New Canon 18-55mm IS better then Xt kit lens?

caspertodd · May 9, 2008

Searched all over this forum and found a couple posts that said that they read that the new 18-55mm IS lens that comes with the XSi is better than the 18-55mm that comes as the Xt kit lens. Ok, so I have the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Xt, is it worth spending $200 to get the newer lens with IS, or should I just use what I have?

I am just wanting a basic walkaround lens. I am buying the 50mm f/1.8 as well, but plan on just using that for portraits mainly.

Mav · May 9, 2008

If you could use IS then it might be worth it, but otherwise I doubt it's any better than the non IS versions in normal use.

I just picked up an unwanted Nikon 18-55VR out of a D60 kit for $135 brand new never mounted and compared it to my 10x more expensive 17-55 f/2.8 pro lens and found that the VR is good enough that it makes up for its lack of speed and is equivalent for night time walkaround photography here

caspertodd · May 9, 2008

If IS is really the only benefit, I'm not sure if it is worth it to me. I can't imagine that IS would make that much of a difference on this focal length.

SanctuS · May 9, 2008

I don't think it would make a difference as long as you'd keep your shutter speed above 1/90 at maximum focal length.

Big Mike · May 9, 2008

I don't think it would make a difference as long as you'd keep your shutter speed above 1/90 at maximum focal length.

That's true...but with a lens that is F3.5-5.6, it's easier said than done.

If the 18-55mm IS lens is only $200...I think that's probably a good deal.

Mav · May 9, 2008

caspertodd said:
If IS is really the only benefit, I'm not sure if it is worth it to me. I can't imagine that IS would make that much of a difference on this focal length.

Nikon claims two stops, and I think Canon's is the same. I tested it out and it seems to be true. I can pull off 1 second handheld exposures with my 18-55VR at the 18mm end which is much better than the non-VR. At the 55mm end I can do about 1/4 or 1/5s vs maybe 1/15s or 1/20s at absolute best on the non-VR version. That's not a 50/50 sharp/blurred ratio either. I think I had to take 5 shots to get a sharp one at 1s on the VR lens. It's good enough that for available light walkaround photography I don't need to tote my massive 17-55/2.8 around anymore. Now if only Nikon's 17-55/2.8 had VR too. :grumpy:

caspertodd · May 9, 2008

Well, I just found this where a guy posted two pictures. One taken with the kit lens, and one taken with the newer 18-55mm IS lens. He had this on a tripod, so IS was basically not used (unless his tripod sucks), and there is still a pretty good difference. It looks to me they put better glass in the new lens. I think I'm sold on it. Anyone want to buy my older kit lens

?

Here's the link:

http://2stepsteve.smugmug.com/gallery/3978111#231235761

Mav · May 9, 2008

He said that he thought he might have had a bad copy of the non-IS, so you never know. Looks like his non-IS might have had a focus issue. Just because he focused on the same point doesn't mean it would focus the same. I wonder if he tried manually focusing to get better results?

BoblyBill · May 9, 2008

Here's a shot from a 18-55mm that gives you parts of it at 100% also it compares it to some other lenses...

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Canon400D_lens_upgrade/page4.shtml

Here's some sample shots of the 18-55 IS

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Canon400D_lens_upgrade/page4.shtml

Dutchboy · May 9, 2008

The 18-55 and the 18-55 IS are two different lenses optically speaking. The IS has much improved optics that rival much more expensive lenses, although the build quality is pretty much like the previous one. Check out this review:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...on-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

:thumbup:

asfixiate · May 9, 2008

Both have same range, both have plastic mounts. Why not avoid all together and get xt vs xsi with a different lense?

Don't get me wrong the 18-55mm is useful lense but I find it turtle slow without tripod or flash in low light.

my $90.00 50mm lense gets used the most in all purposes. That and my 75-300. a good flash and photoshop help a lot with budgets.

Getting an 85mm f/1.8.

plentygood · May 9, 2008

I found this comparison pretty telling back when I was shopping for my first dSLR last month. You can click on the picture to make it bigger.

http://www.photographybay.com/2007/12/11/canon-18-55mm-is-lens-compared-to-18-55mm-kit-lens/

asfixiate · May 9, 2008

well that's a pretty substantial difference....no editing was done?

i could take that shot with my kit lens and edit in photoshop.

Dutchboy · May 9, 2008

If money is an issue, there's always manual lenses with adapters. Canon DSLR's are perfect for that. I've built up a nice collection of those for very little money.

Get the 18-55 IS if you can spend around $200. If you CAN spend more, then by all means get a better built one. Sigma and Tamron make lenses for Canon that are cheaper and often have similar quality to Canon ones.

JustAnEngineer · May 9, 2008

Is the $400 Tamron AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II a possibility? Or, you could just keep saving for the $1000 EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Pick up the "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 II to keep you occupied?