TR Forums

So apparently canon has a new kit lens. It's a "Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS"

Note those last 2 letters. Apparently it actually performs really well. And the best part it...it retails for ~$175.

Since I don't have a decent lens under 70mm (other than the 50mm prime) I decided to order it. It should be here on Thursday, just in time for the honeymoon. I've wanted something shorter for awhile, and just happened to see on Adorama's site that it came out. (In fact, I was going to order it from Amazon, but I just remembered that I saw it on Adorama and thought I'd honor that bit of news with ordering it from them instead).

I'll let ya'll know how it handles. It'll be weird having a non-telephoto lens on my dSLR. That's always been P&S territory for me.
So yeah.

Some reviews:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... 114/cat/11
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm

EDIT: added another thinks thanks to danny e.

at least the resolution looks to be very good. .. a few other things would make me pause.. but not bad for that price at all.

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556is/index.htm">another review from photozone </a>

danny e. wrote:

at least the resolution looks to be very good. .. a few other things would make me pause.. but not bad for that price at all.

It would also be nice to have a decent short-focus lens. The closest my 70-200 can focus is 1.5 meters which doesn't really work well for trying to get close to much of anything.

hmm comparing that lens review on photozone to the 17-55 makes it look even better.
seems the only big downside is the build quality... and speed, but you cant expect much for that price.

i may have to look into this more as I have the 17-55 on my shopping list.. but it'd be nice to be able to spend that money on other lenses considering the 17-55 is not perfect itself.

My lenses right now:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 II USM
and soon to add:
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Yeah from what I've read it's a really good lens, and its value per dollar is great.

Well it came in yesterday. I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but I'll report back in January

It's really light compared to my 70-200

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

Well it came in yesterday. I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but I'll report back in January

It's really light compared to my 70-200

Well I would hope not

Wow Canon didn't let Nikon have their 18-55 VR moment for very long

diamond2a wrote:

Wow Canon didn't let Nikon have their 18-55 VR moment for very long

I thought Canon announced their's first? I could be wrong.

jobodaho wrote:

diamond2a wrote:

Wow Canon didn't let Nikon have their 18-55 VR moment for very long

I thought Canon announced their's first? I could be wrong.

Both were pretty inevitable, especially with the other players putting is/vr in their bodies. Gotta keep up with the feature checklist of your competitors.

jobodaho wrote:

diamond2a wrote:

Wow Canon didn't let Nikon have their 18-55 VR moment for very long

I thought Canon announced their's first? I could be wrong.

Canon announced theirs first. The Nikon version has been announced, but I don't think it's out until the end of the month.

The IS/VR/OS/VC/SR competition for Canon and Nikon isn't just coming from Pentax. Sigma and Tamron are making lenses with stabilization, too.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses ... avigator=6
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses ... avigator=6
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses ... avigator=3
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_vc.asp

mattsteg wrote:

jobodaho wrote:

diamond2a wrote:

Wow Canon didn't let Nikon have their 18-55 VR moment for very long

I thought Canon announced their's first? I could be wrong.

Both were pretty inevitable, especially with the other players putting is/vr in their bodies. Gotta keep up with the feature checklist of your competitors.

How do the in-body IS's perform? Are they as good as in-lens? I would assume not, but I really don't know.

jobodaho wrote:

How do the in-body IS's perform? Are they as good as in-lens? I would assume not, but I really don't know.

IS performance is difficult to quantify, but I think the general consensus is that modern lens IS has the edge on body, especially on the long end. However with lens IS you pay more and only get it on some of your lenses.

So in general its a bit of a wash, but the differences may be significant to certain users

diamond2a wrote:

jobodaho wrote:

How do the in-body IS's perform? Are they as good as in-lens? I would assume not, but I really don't know.

IS performance is difficult to quantify, but I think the general consensus is that modern lens IS has the edge on body, especially on the long end. However with lens IS you pay more and only get it on some of your lenses.

So in general its a bit of a wash, but the differences may be significant to certain users

I would love to have in body IS, even if it was only a 1 stop advantage, that still could end up turning a bad shot into something usable.

jobodaho wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

jobodaho wrote:

diamond2a wrote:

Wow Canon didn't let Nikon have their 18-55 VR moment for very long

I thought Canon announced their's first? I could be wrong.

Both were pretty inevitable, especially with the other players putting is/vr in their bodies. Gotta keep up with the feature checklist of your competitors.

How do the in-body IS's perform? Are they as good as in-lens? I would assume not, but I really don't know.

In-body IS is pretty strong at shorter focal lengths but tails off in effectiveness at longer ones.

The cost difference is rapidly becoming meaningless, and in-lens IS/VR systems are now being implemented in sub-$200 lenses that are apparently improvements over their predecessors from both Nikon and Canon. When IS/VR can make appearances on entry-level glass with little to know price premium, the in-body price advantage is largely nullified. It'd be nice to have VR with some of my old glass, but I don't see that happening and don't really miss it much anyway. Better high-ISO performance is going to erode IS/VR advantages too.

How much sensor noise can you stand when you crank up the ISO? So far, I'm happier with the results at ISO400 than those at 800 or 1600.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

How much sensor noise can you stand when you crank up the ISO? So far, I'm happier with the results at ISO400 than those at 800 or 1600.

It all depends on what camera you have. On my d70 anything much beyond 400 is probably going to warrant a bit of extra care, but if I was shooting a D3 I'd probably feel comfortable shooting as ISOs I'd never even heard of until recently. Cameras are getting better with every generation, and if you're printing (especially small) or resizing noise isn't as big of a deal as people make of it, as long as it doesn't interfere with detail or kill saturation.

We've already come a long, long way. Compared to high speed film or the digital cameras of a few generations ago your high ISO performance is already in another world.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

How much sensor noise can you stand when you crank up the ISO? So far, I'm happier with the results at ISO400 than those at 800 or 1600.

Agree with mattsteg on the D70, that was what I used until recently. Just got myself a D300, and I think it's comparable to the 40D in terms of noise at ISO1600. At that setting, it's grainy but still with plenty of detail.

Still a bit "long" for a wide-tele EF-S zoom (converts to 28mm film equiv).

I'd rather get the Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM.

When shooting wide angle, IS isn't really that important to me, since:
a. I'm on a tripod (landscape, architecture)
b. I'm shooting street, and fast shutter speed is king anyway

Once you're talking portrait (70mm film equiv), a wide aperture becomes imperative for good bokeh and for faster AF performance. And I'd be using fill-in flash as often as not, so IS doesn't really do much then.

So I'd say that the 18-55 falls outside my needs for either wide angle or portrait use. Your usage and needs might vary.

I love the lens. It performed admirally. Maybe if I get some down time this week (I doubt it though) I'll try and pull out a few examples. Shooting at 1/30 just makes my head shake.

@JAE, if I have to shoot are more than 400fps, I"ll generally just not worry about the pictures.

How much sensor noise can you stand when you crank up the ISO? So far, I'm happier with the results at ISO400 than those at 800 or 1600.

It depends on what you're shooting; a close-up portrait (or any other picture with a single subject dominating the frame) can more readily handle the loss of detail from high ISO noise than a big group photo with twenty people in it. And it also depends on your shooting style; a noir-esque style, I would say, can make the noise work better than, say, a wedding photo.