rich

 

I had a couple of problems with your statement. First, that 18-55 is the
rough equivalent of the old 28-90 kit lenses included with the Rebel film
cameras, quality wise, and may even be a step up, optically. So...it's ok
to put a cheap lens, in all senses of that word, on the bottom of the line
Canon film camera, but not on the bottom of the line digital? Forget that
it's $800ish, it's still the cheapest camera in Canon's digital lineup.
Second, if it is the price you are concerned about, then that also means
that the $700 17-40L shouldn't be used on a 1Ds mkII, since it costs 10x
what the lens does, just like the RebelXT/18-55 combo does.
Third, if its the idea that the "lens should exceed the sensor," few lenses
will exceed the 5D, not to mention the 1Ds mkII. You've even remarked on
that, yourself, in several posts, when you accuse the 5D of being let down
by the lens selection. A requirement that the "lens should exceed the
sensor" would eliminate virtually every non "L" lens, (with a few
exceptions, like the T/S and Macro lenses) and many "L" lenses, too, like
the 16-35 f2.8L.

 

Although you apparently don't care or realize it, you are quickly
becoming the village idiot of this and other newsgroups. Keep up the
good work and 2006 should see you reaching a new level of being the
newgroup joker. You managed to accomplish the same feat in the Mustang
newsgroup so I see no reason you can't repeat that here. Good luck!

 

Michael Withrop Johnson Jr. III "PE" (Esquire)

 

I think film cameras can be left out since film is film and a $200
Canon SLR will peform much like a (gone now) $2000 SLR. Digitals
don't function like that. The Rebel XT is not going to match the
image from a 1Ds mkII.
The 17-40L isn't a dog and (I don't think) it would let down the
sensor of either camera. And it costs as much as the Rebel XT body
so there is no contradiction. The cost of the 1Ds mkII is excessive,
no doubt owing to it's uniqueness in the market.
The 18-55 is a dog, and does fail to allow any Canon sensor to perform
even close to what it's capable of. Hell, it would fail a 4 meg
camera. No lens should have to be stopped down to f9 or 11 to
function properly.

I don't know about that. Not all Canon non-Ls seem to be designed as
poor lenses, some in tests have come very close to L's in performance.
There are other things that differentiate them from the Ls like
weather sealing.
I guess you can find bad lenses in every "class" perhaps more in the
lesser classes. But I'll take your word for it that most Canon lenses
cannot match the sensors, I'm only stating that I've heard the
opposite about good lenses.

One lens that seems to represent the pinnacle of performance for Canon
is the 400L f2.8. Much of it's quality obviously stems from the
materials they used for it's lens elements, but it's obvious they
lavished attention on it's production, based on the performance
feedback people have provided. That is what is needed to do justice
to Canon's sensors. Yes, it costs $6000, but much of that is the cost
of Optron (Canon subsidiary) fluorite blanks used in that lens. It
runs around $1200/lb for that material, if you buy it
from Optron and one large element in the 400 uses 2lbs of fluorite.
But it's fabrication quality can be applied to smaller more
conventional lenses in the L and maybe the series below that.

Personally, I'd like Canon to jettison the 18-55 and any other junk
lenses and produce something on the level of the Nikon 18-70 as a base
kit lens.
-Rich

 

Come on show us the real Rich like you have in
rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang You've already got a wonderful start here
so it shouldn't take much of an effort.

 

No, I don't. What does it stand for?