Interesting article on kit lenses. My first DSLR was the 600D and I chose an 18-135 rather than the 18-55 because I often thought the longer reach would be better for things I like to photograph. Upgrading to the 7DII I bought an EF24-105f/4L. In part, my early photography using an AE1P with an FD35-70 meant that the 24-105 gave me a similar wide angle to what I was used to with longer reach at the telephoto end. I also imagined upgrading to FF at some point. For wider angles I bought the 10-22. It now seems unlikely I will be able to afford to upgrade anytime soon so I added the 17-55 which for walk-around tends to be used more than the 24-105, altough if "on a mission" I would tend to go for the 24-105, with the 10-22 in the kit bag. Sometimes, even the 17 is not wide enough on APS-C.
I agree that the quality of the 18-135 is generally good. It is hard, sometimes, to spot the differences but the 24-105 has better contrast, so presumably more or better antireflective coatings on the lens elements, and sharper optics. You can of course boost the contrast and saturation in post. Another comment about the kit lens I have (the older 18-135) is that after a few years of use, it developed a (slight) wobble,in the telescopic extending part, so you have to be aware of that when taking a photograph, (it only affects the extremeties of the image if noticed at all) whereas the 24-105 build is better.
I note that the 17-55 was in your lens line up, but I'm not sure if that was offered as a kit lens?
I would say that while you recommend kit lenses, a point I would make is that the 17-55 is very good, it has full time manual focus over-ride, with larger controls which are easier to get hold of as the 18-55 control rings are a little small and fiddly. I would recommend the 17-55 to anyone wanting to upgrade from an 18-55,- the f/2.8 is also useful, but it all depends on the type of photography you want. Some may of course want to spend on a longer telephoto, wider angle lens or macro instead of replacing the focal lengths you aready have.
As with my film experience, Canon have now made the 7DII obsolete, but the 17-55 seems to be still available in the stores. It is reported to suffer from flare but the images I take with it tend not to include the sun.
I agree that the quality of the 18-135 is generally good. It is hard, sometimes, to spot the differences but the 24-105 has better contrast, so presumably more or better antireflective coatings on the lens elements, and sharper optics. You can of course boost the contrast and saturation in post. Another comment about the kit lens I have (the older 18-135) is that after a few years of use, it developed a (slight) wobble,in the telescopic extending part, so you have to be aware of that when taking a photograph, (it only affects the extremeties of the image if noticed at all) whereas the 24-105 build is better.
I note that the 17-55 was in your lens line up, but I'm not sure if that was offered as a kit lens?
I would say that while you recommend kit lenses, a point I would make is that the 17-55 is very good, it has full time manual focus over-ride, with larger controls which are easier to get hold of as the 18-55 control rings are a little small and fiddly. I would recommend the 17-55 to anyone wanting to upgrade from an 18-55,- the f/2.8 is also useful, but it all depends on the type of photography you want. Some may of course want to spend on a longer telephoto, wider angle lens or macro instead of replacing the focal lengths you aready have.
As with my film experience, Canon have now made the 7DII obsolete, but the 17-55 seems to be still available in the stores. It is reported to suffer from flare but the images I take with it tend not to include the sun.
Comment