USM worth $50?

Hey everyone. Long time lurker, first time poster.

After a couple of weeks of keeping an eye on the forum, I've finally decided to score a 20D.

I'm ok with the kit lens for now (the 18-55) - I'm looking at kit prices and I can get the kit with the USM lens or without. The difference is $50.

Basically, is USM on the cheap-o kit lens worth the $50?

(Also a quick thanks for all the knowledge I've managed to pick up, just by lurking for the past month or so.)

That is a tough question.
Usually, I would say absolutely. USM is a great thing. But on that lens it's hard to say.
There is a good chance you will eventually want to upgrade lens one day anyway, so in that case I would save the $50 and put it toward, say, a 17-40L.
For a wide angle lens, that kit lens actually isn't too bad though.

I have had the EF-S 18-55 for about 4 months. I started to realize its shortcomings after the first 20+ photos (not saying it is all that bad), which are too slow in aperture and too short in focal length. AF speed is hardly any problem.

For most lenses i'd happily pay $50 for them. For a kit lens, I use it so rarely i'd not bother. It actually wouldn't bother me if that lens was manual focus.

If you are looking for something a tad better then the kit lens...
I suggest the Sigma 18-125 DC f3.5-5.6

It comes w/ a nice hood, has internal focusing so your Cir. polarizer is fine, a true very useable man. focus ring. And the lens reach is huge! Fit's any Canon 1.6x digital even the D30-->10D's The skin is polycarbonet like the D30/60 shells, but the barrel extended, lens mount, etc. are all metal.

$260 bucks, I love mine.

For the ring-type USM, with inner or rear focus and a real focus scale, its well worth it, but I don't think that is what you'll get on the kit lens. Still, $50 isn't that great of an amount of money.

I like MrChad's idea of that 18-125 Sigma, though I've heard reports of vignetting at the wide end.

What Canon needs is a good, economical ring-type USM lens for the EF-S mount - something equivalent to the $225 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM lens.

USM is not worth it on the kit lens.
Firstly you will probably want to ditch the lens after a awhile because the optics aren't very good and also that lens doesn't have true USM.
It uses the cheap version of USM with a an 'ultrasonic' micromotor running gears like the normal lens.So it is not really any faster at focussing plus you don't get full time manual overide.

Also be carefull with the sigma 18-125 that some are recommending!
Here is a test someone did between the sigma 18-125,the kit lens and the canon 17-85.
http://www.pbase.com/f​ranklin/canon_sigma&pa​ge=all
It's excellent because it has full size files to download and compare.It's been awhile since i checked them so i can't remember exactly-but i do recall the sigma was pretty p*sspore

After looking at the pbase links I definately thought the Sigma was fine.
Corners looked to be the same between both the 17-85 IS and the Sigma, but I'm just noob. The Canon IS looked to have the sharpness edge but were these hand held shots, the IS should? I don't have any vignetting with test shots I took in my house, but again I also always use the hood--unless I use the pop up flash.

Again, I purchased the Sigma 18-125mm as an alternative to the EFS kit lens nothing more, specifically I needed something down to the 18mm range. You had to shell out more then double the price to get a lens better then this. Plus if you have a 10D or older Canon DSLR you can't use an EFS lens (not that it mattered in my case.) Plus it gave me a great quicky travel lens, a plus in my book. But I'm not going to compare this with L glass by any means.

I guess what are some other suggestions for the 18mm --xx focal range for the Sigma's sub $300 price?

I second this....if you have the money, why not just skip the kit lens and just buy a 20d body? Then you could go out and get yourself a good lens that you will be happy with.

I have a 300D, and the kit lens lasted me all of about 1 month before I was out buying a better lens. In retrospect, I wish I would have just bought the 300D body and saved myself a couple hundred towards a better lens.

Well, here's the thing. I need to stay right around $2000 total. I also think I'm not nearly as critical of image quality as most of the photographers here. (I do see how these lenses are very soft, but to me they're still in the low end of the useable range)

I need lenses that go as wide as possible and also need a big zoom for what I do. The 18-55 is good for the wide end and the 75-300 would be good for the other end.

Granted, they're not great lenses and I will definitely upgrade as my budget permits, but to get this going and get off the ground, I need to stay very 'budget' on the lens end right now.

I'm looking at getting for just under $2000:

Canon 20D
18-55 USM kit lens
75-300 USM lens
remote cable
2GB Lexar 80x CF card
Lens hoods for both lenses

The reason I asked is that I noticed the price difference and if I went with non-USM, I could also add the 50mm f/1.8 II prime and be literally just a couple of dollars over $2000 - which I can do.

That would give me the coverage I need and the cool prime lens to boot. I could worry about getting better lenses over the course of the next year or two. But to my eyes, those will be good enough for now.

I haven't really seen to many lens combinations that give me 18mm on the wide end and 300mm on the zoom end that would keep me in my budget range.

Sadly, I have to start from scratch with my equipment as all my old film stuff is Pentax and the D*ist doesn't impress me. The 20D does.

That's essentially where I stand right now. I'm open to any input on the situation.

Sigma I think also makes a cheapy 18-50mm f3.5-5.6, it's $100-ish, not sure if it's better then the kit lens. At least it has a metal lens mount and comes with the hood free.
This would run you about the same out of pocket cash as the kit lens new, anyone know if it's that bad? It may weigh more, might balance better on the 20D body.

My 18-125mm Sigma has some heft, balances great on the Drebel.

How about this....
Digital Rebel
Sigma 18-125
EF 70-200 f4L
1g Sandisk Ultra II
RC-1 remote

Suddenly you just saved $250 bucks and have much better glass.
Use the money on tripod or a Speedlight flash like 420EX, get a nice camera bag, etc....

You might want to see if a Drebel 2 comes out in a few weeks too. If you are starting out I think you'll be much further ahead by getting a Digital Rebel and spending the saved cash on some much needed additional gear. I use my tripod and 420EX much more then I ever use my 75-300 IS USM lens. But that's just me....I use the RC-1 remote way more then I thought I would too.

I agree. The 20D is a great camera, and better in almost every way than the RebelD. However, personally I don't think the major extra cost ($720) justifies the extra benefits. I'd take a Rebel with great glass over a 20D with kit glass any day. Swapping out the sigma in the above combo for the canon 17-85 IS lens only puts you $50 over your target, and the 70-200 f/4 is leagues ahead of the 75-300.

I just sold my 75-300 and got the 70-200 F4 L. Light years diffrence between the two. I also have the 17-85 IS. Its a very nice lens, it stays on the camera most of the time.

Please note that i'm not trying to badmouth the sigma 18-125 specifically,FWIW i don't think the sigma any worse than the kit lens optically speaking.
You've obviously made an informed choice so go for it!

The trouble is many don't like the kit lens so that's why i'm wary of some comments i've heard on the net about the 18-125.
Some were saying how great it is without having used it or compared it to allternative lenses