Honestly, What is wrong with the 18-55 EF-S???

Everyone complains about the 18-55 on how crappy it is....

All of these were taken with the 18-55 and they don't look that bad...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

What F stop where they taken at? It is known to be pretty good stopped down to F8 or so.

As far as the 18-55 is concerned, it's a great lens and a great value. One probably doesn't realize how much better other lenses can be, though, until one drops the cash and tries one out. Once one tries out a really awesome lens, it becomes clear how much better a lens can be. Otherwise, however, the 18-55 is a great lens and can take wonderful pictures.

There was a thread just about the 18-55, wish I can find it for you. In a nutshell, what everybody said convinced me not to buy the the 17-40 L (for the limited use of a WA lens for me).

I just got my first non-kit lens yesterday. And, I must say that the kit lens is VERY slow to focus. Even the 50 f/1.8 (a non-USM lens) focuses A LOT faster than the kit lens. Plus, USM lenses focus A LOT faster. And, my 28-105 USM is so quiet while focusing.

I dunno... the 18-55 is a great value for the money (esp at 18mm). But, overall, I find it to be a tad inferior to the others.

FlipsidE

Agreed that it is a bit slower, but it depends on what you are using it for. If you simply want a landscapes lens, then it's great because the optics are pretty good and it's cheap.

A tad inferior? Of course, it costs $100. Noticable to vast majority of people? No. Capable of really good results? Yes.

It's a great budget lens and produces decent pictures. People need to just accept it for what it is and quit beating the horse. It's been dead for some time now.

I'm with jaypie77. And if I may add, the speed is not a critical issue, especially for a $100 lens.

LOL...to play the devil's advocate, the 50mm f/1.8 is only a $75 lens and focuses quite quickly. A good bit faster than the 18-55.

FlipsidE

Ok, but the 50mm doesn't cover anywhere near as wide an area as teh 18-55. At 18mm, you can photography huge mountains and cool scenery. Not so with the 50mm.

Cost wise, you are right. Howerver, and as jaypie77 said, this is not a prime lens. Imagine how much it would cost to cover that range in other Canon lineup (the 17-40L comes to mind, which costs...you know).

i have no complaints!

It's a very good lens and you can't beat the price for what results are possible. I do use my 17-40L much more though and do find it to be a superior piece of glass. I wish Canon would build a 16-70 2.8L though.
That would take care of all of it.

Lou

I have taken great images with my EF-S 17-55mm lens. There's not a lot of bells and whistles to it, but it's new lense technology and the lens is very light.

So, I guess your's is a "silly millimeter" longer eh?