Canon 18-55 IS (First test shots)

Nick_C wrote in post #4365911
Unfortunately yes Ed it does, however in this case it will be my brothers only lens, it will stay on his 350D all the time so should pose no problem at all.

Shame Canon use plastic mounts still, especially considering the price a mount would cost, im sure it cant add that much onto the cost of the lens.

Cant have it all I guess, there is still nothing in this price range that offers as much.

My only small nitpick is why can't they put IS and USM into the same kit lens. The old kit has USM, the new kit has IS. My theory is they don't want to cannibalize sales of the other higher-margin lenses, i.e. the 17-85 or 17-55. But hey, those are for a different crowd.

The other company has just announced a similar product with both IS and USM.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …11/07112001nikk​or1855.asp

Id actually prefer something like the lumix/digilux slr's and in body IS for small, but that doesn't exist for what i'm willing to pay. If I didn't already own canon stuff then it would be a k10d + pancake lens for that kind of thing, but I suppose this is getting there.

I heard a quick mention earlier of the 28-135 IS, which I am planning on buying. I have a 400d, and don't want to get this lens if it is going to be too heavy and uncomfortable to use as a walk around lens. How does the 18-55 IS compare as far as weight and preformance goes to the 28-135 IS? Is it the same IS system in both? If not, what are the differences. Thanks a lot all.

Starman27 wrote in post #4368347
I heard a quick mention earlier of the 28-135 IS, which I am planning on buying. I have a 400d, and don't want to get this lens if it is going to be too heavy and uncomfortable to use as a walk around lens. How does the 18-55 IS compare as far as weight and preformance goes to the 28-135 IS? Is it the same IS system in both? If not, what are the differences. Thanks a lot all.

The 28-135mm IS will cause your 400D to be nose heavy. its a good walkaround lens, albeit a bit narrow for close-ups.

I have both lenses (28-135 IS and 18-55 IS) and for a much lighter walkaround, get the 18-55. its about half the price and half the weight with 2x the IS compensation.

Thanks a lot. I am pretty sure I can swing a 18-55 for christmas as well, where the 28-135 was too much. I plan on picking up the 85 soon, and then a nice zoom, like a 70-200, so that should cover all my bases since I just bought a Sigma 30 and already have a nifty fifty. Wow, I am going to spend waaaaaay too much money on this stuff, lol.

So is this the new kit lens?

ChrisBlaze wrote in post #4368774
So is this the new kit lens?

you can probably say that. its more of an upgrade for the existing kit lens. afaik, its not yet part of a DSLR kit.

Thanks for the review Nick. I've ordered one of these and am looking forward to using it. It seems that, IS aside, it also improves on the optics of the old kit lens as well. So good news - and I'll feel much more confident chucking this around when I'm out than my 10-22.

Starman27 wrote in post #4368347
I heard a quick mention earlier of the 28-135 IS, which I am planning on buying. I have a 400d, and don't want to get this lens if it is going to be too heavy and uncomfortable to use as a walk around lens. How does the 18-55 IS compare as far as weight and preformance goes to the 28-135 IS? Is it the same IS system in both? If not, what are the differences. Thanks a lot all.

feels perfect to me, but I have a grip...

Hmm looks like im sending mine back, it has a front focus problem, only at 18mm f/3.5 & only when the subject is further than 5 or so metres away.

On test cards it doesnt show up

The only "official" kit lenses for the 40D are: the 17-85 and the 28-105. In the instruction manual, pictures of the 18-55 IS and the 17-85 were featured as kits. Looks like Canon had a change of hearts since that thing went to press. The 18-55 IS wasn't ready on day 1 (August 31) so they had to find something else to take it's place.

There's a sleeper lens in the Canon lineup that few people talk about these days. It's the 24-85 f3.5-4.5. Equivalent to 37-135 on regular bodies, so not as wide as the 17-85 nor is it as expensive. It's not an IS, but it does have USM. Definitely not nose heavy.

JCLJCL wrote in post #4369799
There's a sleeper lens in the Canon lineup that few people talk about these days. It's the 24-85 f3.5-4.5. Equivalent to 37-135 on regular bodies, so not as wide as the 17-85 nor is it as expensive. It's not an IS, but it does have USM. Definitely not nose heavy.

I agree, the 24-85 is a great low cost lens. I had one, but sold it for $200 to pay for my Sigma 17-70.

I find that my 17-70 is a sharper lens all around but at first I missed the USM and the extra reach of the 85mm end. I considered the Canon 17-85 IS, but some say it is not as sharp as the Sigma 17-70, and it costs quite a bit more.

"JCLJCL", How do you compare the 24-85 to the 17-70? I see you have both. Which do you like better, and which do you use more?

msowsun wrote in post #4370026
"JCLJCL", How do you compare the 24-85 to the 17-70? I see you have both. Which do you like better, and which do you use more?

The big difference is in the range, at the short end. When being "light", outdoor, and needing "reach" are more important, I bring along the 24-85. I do agree the 17-70 is a bit sharper, and there are many occasions when you need it to squeeze in more people. It does struggle a bit focusing under tricky lighting.

Which one do I use more? Too soon to tell. I've had the 17-70 for 18 months, and it has followed me to many locales in N. America and around town. It's a compromise between the heavy L's and the lightweight kits. I got the 24-85 just two months ago, and I like it's convenience, extra reach and budget friendliness. I like my 16-35L too, and enjoyed the PQ when travelling around Atlantic Canada this summer.

At the end of the day, every lens has its strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately (for my wallet) there's no one-size-fits-all solution!

Holy crap! look at the resolution figures for this super lightweight cheap lens.

http://www.photozone.d​e …non_1855_3556is​/index.htm