poid ... quoi que je ne le prend meme pas avec moi en objectif de secours (un compact c'est plus leger et de meilleur qualité)

inutile

Piqué très mauvais (meme sur un 350D), aberation chromatique enorme des qu'il y a du soleil.
Et ne comptez pas sur un logiciel de correction (Dxo, et Co) pour rattaper les problemes: c'est trop pourrit

Inclu avec le reflex, mais c'est une grosse bouse. Vaut mieux acheter un compacte a 100E, vous aurez de meilleurs résultat.

Similar Products Used:

par contre je recommande le 17-55 ... bcp plus chére, mais ça vaut le coups!

Price, good when reversed for Macro photography

Everything else

This lens was good enough when I first got my canon 300d and I didnt know anything about photography, now I see the limitations of this lens. The quality of the images is crap with this lens. but I am glad to say that I found a better use for this lens, if you reverse the lens is actually a good Macro lens.

Cheap
Wideangle
USM is quiet

Cheap plastic
Soft

A kit lens that comes with my Canon 20D. it is actually not too bad for walkaround. However, I have noiticed that it 's a bit too soft, and have to adjust the sharpness parameter of the camera. Even the user manual warns that you have to use the sharpening filter in software to compensate the softness.

Overall, I think this lens is acceptable even for 8x10 print outs.

Price
Price
Price
Lightweight
Responsive AF
Reliable
Reasonably good optics
Good sized twist zoom ring
58mm filter thread (most common size)

Awkward manual focus ring
High-brow photographers smirk at you

(TOP TIP: Buy a roll of that red pinstripe sticky stuff from a car accessory store and put a nice even ring of it round your lens barrel... stops the camera snobs mocking you)

This will be a controversial review. I rate this lens highly overall unlike most other reviewers. How can other reviewers give this lens less than a 5 star value rating when the lens costs virtually nothing??? That's not logic... that's silliness. When you buy a Canon kit you effectively get this lens for as little as £10 these days. When you compare that to the price for a lens cap for Canon's 600mm lens (an astonishing £69!!!) you will understand what a true bargain this is. Even the cheap plastic lens hood for this lens will cost you more than the lens itself. So enough nonsense! This lens is 100% true value for money.

1. Build quality

Plastic construction... but so is the dashboard of an Aston Martin DB-S. If you mistreat it or throw it down the stairs then it will break (and so would a £500 17-40mm f4). It's built to a budget but that doesn't mean it won't do the job... it will. Mine's had a good thrashing for 3 years and it is still as good as new. It has a plastic lens mount... so what? Anyone ever wore out a plastic lens mount? Even if you did... spend £10 for another lens. The other little thought about benefit of it's plastic construction is that the lens weighs very little indeed... that can surely only be good, right?

2. AF performance

Not USM but that doesn't matter. In my experience USM is only really beneficial on longer focal length lenses. AF is fast, accurate and quiet (for a non-USM).

3. Optical quality

This is where this lens usually takes a battering from the other reviewers. Is it as sharp as a 16-35 f2.8? Nope. Neither is it £900. The results from this lens are nowhere near as bad as people make out. They're good, but that's as far as I'll go. When you show all your photos to your family and friends, or even if you exhibit some of them, you can virtually guarantee that not a single person will think "hang on a minute, that chromatic aberation is a bit obvious" or... "Ooo, Margaret, will you just look at the softness of those images taken at f5.6. Tut, tut.... if only they'd used an L series optic."
I've shot weddings with this lens and all clients were delighted with the results. Fellow photographers were all complimenting my work and they didn't know what lens was used. The only reason I would upgrade to a more expensive lens is for IS or a faster aperture. The quality is good but not stunning. And, most importantly... it is definitely not poor!

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Cosina 19-35mm
Canon 17-40 f4L

Cheap price with kit

Poor optical quality and build Its a kit lens so what do you expect?

I bought this lens used after I got my Rebel XT. I was planning to get the 17-40L instead, but couldn't come up with the money to do this at the time. I would have got the kit instead had I knew this. Anyways this lens is cheap. It has its uses and is ok for shots, but its sharpness leaves much to be desired. On some shots the outer edges of the picture were soft and distorted. You get what you pay for in this lens.

Cheap, Fast in focus, Contrasty if one used it correctly, Great colors if one understand lighting, Compact, Decent in macro too.

Plastic, Manual focusing is difficult, Slow .... f/3.5-f/5.6

Yes ... it is plastic, toy like & cheap (bundle-in kit) .... BUT ... IT TAKES GREAT PICTURES! Over the period of 2 mths, I had taken more pictures with this len than I possibly imagine ... maybe over 1 thousand and most of the time it gave result that I am more than happy with. Reviews from Popular Photography show that this len is just a few decimals different compare to the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM in large blow-ups! Pictures speak a thousand words ..... www dot pbase dot com / cheerful_yc .... need me say more??!!! Friends, if you own one keep it even if you have ultra expensive stuffs ... 'cos it can produce results too!

Similar Products Used:

Hasselblad XPan - 45mm, Rollei 6x6 - HFT 80mm/f2.8, Canon FD - 24mm/f2, 50mm/f1.4, 85mm/f1.2L, 135mm/f2, Panasonic LC5 - Leica DC VARIO-SUMMICRON 7-21mm f/2-2.5

Price :) Wide angle on a DSLR (although the distortion and CA is huge)

Virtually everything. A toy lens.

Boy, this is a crap lens! Soft and built like a cheap toy. On the other hand - you get what you pay for :)

Comes with the camera Free Its great for a person shooting candid

Its Soft Cheap Glass is like a coke bottle

Well, Let me start of by saying that the only reason I have this lens is because it came with my Digital Rebel. I got the digital rebel because I need a unit that performed under $1000 and could shot in professional situations and It does. But the lens, well ... I am not going to say that it sucks, but I am going to say that canon should take them off the market. The glass in the lens is not good, in fact it reminds me of a coke bottle as far as quality. It is very soft toward the center of the glass, and will distort in lots of situations. You will see noice when you edit and its nothing that a pro would accept. If you are looking to do candids of the family using the P mode or automatic, then its a great lens for you. It feels very cheap because its made of plastic but even my sigma lenses are made of plastic and they dont feel like they are "Cheap." Over all, if you get the lens withthe camera like i did, good, keep it because its good to have as a conversation peice but other than that, invest in a Sigma 28-70 or 18-50. They are much better lenses and they are at a great price.

Customer Service

Never used

Light Versatile, handy focal length Good color and contrast

Cheaply built Slow Soft

Got this lens in the kit with my Digital Rebel. It's soft and very cheaply built and too slow for low light, but it's also capable of taking some good pics stopped down. Wouldn't be my first or even second or third choice, but not a bad lens for a beginner.

Customer Service

NA

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 18-125 Canon 17-40 f4L

all-.its cheap clear...SHARP

none..maybe to plastic

I recently made a quite interessting experiment; i work as a news paper PJ photographer and one day decided to only bring some of the bad stuff lenses which come together with some cams canon 35-80(i rememer it came with a eos 100 *lol*) and a tamron 70-300 and this new canon 18-55 lens as well(it came w the digital rebel)well for two days i took this poor line up on the assigment hoping it didnt broke down; the results was almost as good as the rest of the L gear( 17-40 L ,70-200 F4 ) in fact my editor didnt notice so much that it was horrifying neccessary to go back and remake the shot again w the L glass!! the only thing it needed in general was some work i PS in order to achieve the last details..!!?? isnt it funny?? GO AND BUY IT and keep it..unless u got a hole bunch of money or even you are a Pro You can live wit it!! its the man behind the wheel who drives the car!

Customer Service

nope

Similar Products Used:

17-40 L