Canon 18-55mm vs the IS version

[strandedinar]

I will be purchasing the XTi later this month and am trying to decide between purchasing the kit which comes with the 18-55mm or purchasing the body only and separately buying the IS version of the 18-55mm lens. Is the IS version worth the incremental cost?



I am a newbie to the world of DSLR, so I don't have any other lenses. I will mainly be taking pictures of my kids playing sports and family shots.

Any help is appreciated.

 

[Emerana]

I have the IS...I am not really sure if its better though cause I dont have the regular. I would think it is...its good to have an is lens when you are going to be having to snap quickly without a tripod.

 

[julie32]

In my opinion, any IS version is better than a non IS version of the same lens...
You'll enjoy shooting digital, good luck!

 

[yeti]

I say if money is not an issue for you, go for the IS version. If you hate lugging a tripod, you will appreciate IS helping you out in low-light situations, like indoors.

 

[sabbath999]

I have taken pictures with both.

The IS version of the lens is SIGNIFICANTLY better both in optics and build quality.

The non-IS version is JUNK.

The IS version is not quite junk, but nothing to brag about either. It is "OK", but there are better choices out there if you can afford them.

The IS works at about 2 stops on this lens, in my experience. (18-55 IS mounted on an XTI)

Neither of these lenses is as good in build quality, sharpness and in other optical ways as the Nikon basic kit lens, by the way. That doesn't help, I just thought I would mention it to people who don't already own a camera. Not that one should EVER buy a camera based on simply how good the kit lens is.

If it were me, I would likely just get the non-IS cheapy as a "get me by" lens, spend the difference on the excellent 50mm 1.8 Canon makes, and then save up some scratch to replace the kit lens with something actually decent... if I were buying a Canon.

 

[strandedinar]

I have taken pictures with both.

The IS version of the lens is SIGNIFICANTLY better both in optics and build quality.

The non-IS version is JUNK.

The IS version is not quite junk, but nothing to brag about either. It is "OK", but there are better choices out there if you can afford them.

The IS works at about 2 stops on this lens, in my experience. (18-55 IS mounted on an XTI)

Neither of these lenses is as good in build quality, sharpness and in other optical ways as the Nikon basic kit lens, by the way. That doesn't help, I just thought I would mention it to people who don't already own a camera. Not that one should EVER buy a camera based on simply how good the kit lens is.

If it were me, I would likely just get the non-IS cheapy as a "get me by" lens, spend the difference on the excellent 50mm 1.8 Canon makes, and then save up some scratch to replace the kit lens with something actually decent... if I were buying a Canon.

You sold me. Thanks for the responses.

 

[Rhubarb]

DPReview has done a review on this lens, of which you can find here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/

They mentioned several time that the IS version is easily superior to the non-IS version.

Maybe try to find a deal where the IS version is included with the camera?

 

[Rhys]

The non-IS lens is not quite junk. It's not great though. I can get nice crisp images from it as long as it's used at f11. For the ultimate best results I will use a tripod. Within its narrow limitations it's OK. For landscape photographers it doesn't really matter - they're after small apertures and use tripods.