18-55 vs. 18-55 IS II

Are these two optically identical? Looking for a cheap walkaround for my Rebel, my mother has one on her T3 and I was impressed, it looks a bit sharper than my old 18-55 when I first got my Rebel.

I'd go with the 17-85, 15-85 etc. if I was using a crop as a primary but I'm not and my Rebel is mostly for club gigs and bands and stuff, not using $3000 worth of gear for a 50 or 100-dollar gig full of drunkards.

Especially for low light shooting, get the IS version, they're both dirt cheap. I've never had the IS version, but the old non-IS was an absolute hunk of garbage...I remember one of the copies I had (I had a few, they kept getting thrown in with bodies I was buying lol) was so bad that a split second after it focused, the barrel would drop visibly and thus knock the whole thing out of focus (did this from brand new, never dropped, etc)...

The 18-55 III and the 18-55 IS lenses are optically identical. The earlier versions of the non-IS lens are optically inferior.

I think the III is kit-only. You can probably buy a used one somewhere, but the IS versions are so cheap I'd get one of them instead.

The never used the 18-55 non IS, but by all accounts, the IS version is much better optically.

Since you're mostly going to use it for club gigs and such why not get a cheap fast prime?

To perhaps help clarify the responses in this thread, there are several versions of the 18-55 kit lens.

The big dividing line in optical quality and IQ is between the earlier non-IS versions and the later IS versions. The difference is much more significant than just adding IS. The non-IS lenses are poorly regarded optically; the IS lenses are well-regarded optically. They are no "L", but they are quite good and will provide pleasing results.

In 2011, Canon introduced the 18-55 IS II. This lens is optically identical to the 18-55 IS, but has apparently had some changes made to make it less expensive to manufacture.

BigBadWolfie wrote in post #13747445
The never used the 18-55 non IS, but by all accounts, the IS version is much better optically.

Since you're mostly going to use it for club gigs and such why not get a cheap fast prime?

I've already got the 50 1.8 Mk.I which I do use and it provides stellar results with the 540ez but I really need something that goes wide on APS-C and my 20-35 is not it. Plus the 20-35 is huge, and usually stays on my 5d.

18-55 IS II it is then, time to go find one. I knew it wasn't just me.

Oh come on man... The 18-55 IS II? you know that those are outdated? you should go for the 18-55L IS mark IV... Best in Canons lineup...

j-dogg wrote in post #13748161
...t I really need something that goes wide on APS-C and my 20-35 is not it.

You think 18 will be enough? I'd try one first. Not that it's a huge capital outlay, but if it's not wide enough for you, you'll still be shopping.

That said, there's nothing else in that price range except the Sigma equivalent (without IS). Your next cost-effective move is to something like the Sigma 10-20.

iluxa007 wrote in post #13748215
Oh come on man... The 18-55 IS II? you know that those are outdated? you should go for the 18-55L IS mark IV... Best in Canons lineup...

It's called the 17-55 f/2.8

AntonLargiader wrote in post #13748262
It's called the 17-55 f/2.8

...you TOTALLY ruined it.

Oops, must have missed the secret signal.

I covet that lens, but not because I dislike the IQ of my 18-55 (which has a big gouge on the front element). I like the promise of Ring USM, faster AF and not losing a stop when I zoom. It's actually rated one stop lower on IS. But I'm not at all sure that's worth $1000 to me. I think I'd spend the money on a UWA first.

BTW we're currently up to seven (AFAIK) versions of the 18-55. Only the IS II and the III are current.

Okay here's the next question, are all the IS's optically the same?

j-dogg wrote in post #13748988
Okay here's the next question, are all the IS's optically the same?

yes the difference is mainly a cosmetic thing...they got rid of the grey

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'binary/octet-stream'