# Best shots for my lens.



## tmartin2347 (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm just wondering what I should stick to as far as types of photos I should be taking with the type of lens I have for the best shots. 
I have a Canon 18-55mm, and I do have a question on this lens. On the lens it has the macro image on it followed by .25m/0.8ft, is this telling me it's a macro zoom lens?


Any helpful information would be nice, I don't want to keep trying to get big shot's of certain things that this lens isn't made for.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 6, 2010)

do yourself a favor and get one of these:
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

I don't use it at f/2.8, because it's not too sharp, but at f/4, it's spectacular.  Better color, sharpness, contrast, etc.  I got mine for $350 on craigslist.

If you want to stick with the 18-55, I got the best results with f/8.  
As far as your macro question, no, I don't think this is considered a "macro" lens.
The lens is made to be a cheap useful lens with ok image quality.  Seriously, for the ~$400, it's totally worth it to get the Tamron.  I pretty much never take it off of my camera.


----------



## pbelarge (Apr 6, 2010)

Robert
Did you take the picture of "big feet" with it? :mrgreen:


----------



## NateS (Apr 6, 2010)

I agree with Robert, however my copy is very sharp wide open at f2.8


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 6, 2010)

I did


NateS - I'd say that at f/2.8, the lens is almost as sharp as the kit lens is at it sharpest.  At f/4, it's amazing.


----------



## NateS (Apr 6, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> I did
> 
> 
> NateS - I'd say that at f/2.8, the lens is almost as sharp as the kit lens is at it sharpest.  At f/4, it's amazing.



Mine was sharper than my 50mm f1.8 at f1.8 and probably equal to the 50 at f2-f2.8.  That's the main reason I got rid of the 50 I suppose and no longer even have on in my bag.  Maybe there's a slight difference in the canon and nikon versions too.


----------



## KmH (Apr 6, 2010)

tmartin2347 said:


> I'm just wondering what I should stick to as far as types of photos I should be taking with the type of lens I have for the best shots.
> I have a Canon 18-55mm, and I do have a question on this lens. On the lens it has the macro image on it followed by .25m/0.8ft, is this telling me it's a macro zoom lens?
> 
> 
> Any helpful information would be nice, I don't want to keep trying to get big shot's of certain things that this lens isn't made for.


.25m/0.8ft means that is the closest something can be and still be in focus.

Shots that look pretty much like what you can see with your unaided eye and  zoomed in just a little. At 18 mm things are smaller than in real life

A 50 mm lens closely approximates what the eye see's as far as scale (no magnification)

Most dSLRs have an APS-C size sensor  and what is known as a 'crop factor' which means a 50 mm lens will give a field-of-view equal to a 75 mm lens on a full 35mm image sensor. Nikon has a 1.5 times crop factor (50 mm x 1.5 = 75 mm) and Canon has a 1.6 times crop factor (50 mm x 1.6 = 80 mm).


----------



## robertwsimpson (Apr 7, 2010)

hm, I just did some control shots of the Tamron at 17mm and f/2.8, 4, 5.6, & 8, and f/2.8 appears just as sharp as any of the others.  I take back what I said earlier.  I think that things change the closer you get to 50mm though.


----------

