Is the Lens that comes as standard with a EOS 400D kit really as bad as people say it is, so i have 2 questions.

1 - As ive already said is the lens really that bad

2 - If so would you recommened just buying the camera body and choosing a different lens

1) No, it's fine, people use it and produce perfectly acceptable images with it.

2) Other lenses are sharper, or may be more flexible, faster, more durable, etc. But generally the kit costs only about 20something quid more than body only, if you buy from the right places, so I'd challenge you to find a much better lens for 20 quid. ;)

May not be same as a £500 or £1000 lens, but then what do you expect from a kit lens?

I doubt the average user would notice any problem with it, it's more the folks that have the expensive lenses that complain about the quality of the kit lenses. Get it, enjoy it :thumbsup:

I have to agree, I actually really enjoy using the kit lens and still do!

Here are some examples of my photos taken with the kit lens...Crocus (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/50107315/) and Star Magnolia (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/52137715/)

I wonder if those people that complain about the kit lens would be able to tell what lens these were taken with? :huh:

It'd partly depend on what focal lengths you actually need. 18mm would be wide enough for most uses, but would you be limited by the 50mm telephoto.

I've had no problems with it, but I'm only just starting out taking photos "properly"!
I can see why some more experienced photographers don't like it and probably read the same reviews you've read.
However, it's reasonably priced (as an extra to body only) and pretty versatile. I'm going to have to save up before I can afford a 50mm lens and a better telephoto anyway!

As others have said the kit lens is a bargain if you buy it with your body...

Kit £455 body only £427 so the lens only costs £28.

I used a Canon 28-105 for several years until it almost fell to bits, couldn't knock it

I bought that second hand to go with my first DSLR.

Can someboy help me please.

I have a canon 400d with the supplied canon 18-55mm lense and a tamron 55mm-200 lense.

I intend to do general photograpy for a magazine but may also do portrait shots and some close up food photography.

Would the above lenses be sufficient for this?

I have looked at a macro lense for close up stuff and another canon lense (Canon EF90-300mm)

Would i really need these?

Do the lenses that I have do the jobs above just as well?

Thanks

I would have thought the std 18-55 would be fine for food product photography, though you will need to think about lighting the food.

For portraits a prime lens of about 100mm should get the job done, the Canon 85mm f1.8 is a good lens and will be fine for portraits on the 1.6 crop factor 400D, or consider the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro.

I'd like the food to have a background blur, so would the 18-55 be good enough?

Also would the tamron lense I have be ok for portrait shots?

Suave do you have any examples of your work, so maybe people can advise you how to improve what you are already achieving.

To get the background of a food shot blurred you will need a reasonably fast lens so you can get shallow depth of field, I suspect the 18-55 is fairly slow so you will not be able to get the background of your images out of focus as you want.

I'll practice a little more and then post some pics

I bought a new adaptor ring off Ebay which enables you to use your 18-55mm kit lens in reverse to take macro pics.

Maybe worth a look.

Happy Days!