LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Those are both 2 of Canon's more popular lenses. I have both of them on a T3i I am currently selling and feel that they did a fine job. I suggest that you check out the buyer reviews at B&H, Adorama, and other retailers. They are usually pretty helpful. You may also want to check out the camera & lens reviews on this site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com
I have a 70D and it is a great camera but all my current lenses are L's because I plan to add a 6D to my collection in a few months and want to be able to use those same lenses with it. If you think you may go to a full frame in the future you may want to consider that.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

The only improvement is the introduction of the STM lenses that are designed to be quieter when autofocusing for the newer Canon camera bodies like the 70D while shooting video. Canon offers camera bodies with various lenses included which are referred to as kit lenses. They range from 18-55mm, 55-250mm for most of the Rebel camera bodies. But one of my camera bodies was offered with an 18-135mm EF-S series of lens. Another one of my bodies included a 28-135 EF lens which is more compatible with all of Canons bodies including the full frame bodies. Then there's the full frame camera bodies like the 5D mkIII that are offered with the L series 24-105 lens which is still considered a kit lens but it's a professional grade lens with the L on the name plate. Any of Canon lenses that have the STM on the name plate are newer and should be considered a upgrade in the past 3 years. And, last but not least, any of the EF-S lenses with the II on the name plate are also improved lenses in the past 3 year period you are referring to.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

I don't know about Canon lenses, but I had a Nikkor 18-55mm that came with my D5100. It was an excellent lens as long as there was sufficient light available.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I don't understand this slavish devotion to anything Nikon branded. Yes they do make a lot of good equipment, but so do most of the other manufacturers, and on occasion the all turn out a dog. I've had seven or eight different cameras & different brands over my 70+ years and the only really crappy one was a Nikon. Once burned....

This will probably gin up a lot of venom, but it's one person's experience.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

JCam, you haven't ginned up a lot of venom in me. Actually none at all. You are free to buy whatever camera and related equipment you wish. Actually I have never had a bad experience with a camera and I have owned Hasselblad, Leica, Yashica, Mamiya, Canon, and Nikon. Probably more but those will do for quality cameras. ALL of them are top quality cameras. I could have any one of them again and shoot for a lifetime with no problems. Occasionally a dog does get through to the consumer. That is where customer service comes in. Did you contact Nikon and tell them you had a bad camera? Did you give them a chance to fix the problem? My guess is if you had done that you might be a happier camper now. Whatever camera brand you are using right now, if it broke tomorrow would you then swear off that brand forever?

My reason for sticking with Nikon is I have never had a bad Nikon camera or accessory from them. I have had many of them since 1965 as I recall and never a problem. I buy Nikon because I know I can depend on quality merchandise.

I believe the Canon users or the Sony users or whatever users on the forum will tell you the same thing about their chosen brand. Cameras are well made and there are many excellent brands out there. Most of us find one or two we like and stick with that brand.

Dennis

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

Denis, The camera was within warranty and it wouldn't focus properly--nothing over about 50 feet was sharp; the camera was a P500 P&S. When I contacted Nikon, they asked me for some typical pictures so I sent them three and they said I shouldn't use spot focus because it might focus on the wrong thing. That was my complaint to start with; there was no way to tell what it was actually focusing on, ie. it didn't have focus points only a center box so you had to trust it. One of the two pictures I sent them was of a bird on our feeder about 30' away; it focused on the woods another 25 or so feet beyond. The other picture was of a sailboat, under sail, about 100 yds away, and I centered the focus box on the +/- 600 sq ft mainsail-- that's hard to miss, but it wasn't sharp.

Next I took the camera to a local repair shop that was a Nikon Authorized Repair Center, but I didn't know Nikon had fired them all in favor of factory repairs. Anyway I got an estimate for the repair of the Auto focus, sent it to Nikon and was told that it had to come back to them so I sent it back and per their warranty repair order they "replaced the lens and adjusted the Auto Focus" under warranty although it was now out of warranty, but there was a history of in warranty correspondence and problems, and I give them credit for honoring the warranty. Unfortunately, when I got the camera back, it wasn't any better. I finally traded it in on a Canon 60D--I'd had Canons before with no complaints; I am again a happy Canon owner never to try Nikon again. The Canon still has about 6 months under warranty so your question is academic, but even it it has a problem in the future, I'll know it was a good camera to start. It has been my experience with electronic stuff that if it runs for 60 days, it will generally go for a long time, unless abused.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Thank you so much for getting back to me to clarify points that I had no way of knowing. In your case with the smaller camera I probably would have done the same thing. My point was that I would not brand all Nikons as bad because of the one you had.

Thanks again for clarifying to me.

Dennis

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

Dennis,

I hope you noted that I started out saying that Nikon did make a lot of good equipment; most of my friends have them and are happy. All manufacturers occasionally turn out a lemon. I don't know if I got a bad one, or if the camera model was not good. I have read some comments posted here about Nikon cutting corners to meet price points. I have no way of knowing if that is true or not, but if it is, that's a good way to lose a good reputation; most buyers trying a new brand start at the lower or mid range, and if they have a bad experience.....they are gone. The 500 was the second to the top of their P&S line when I bought it.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Yes I did notice your initial points about Nikon. That made me remember a few minutes ago that I did have a Nikon Coolpix camera years ago that I didn't like and gave away. The camera did exactly what it was supposed to do but the shutter lag was slow. When trying to take photos of kids running in the back yard they would be out of the picture by the time the shutter went off. For still shots it took an incredibly sharp picture. No fault of Nikon as that was the design but not good for me. I see your point.

Dennis

Dick Z. Loc: Downers Grove IL

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Alois

Best kit lens is made by Sony, rest is just so so. 50mm lenses used to be great, but those times are long gone.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The STM (Stepper Motor focus drive) on Canon 18-55 and 55-250 is a fairly big deal... It's quieter, faster and more accurate than the micro motor focus drive on the earlier kit lenses.

The 18-55 STM is also an optical improvement over the 18-55 IS, which in turn was an improvement over the original, non-IS version.

Not sure if there were optical improvements to the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, it was already a pretty decent lens in that respect, especially considering it's price. But in addition to the improved AF, the EF-S 55-250 IS STM has a non-rotating front element, which can be nice if you're using a polarizing filter on it. The two earlier versions - 55-250 IS and 55-250 IS II - seemed to mostly just be changes in external cosmetics.

The EF-S 18-135mm Canon "upgrage kit" lens also has evolved a little and supposedly the STM version is improved optically, as well as in AF performance.

The most other two Canon lenses most commonly sold "in kit" with some of the more advanced models are the EF 24-105L IS USM and EF 28-135 IS USM, neither of which started life as kit lenses and both of which are quite good optically. The 24-105 is better built and sealed, as an L-series that costs 3X as much damn well should be. So many of the 28-135s have been sold in kit with 40D, 50D and 60D that the used market is flooded with them and they can be bought lightly used at bargain prices for a lens with such good all around performance. Some don't like the focal lengths of these two lenses on crop sensor cameras, but I do.



Well, today most DSLRs sold are crop sensor, so a "normal" or "standard" lens would need to be a 28mm or 30mm. Plus most buyers demand the convenience of a zoom.

GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California

Many people knock "kit lenses" but I found my 18-55 and 55-250 both took nice sharp pictures which were more than adequate when printed up to 8x10 or viewed on a monitor assuming I didn't do any or very little cropping. Are they as sharp as a Canon "L" lens? No but they cost about 1/10th the price and you often have to zoom in to start to see the difference. At least that has been my experience.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Strange question indeed. Lenes do evolve almost constantly, so I would say definitely yes, as all next generation lenses do improve, compared to their earlier version, and that includes Kit Lenses. They are getting better and better, in some cases surpassing their counterparts (non-kit-lenses).

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: