Following on from my previous post, is an old camera cost effective? I would have to say yes. While the 70-300 mm lens isn’t stabilised it is reasonably good on a tripod but how about its little brother the 18-55?
The auto focus is snappy and hits its mark almost every time, low light being a little less reliable.
That being said I have been quite pleased with the lens in general terms. The following image was taken using its macro ability, with the macro selected from the control ring, the lens will focus at a reasonably close distance. The specs say approx 9 inches minimum distance but it seems it can get a tad closer than that.
Shot at f7 @ 1/100 using ISO 200 at 55 mm fl detail is good , colour is accurate and there is a pleasingly blurred background evident, with a thin depth of field, much better than one might expect from a kit lens. Camera set on Macro setting.
Using the lens without the macro setting also yields nice images. The following image was taken on an overcast day and the image was underexposed by 2 stops as I had inadvertently left the Ev setting at -2 EV as the previous shots were taken in very harsh light. While badly underexposed I was able to bring some life to the RAW image in post processing. Notable too is that even at f5.6 the depth of field is less well defined and is a good indication of just what the Macro setting of the camera achieves when switched on.
ISO 400 @ f5.6 with 1/320 sec using 55 mm fl
While not the fastest or sharpest lens Canon has, nonetheless it does aquit itself reasonably well, and in good lighting conditions certainly can produced pleasing results.
Compared to the Fuji XC 16-50 mm kit lens however, it isn’t in the same class. The Fuji XC kit lenses are very good, which is typical of Fuji’s lens lineup, even in the lower tier kit lenses which as an added bonus are all stabilised, something that Canon still fails to do even in their latest entry level offerings.
The question then is how good does it perform as an astrophotography lens? More on this subject to come.