Replace 18-55 non IS with IS version?

As the topic says, I have the older 18-55 non IS kit lens. I bought it by mistake (thinking it was the IS version), but can still return it and get the IS version.

Is it worth doing so?

I believe so. I had the non-IS version and found it quite weak. I replaced it with something entirely different, so I have not used the IS version. However, all of the reviews I have read have concluded that the IS version is optically far superior, and it is still very cheap.

Return it. Get the IS. Check the POTN classified before buying it new.

Yes, get the IS version used here on POTN, extremely great buy.

I upgraded the 18-55 kit that came with my Rebel (300D) with the 18-55 IS MK I.

Having the IS was worth it. Not sure about today since the prices went up. In your situation it might be better to go beyond the 18-55 directly to your next lens.

IS will be better a lot

I'm not a huge ken rockwell fan, but i always read his lens reviews and he says the non-is version is sharper.

"I prefer the non-IS 18-55mm as being sharper, especially when considering the non-IS 18-55mm's lack of lateral color. "

but at the end of the day I would rather have a 50 1.8 then the kit lens, its so sharp.

The IS version is inexpensive and quite a nice lens, I'd go for the IS version. Is it much of a price difference where you got it?

I went from 18-55 non IS to 18-55 IS, TOTALLY WORTH IT.

I found it to have a noticeable difference in sharpness and CA control and the build quality is marginally better.

If you can return the non IS for a full refund then I would and get the IS version.

When I started I had the both version and after using the IS version got rid of the non-IS one. I didn't notice a big difference in image "quality" but i did notice that I was not deleting as many blurry pictures of the kids.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Mocows wrote in post #13951411
The IS version is inexpensive and quite a nice lens, I'd go for the IS version. Is it much of a price difference where you got it?

I paid $84 + $4 shipping for the non-is. Of course, I am out the shipping costs (probably $6 to ship it back) so $10 loss.

The IS version is around $100 give or take about 10% here or other places on the web.

The only other option is to wait and get a Tamron 17-50 2.8, which I'm seriously considering doing. I just ordered a 50mm 1.8, so maybe that will suffice for the interim?

Ken Rockwell is pretty widely regarded as being pretty duuuuuuuuuh...

The IS version is superior to the non-IS offering, the charts and samples have been posted around POTN plenty of times. Given the minor increase in cost, springing for the IS model is a no-brainer. The non-IS is out of production as well, afaik.

Some of my best shots have come from the 18-55 IS. I think it gets overlooked because it's part of the Rebel kits.

Virto wrote in post #13951842
Ken Rockwell is pretty widely regarded as being pretty duuuuuuuuuh...

Oh I know that, but he is an engineer so I do look at his reviews some times for technical info... If I listened to him i'd be shooting medium jpg.

Phobosx13x wrote in post #13951809
Thanks for the replies everyone.

I paid $84 + $4 shipping for the non-is. Of course, I am out the shipping costs (probably $6 to ship it back) so $10 loss.

The IS version is around $100 give or take about 10% here or other places on the web.

The only other option is to wait and get a Tamron 17-50 2.8, which I'm seriously considering doing. I just ordered a 50mm 1.8, so maybe that will suffice for the interim?

that 50 1.8 is so sharp you wont want to use your kit lens, I can tell you that.

shiftonephoto wrote in post #13951294
I'm not a huge ken rockwell fan, but i always read his lens reviews and he says the non-is version is sharper.

"I prefer the non-IS 18-55mm as being sharper, especially when considering the non-IS 18-55mm's lack of lateral color. "

but at the end of the day I would rather have a 50 1.8 then the kit lens, its so sharp.

If he said that (and was serious - sometimes with him it is hard to tell), my opinion of Ken Rockwell just got lower. I didn't think that was even possible!