PROS
* Very sharp across the image, even wide open.
* Low Chroma. I read a test ([...]) that found higher than normal amounts of CA in this lens at some apertures, but I don't see it. My standard test is to shoot bare tree limbs on bright sunny days & look for purple fringing, especially at the edges. I'm not seeing anywhere near the level of fringing shown in some of their test shots.If anything, I'd call it "low" I read elsewhere that one of Canon's goals in adding the aspherical element to this lens was to reduce CA, so I'm thinking maybe the lens tested in photozon.de was just a bad apple.
* Image Shake control works. I can't attest to how often it provides a full 4 stops worth of shake reduction, but I can see a very clear result when using it.
* Fast accurate focusing. One of the reasons I purchased this lens was because I was dissatisfied with the performance of my (more expensive) Sigma 17-35 EX (the newer model), which while sharp, is just too slow and inaccurate a focuser for close work in action sports. The new Canon solved that problem.
* Compact, light weight & unobtrusive. Not much bigger than a normal lens.
CONS
* Barrel Distortion at 18mm (28mm) While not exsessive for an inexpensive lens, this is one area where you will see benefit from spending hundreds of dollars for a much more expensive Canon "IS" or "L," or buying a fixed focal length lens. In most real world situations, it wasn't all that noticeable. I could usually correct for it in Photoshop, but this is not a lens for critical architectural work etc. I have taken hundreds of photos with this lens and barrel distortion has only called attention to itself a few times. I suspect this is one price paid for the very compact design.
* Not very fast. Another area where an "L" has an edge. At F3.5 28mm equivalent and F5.6 85mm this lens is relatively slow compared to a pro lens. This effects stopping the action in low light. OTH, you will have to spend hundreds more to get a usable top speed of F 2.8 and that is *only* one stop faster at 28mm equiv. I think both this lens' sharpness and the IS system mitigate this "Con." It took me a while to learn that I could shoot wide open at all focal lengths without having the outer third of the image turn to mush.That's pretty amazing for a zoom at this price. You don't have a stop or two you almost never use because it is too soft. And the IS system works well in low light, though that doesn't figure in in stopping the action.
* Does not have that red stripe. Sad to say, some will never buy this sharp, handy little lens because in is not an "L" and/or doesn't cost $[...]. Yes, it does does look a little "plasticy," probably doesn't have the build quality for heavy, everyday use by a real working pro, and does not look massive mounted on your camera body, like a "fast" pro lens that's squeezing out that last F stop. But IMO, it looks very similar to Canon's newer IS lenses, so there is no scarlet letter immediately identifying you as "cheap." In other words, "Get over it."
So, why did Canon produce such a good lens at such a bargain price? I'd say that it's because Nikon announced their intention to do the same a little while ago. Also, Canon's old non IS 18-55mm lens had the rep of being something of a dog. Finally, several competing cameras now have IS built into the body. Canon had to respond with a sharp IS lens that they could put on the Rebels & the 40D. In terms of sales, the low end of the DSLR market is both hot and very competitive. We're the beneficiaries. Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS SLR Lens
This lens has caused a mild stir on the internet in the last few months. To my mind, it's the zoom equivalent of Canon's 50mm f1.8, in the sense that it's very cheap but performs very well. On an optical level it has no obvious deficits apart from a bit of bulge at the wider settings. Physically it is small and light, and the image stabilisation works well. As a package, at this price level, it's hard to resist if you want a cheap decent walkaround lens. The only obvious competition I can think of is the Sigma 18-50mm, but that doesn't have image stabilisation, and from what I have seen it's blurry around the edges; at the very least, it offers nothing over the Canon 18-55mm IS and it's no cheaper.
This is the third version of Canon's 18-55mm camera kit lens. The first two editions of the lens were regularly derided on the internet for poor sharpness at the corners, chromatic aberrations, and general naff build quality. I can't confirm any of that, because I haven't used the older versions, although the samples I have seen were unimpressive. You can find these lenses going cheaply on eBay, because no-one wants them. In contrast, the 18-55mm IS has exceeded expectations, and has received good reviews, notably from Digital Photography Review and Photozone.de. They go into a lot of detail about the image sharpness and so forth, I will not try to duplicate their work.
I've had mine for a week or so now, and I've tested it and used it generally out and about. I like it, with some reservations. It's smaller and less conspicuous than my Sigma 18-125mm. It has far less distortion than my Canon 24-85mm. It's more versatile than my old Super Takumar f1.4, although in most other respects the Takumar squashes it like a bug, not least because it is made of metal. The 18-55mm's big drawback is its physical design. It's has a nice rubber zoom ring, and it feels tougher than my Canon 50mm f1.8. However, the front part of the lens, with the manual zoom ring, wobbles a bit. As the reviews have pointed out, the front of the lens rotates as it focusses (and moves back and forth a surprising amount), which makes it a bother to use polarising filters. It's a shame Canon didn't enlarge the body slightly, and completely enclose the front of the lens.
The motor whines a bit as it focuses, about the same level as my Sigma 18-125mm. There's one thing in particular that irritates me - most zoom lenses are physically shortest at the widest zoom level, and so it's easy to store the lens away. You just rotate the zoom collar until it stops, and stick on the lens cap. In contrast, the 18-55mm is shortest about half-way through its travel, and there's no way to lock it in place, which means that I have to pack it away partially-zoomed; my worry is that the manual focussing ring will catch on something, and break the whole front of the lens off.
Still, gripes over. The image quality pleased me. I wasn't being systematic, but there was nothing in the pictures I took that stood out as being particularly bad. There was some barrel distortion at the widest setting, but it was mild. At the rest of the zoom range I could not easily tell if there was distortion of not. It's nice and sharp in the middle, and sharpens up very well with software. The corners are slightly less sharp, but not noticeably so unless you're really looking for it. Having said that, my copy of the lens was blurrier in the left and bottom-left edge of the image, and had more purple and red fringing in that corner. Otherwise, even with a classic "tree against overexposed sky" shot, I could see only the tiniest amount of purple fringing. The out-of-focus bokeh is nice and smooth. The closest focusing distance is only a couple of inches or so, which is useful if you want to take semi-pseudo macro shots.
The image stabilisation is the icing on the cake. I managed to squeeze out shots at 1/10th, 1/5th that were usable. Alternatively, I could shoot stopped down at f5.6 or f8.0 in moderately dim light, for maximum sharpness. The lens benefits greatly from image stabilisation, because f5.6 at 55mm (88mm equivalent) is very slow indeed. Canon argues that IS turns this into f2.0 at 55mm. I'm not sure of that, but it isn't far off. Still, I was pleasantly surprised with the IS. It's of a type whereby there is one option - on or off - and you don't have to set a special mode if it's on a tripod, or if you're panning. Given the short telephoto zoom I can't see this being a useful sports lens, but within its limits the IS works well.
You don't get a lens hood. There is a lens hood available, but it's about twenty quid. It looks like a tea saucer with a hole in the middle. In fact it looks about as useful as a tea saucer with a hole in the middle, either for shading the lens, or for holding a cup of tea. I would be wary of fitting it onto the lens, for fear of nudging the hood and breaking off the front part of the lens. I haven't tested the lens for flare - the weather hasn't been very good - but I can imagine this being a weakness.
One other thing. The lens was dust-free when I took it out of the box, unlike my Sigma lens, which had some dust inside it. I suspect that over time the 18-55mm will become a dust trap, because it doesn't look very well sealed. Mind you, in five years it'll be worth pennies, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because it's so cheap (in fact it's notable that the lens is actually more expensive on eBay than it is here - perhaps Canon is finding it hard to make them fast enough). That's also how I feel about it being an EF-S lens; perhaps one day Canon will ditch EF-S, but by that time the 18-55mm will cost nothing to replace. - Canon - Ef-s - Image Stabilized - Canon Lenses'
Detail Products
Detail Reviews
Click here for more information
