Canon lenses

Here's what photozone.de's verdict on the 18-55 IS lens.

Verdict
There were a few moments when I considered not to publish the results due to "political correctness" because to date it was a quite absurd thought that such a cheap, or better "affordable", lens can perform this good and I'm sure that some will not believe the findings even though they're supported by the published field images. Anyway, the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is nothing short of amazing. This is also surprising regarding the rather small changes in the optical design compared to the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II. Still - the center resolution is excellent throughout the range even at wide-open aperture. Unlike most dedicated APS-C standard zoom lenses it is capable to keep a very good level even at the extreme corners of the image field. Its resolution characteristic is similar to the (much higher priced) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS at comparable aperture settings, quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and naturally vastly improved over its non-IS predecessor! Field curvature is not an issue.
Click to expand...
 
mercurial said:
But after much reading, I'd go with the 18-55. It seems the 17-85 is not a good lens. Here's what photozone.de says:
photozone.de said:
So at the end of the day the lens is a tad better than the cheapo EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 but it can't really compete with the new EF-S 18-55m f/3.5-5.6 IS or the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Granted, they aren't comparing it to the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, but the older, non-IS version. Apparently the IS version is sharper, but distorts more at 18mm (check the charts on photozone). Either ways, if you're happy with the sort of distortion that the 18-55mm kit lens gives (which is still a heck of a lot), then the extra 0.84% ain't gonna hurt you.

If I was looking for a lens in that price and focal range, I'd be looking at one of these:

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro

Both of which outperform Canon's 18-55mm (all generations) and 17-85mm lenses.
 
bwana said:
It is a more expensive option however. Spending good money on a EF-s goes against my grain.
Click to expand...

Different strokes for different folks. You're about to get a 5D. He's about to get a 40D.

mercurial said:
Here's what photozone.de's verdict on the 18-55 IS lens.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that summary is written in the context of a lens that costs less than a hundred bucks where the author lives. It's an excellent lens for the money. In terms of bang-for-buck it's about as good as it gets. But it's still cheap.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Different strokes for different folks. You're about to get a 5D. He's about to get a 40D.
Click to expand...
Unless things have changed - his endgame would push him towards fullframe. Perhaps those aspirations have changed or may never materialise but if there are EF lenses available then why limit yourself with EF-s.
mercurial said:
Thanks koffiejunkie. I was hoping that the Sigma link you supplied would have OS :(
Click to expand...
How do you know that you're going to need image stabilisation? Get a camera - take some pictures - play with the kit lens (if it comes with one) then go from there.
 
bwana said:
How do you know that you're going to need image stabilisation? Get a camera - take some pictures - play with the kit lens (if it comes with one) then go from there.
Click to expand...

It's just an assumption :o I'd rather err on the safe side. That's just me :p
 
mercurial said:
Thanks koffiejunkie. I was hoping that the Sigma link you supplied would have OS :(
Click to expand...

Yeah but they're f/2.8 lenses.

bwana said:
Unless things have changed - his endgame would push him towards fullframe. Perhaps those aspirations have changed or may never materialise but if there are EF lenses available then why limit yourself with EF-s.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else, but wasn't he interested in telescopes? I'd think a crop body would be pretty advantageous for that?

Either ways, lenses can be sold too. Buying a crop lens doesn't stop you from getting a FF body. Selling the 40D with a decent lens will be easier and get a better price.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else, but wasn't he interested in telescopes? I'd think a crop body would be pretty advantageous for that?

Either ways, lenses can be sold too. Buying a crop lens doesn't stop you from getting a FF body. Selling the 40D with a decent lens will be easier and get a better price.
Click to expand...
He had an idea of being a professional photographer. If I was in his boots I'd be keeping the crop after upgrading to FF so it would make sense having lenses that worked on both bodies. You never know when one will break or just need cleaning.

Unless the lens is spectacular I have to believe the demand for it second hand isnt going to be that great either. The 40D is already a generation behind and who knows if it will be in any condition to sell anyway. :o
 
bwana said:
an assumption based on?
Click to expand...

Because just about everyone who doesn't have an IS lens, tends to walk around with a pod of some sorts of have to resort to leaning against something to get a stable image. I don't want that inconvenience.
 
mercurial said:
Because just about everyone who doesn't have an IS lens, tends to walk around with a pod of some sorts of have to resort to leaning against something to get a stable image. I don't want that inconvenience.
Click to expand...
I carry a pod around so that I can actually be in photos - can IS help with that too :D

BTW - IS is not a real substitute for a tripod.
 
bwana said:
He had an idea of being a professional photographer. If I was in his boots I'd be keeping the crop after upgrading to FF so it would make sense having lenses that worked on both bodies. You never know when one will break or just need cleaning.
Click to expand...

In which case a 40D with a fast wide to standard zoom would make an excellent second body.

Then again, if you know of a 17/18-55/70/85 FF lens, I'll buy it.

bwana said:
Unless the lens is spectacular I have to believe the demand for it second hand isnt going to be that great either. The 40D is already a generation behind and who knows if it will be in any condition to sell anyway. :o
Click to expand...

There's always a sucker that will buy it. I sold my Mac Mini for much more than I paid for it new :D

mercurial said:
Because just about everyone who doesn't have an IS lens, tends to walk around with a pod of some sorts of have to resort to leaning against something to get a stable image. I don't want that inconvenience.
Click to expand...

Merc, I have heaps of shots taken at really slow shutter speeds with non-IS lenses, hand held, with out leaning against anything. Here's one at 1/40:



IS only works well if your shutter speed is (ironically) high enough. "Three more stops" from 1/40 is going to be 1 second - no IS in the world is going to make that look sharp, except real IS - i.e. a tripod...
 
Last edited:
koffiejunkie said:
Merc, I have heaps of shots taken at really slow shutter speeds with non-IS lenses, hand held, with out leaning against anything. Here's one at 1/40:



IS only works well if your shutter speed is (ironically) high enough. "Three more stops" from 1/40 is going to be 1 second - no IS in the world is going to make that look sharp, except real IS - i.e. a tripod...
Click to expand...

Cool. Your link ain't working though :)
 
Last edited:
ldmelsa said:
that's a fast shutter speed for an ultra-wide
that shot was taken at 10mm
you should be able to hold 1/8 at 10mm
Click to expand...

I've done 1/4 and still had it look good. But that doesn't mean it's sharp. Camera shake is camera shake - it's just less apparent on a short lens, not totally absent. Good enough for A5 or even A4 though.

ldmelsa said:
btw - no ultra-wides have IS (because it would be pointless)
Click to expand...

That's part because the shorter the focal lengh, the less "flat" the in-focus field is, making optical stabilisation harder and/or less effective.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I've done 1/4 and still had it look good. But that doesn't mean it's sharp. Camera shake is camera shake - it's just less apparent on a short lens, not totally absent. Good enough for A5 or even A4 though.
Click to expand...

if you can't see it at 100% magnification then it's superfluous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X