New "Wide-Standard Zoom" Test Posted

You have a second copy coming? Indeed try it out. BTW, my 1855 IS update is here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/evfzz .

No disrespect taken. I guarantee you it ain't a "user error" issue for the poorer 55mm performance of E.

I would not exclude copy variation, especially at this level of lens. But images generally look fine overall when not peeping, even at 55mm. I'm not convinced it's a problem lens myself. But I can't be sure it's not either.

As to the IS noise, this one is dead silent. I've never used an IS lens like this before...and the effectiveness is superlative.

Nick_C wrote in post #4462518
When the second copy of the 18-55IS arrives any time soon I will do some tests as well, no disrespect to these tests but all I can say is that those 100% crops are not as good as I found.

I think copy variation on this lens may play a key role, some also have said the IS makes a high pitch whine, I found the first copy I tested to be dead silent, which I found a little strange to get used to after the 24-105L, I like to hear its working.

LightRules wrote in post #4463333
You have a second copy coming? Indeed try it out. BTW, my 1855 IS update is here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/evfzz .

No disrespect taken. I guarantee you it ain't a "user error" issue for the poorer 55mm performance of E.

I would not exclude copy variation, especially at this level of lens. But images generally look fine overall when not peeping, even at 55mm. I'm not convinced it's a problem lens myself. But I can't be sure it's not either.

As to the IS noise, this one is dead silent. I've never used an IS lens like this before...and the effectiveness is superlative.

I kinda knew it wouldnt be user error sorry if I made it sound like I was questioning your testing method, hence me saying about the poor copy but I will be able to tell more once I get this other copy, I will try this exact test, I know I have shots at 55mm which look fine but I will do some controlled tests to see if I indeed have similar results to yours.

Yes the IS is strange on this lens isnt it? its like dead silent, at first I thought to myself "damn the IS isnt working" but when I checked it was working fine, I cant quite make up my mind though about this new type of IS, I cant help thinking that I still prefer the IS on the 24-105L, but it works so thats all that matters!

Nick_C wrote in post #4463606
Yes the IS is strange on this lens isnt it? its like dead silent, at first I thought to myself "damn the IS isnt working" but when I checked it was working fine, I cant quite make up my mind though about this new type of IS, I cant help thinking that I still prefer the IS on the 24-105L, but it works so thats all that matters!

Yep, that's the bottom line indeed. In fact it works extremely well. But I am still only getting used to the "no-noise" of it. Very strange, especially when I use the 300 f4 IS and hear all the "clunking and clanking" that goes on with that gem.

Thanks for the test !!

Think i'll keep my Tamron 17-50. If I find myself using this focal length more, I might go for the Canon.

PetKal wrote in post #4460546
glad that not everyone is fawning over that new 18-55 IS tupperware lens, unlike Herr Klaus who's all rapturous about its performance.

Apparently PZ's review of the 1855IS is quite impressive. Maybe Klaus had a 1755IS on the test bench by mistake? Or maybe it really is a super 1855IS copy. That's possible.

MillCreek wrote in post #4462144
but the extra 2 mm on the wide end and the build quality swayed me in favor of the Tokina

These are the two main things that are in strong favor with the DX Pro. It really is a very nice lens and one that would last.

The_Camera_Poser wrote in post #4462696
They all look the same to me- I need to keep away from pixel peeping and only buy cheap lenses! LMAO!

The 1855IS is a nice choice indeed. I actually like this lens a lot.

CountryBoy wrote in post #4468165
Thanks for the test !! Think i'll keep my Tamron 17-50. If I find myself using this focal length more, I might go for the Canon.

As I conclude in my "Summary & Closing Words" section, the Tamron 1750 is my top recommendation for bang for buck. It's about as wide as the Tokina with both at MFD (though not at infinity), optics are right there with the f2.8 pack, flare is good (better than both the Tokina and Canon 1755), and just an all-around nice f2.8 package. AF is the loudest of the bunch (and also the slowest), and in low light it struggles the most, but it still gets the job done.

LightRules wrote in post #4469325
Apparently PZ's review of the 1855IS is quite impressive. Maybe Klaus had a 1755IS on the test bench by mistake? Or maybe it really is a super 1855IS copy. That's possible.


These are the two main things that are in strong favor with the DX Pro. It really is a very nice lens and one that would last.


The 1855IS is a nice choice indeed. I actually like this lens a lot.


As I conclude in my "Summary & Closing Words" section, the Tamron 1750 is my top recommendation for bang for buck. It's about as wide as the Tokina with both at MFD (though not at infinity), optics are right there with the f2.8 pack, flare is good (better than both the Tokina and Canon 1755), and just an all-around nice f2.8 package. AF is the loudest of the bunch (and also the slowest), and in low light it struggles the most, but it still gets the job done.

hehe yeah! pretty shoddy testing conditions if that happened

Just one review isnt any good, you need as many as you can find to get a true sense of what a lens is capable of, the charts at slrgear.com show the 18-55IS to be exceptional as well which looks promising.

I should get a phone call from the guy supplying me with the lens anyday now, apparently Canon have had a surge of sales on this lens & he is having a hard time getting hold of the next batch, I cant wait to test the second one now, I always ideally like to try 2 copies before I make my mind up.

Every normal range zoom has it's pro's and con's. Just gotta pick based on your own needs. Pixel peeping may show up difference, but it's not much in my view.
Here are the pros for each lens that I see:
Toke 16-50, if you like a really tough build and maybe don't want an ultrawide, so a 16mm is welcome.

Tamron for folks who like light and cheap lenses that offer great optics.

Canon IS kit lens for those that like IS, sharp optics, and a very light lens for not too heavy use.

Canon 17-55IS for the ones that want the speed, sharpness, IS, fastest AF, and can pay for it.

Sigma 18-200OS for those that want a do it all lens with OS.

It's a great time to own a cropped sensor body, if you like normal range zooms my friends. Good time indeed.

Thanks for the test!
Why we can no longer access the pages of the tests? We have to enter a password!

deldotto wrote in post #4508735
Thanks for the test!
Why we can no longer access the pages of the tests? We have to enter a password!

It's accessible now. But please see my note on the main page here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules

Not to be completely off topic, but where were these tests taken, LightRules? It looks like you may live literally down the street from me

madhatter04 wrote in post #4510431
... where were these tests taken, LightRules? It looks like you may live literally down the street from me

Oooops ... lock up your gear and daughters (in that order!)

LOL! New Threads:
LOST EFS 17-55MM F/2.8 IS!
New EFS 17-55MM F/2.8 IS Duck Shots!!

Only kidding, of course! I just notice the two field of view tests are quite a familiar sight for me!

Hi Lightrules,
I see your note on the main page of your site.
I will be grateful to you if you would temporarily continue to share all your good works about lens testing with us (if permanently would be not possible) (like PhotoZone does).
I find all your tests well done and very useful: your testing methods seem to be neutral and are quite understandable. I agree with you on most of your conclusions. For example about the Sigma 24-70 f.2,8 EX DG macro which I own too.
This work about wide lenses has been very useful in choosing my next lens. I must decide between the Tokina 16-50 f.2,8 and the Tamron 17-50 f.2,8 (obviously because the Canon EF-S 17-55 f.2,8 IS is too expensive for me). After having seen your test and your opinions I think I will buy the Tokina 16-50 because of its built quality.
Thank you again.
p.s. I am sorry for my English which is not so good.

Sauro Del Dotto
Lucca - Italy

Canon EOS 400D - EF-s 18-55 f.3,5/5,6 - EF 50 f.1,8 II - Sigma 24-70 f.2,8 EX DG macro - Tamron 18 - 250

I noticed that the 18-200 wasn't tested at 30mm. From photozone and a couple of others it seems that the 18-200 has a real problem around 35mm. Would you be able to test it at that FL and share the results? It looks like a great lens, but 35 is crucial FL and I am hoping that photozone just had a bad copy.

All that E vs F vs Q vs L stuff confused me. I don't like having to refer to a chart just to remember which lens you're referring to at any given moment. Blech.