I got a second-hand 18-55 IS a couple of weeks ago to go with the 300D as a lightweight travel camera, since the 5D, 580EX and 24-105 is too bulky to carry along when managing two permanently contrary toddlers. I used to have the old 18-55 non-IS before I changed to the 17-85.
Now when I did comparison test shots at all F/L's and apertures, the cheap all-plastic 18-55 literally destroys the 17-85 which costs 4x as much. Even wide open the 18-55 is able to out-resolve the 17-85 by a very noticeable margin. I did cherry-pick my 17-85 at the store after testing a few different copies, though they all produced similar results.
I am very confused at these results. I know that most people here don't touch the 18-55, but can anyone corroborate these results or help shed some light on this?
SloPhoto wrote:
The old 18-55 is not even worthwhile as a paperweight...
Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute!
I got the old 18-55 kit lens with my 20D, and now that I have the 35L and the 17-55 2.8IS I use the 18-55 exclusively as a paper weight, and it works well in this function.
I've done head to head comparison between the 18-55II, 18-55IS and 17-55IS. I'm not sure if people tend to reflexively dismiss cheap lenses' quality and praise expensive lenses, or they are just parroting online reviews. In my comparison they are not that different. Colour and contrast are similar, and in optimal aperture there are very little that would set them apart.
18-55IS equals my copy of 18-55II in the centre while slightly betters it in the corner. The 17-55IS is a little better everywhere (this I am not so sure) than the 18-55IS, while giving a few more stops of light without sacrificing much image quality.
I used to have the original 18-55 that comes with a 300D earlier in my hobby, I remembered that I was frustrated with it, I can't seem to get a sharp picture out of it. I'm not sure if it is sample variation or is it my abysmal skill back then. I sold it soon after. But I am happy with the 18-55II that I got later on, I certainly wouldn't call it "not even worthwhile as a paperweight".
I often have recommended exchanging the 18-55 II for the IS version to friends if they get a chance to pick one up, and they noticed a big difference in the IQ. I to this day keep on in my bag for my 30D so when my wife wants to take shots of my girls she isn't strapped with a 5-6 pound setup, and it works great. We get consistent images with sharp results and nice contrast.
The 18-55is is my regular shooting lens that I picked up used for a song..actually a whistle!! Besides this I own the 55-250is and Iv only had the opportunity to use 2-3 wildlife trips.
Here's some Bokeh shots from my 18-55is while I was fooling around with the MF.
I got mine with the 450D. It trashed a 24f1.4 at all f´s, sent it back an hour before the Distagon 21ZE was announced. The 24 was a lemon, the 18-55IS a pearl! It is only a tiny bit less sharp than a 35L and 50L I got later, which are truly sharp. Without deep peeping the largest difference to the L primes is in the colour rendition, IMveryHO.
So yes the 18-55IS can be a magnificent lens regardless of the money. Almost annoying, really...! Hope it wont trash the Distagon I just ordered from Zeiss. OTOH...
I had the 18-55 IS lens when I had my 500D to use as a light weight walkabout/travel kit. It was a pretty good lens for the money! Much sharper then the original 18-55 lens that I had when I bought my 300D, and paired up with the 500D, it made a nice small light weight setup, add the 55-250 IS (which was another surprisingly sharp lens!) and you've got yourself a good light weight budget setup! It's a shame that Canon doesn't offer a USM version of the 18-55 IS like they did with the 18-55 II.
I've now replaced the 18-55 IS with the new 18-135 IS as my light weight walkabout lens with my 7D and the new lens performs similar to the other 2 kit lenses, but offers a bit more reach at the long end and a better build quality (Metal lens mount, non-rotating front, and a proper manual focus ring) but it is bigger then the compact 18-55 IS, but it's nicely balanced on the larger 7D body.
Yeah i love my 18-55is. infact when i saw people slagging off the 18-55 i wondered just what they wanted from a lens (i now know that they mean the old one).
Z250SA wrote:
So yes the 18-55IS can be a magnificent lens regardless of the money. Almost annoying, really...! Hope it wont trash the Distagon I just ordered from Zeiss. OTOH...
The ZE lens works on real cameras too, whereas the EF-S is only for the croppy ones.
The 18-55 IS is a pretty awesome lens, the best general kit lens I have ever seen, and a bit better than even good zooms. I still have mine, super sharp, with a bit of PP, contrast and color comes to life.
heck, I would even say the build quality is great, because I fell down on the trail, camera landed right on the 18-55, all sorts of dirt got deep in the mechanism, and yet, it performs as well as the day I bought it. Only now is the dirt feeling gone when turning the lens, a year later! Mine's a total keeper, best bang for buck out there.
Hmm, I bought a 18-55 IS from Amazon this summer. A steaming pile 'o doggie duty. It was terrible even stopped down and was twice as blurry on the left side. After reading all the raves about it, I figured I got a lemon and returned it.
I think the 18-55 IS is overrated for IQ. It resolves fairly well, but like similar low end lenses, it suffers from poor contrast, colours saturation etc. If you're used to using lenses like Canon L primes, you won't be floored with the IQ of this one. Serviceable, but nothing brilliant
Oct 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM