is 18-55 IS underrated?

So the 50mm 1.8 is poor build, but gets you great IQ (rated 3.5 at photozone on Optical quality). The 1.4 version gets a 4, but it is nearly 3-4 times more expensive.

Now, there is the 17-55 2.8 considered by many as a "nearly L" grade lens, and priced, of course, "nearly L". It gets a 4 for Optical quality at photozone. Then there is 18-55 IS which can be had for under $100 in a kit (or "new" from ebay) which gets a 3.5.

18-55 of course is not a 2.8 lens, but at less than 1/10th price, doesn't it deserve a special place just like 50mm 1.8?

I think the 18-55 is pretty well regarded for what it is/its price. I don't know anything about those Optical Quality ratings just based on what I've seen.

The EF-S 18-55 IS has decent IQ and IS, however, it's small aperture and poor AF is apparent.

I think pretty much everyone considers the 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS and the 50mm f1.8 to be the ultimate poor-man's kit. They are all often recommended for those on a budget or those starting out. They are all good lenses held in similar regard. So no the 18-55 Is is not underrated.

As for lens reviews, they generally have to be taken in context of price, usage and alternatives. The 18-55 IS gets a high ranking because it is a $100 lens that is very sharp, just like the 50mm f1.8. But if either was $500, they would get a very low rating next to the alternatives in that price bracket.

It is underrated though it too has poor build, no real focus ring, variable aperture, noisy focus, etc. like the nifty fifty so I put it into the same category of great bang for the buck lenses.

Beware of simply using website ratings and reviews however. More in depth reviews will show the actual weaknesses of the 18-55IS like awful CA near the corners if you look for it.

I find the EF-S 55-250 IS has superior AF by FAR to the nifty fifty and superior to the EF-S 18-55 IS. I would say the 55-250 IS is pretty fast for a non USM lens.

I agree that its an underrated lens. But when comparing those charts. 3.5 to 4 may be like the difference between a $7 steak and $50 steak. They are both the same size, same caloric amount, same, same cut, but the experience with the second is just that much better. Be careful about using those rating sites to try to make things more than they are.

Lens rating should not take price into consideration. They should rate strictly on optical quality, focus performance, and build. Price is a purchasing decision only. One has to make the determination whether the increase in performance is worth the increase in price.

nemesis47 wrote in post #10871831
So the 50mm 1.8 is poor build, but gets you great IQ (rated 3.5 at photozone on Optical quality). The 1.4 version gets a 4, but it is nearly 3-4 times more expensive.

Now, there is the 17-55 2.8 considered by many as a "nearly L" grade lens, and priced, of course, "nearly L". It gets a 4 for Optical quality at photozone. Then there is 18-55 IS which can be had for under $100 in a kit (or "new" from ebay) which gets a 3.5.

18-55 of course is not a 2.8 lens, but at less than 1/10th price, doesn't it deserve a special place just like 50mm 1.8?

Not my kit lens. At 18-20 it is almost useless for me due to the barrel distortion.
At 5.6 it is kind of sharp, but at 8 and higher it is total crap.

I dont think this is the case. Photozone also has a "Price/Performance" rating for every lens, and 18-55 IS rates 5 on that category. The 17-55 has just 3.5.

Photozone says:
Chromatic aberrations are well controlled at the extreme ends of the zoom range but quite pronounced around 28mm

I am not suggesting that 18-55 is better than 17-55 in any respect (other than price, of course). I have seen that poor man's combo (18-55, 55-250,50 1.8) mentioned at different threads. But I have also seen that many (may be most) knowledgeable people in this forum own a 50mm 1.8 as well, but 18-55 isn't anywhere close. Hence the post.

nemesis47 wrote in post #10871981
I dont think this is the case. Photozone also has a "Price/Performance" rating for every lens, and 18-55 IS rates 5 on that category. The 17-55 has just 3.5.

If you are right, then the photozone guy is completely ignorant judge of lens quality. Out of all lenses out there, the 18-55 IS is probably a 1 out of 5 tops. It biggest claim to fame is that it is a kit lens that is actually usable. Color, contrast, AF, bokeh, speed, build all suck. It is reasonably sharp across the frame at f5.6-8 and has a nice IS unit, but other than that is is a boring bottom of the barrel lens (compared to ALL lenses).

Now back to comparing it only to standard zooms under $200, it is the best lens I have ever used.

Looks like Photozone review agrees with you there. But Photozone review for 17-55 says the same about 17-55 as well(highlighting mine):
The distortion characteristic is quite typical for a zoom lens in this range relatively pronounced barrel distortion @ 17mm, moderate pincushion distortion @ 55mm)

Wow.. I thought photozone was referred quite frequently on POTN, and was considered a great review site for lenses!!

I know I wouldn't pay $1000 for a 17-55mm but will definitely pay $100 for the 18-55mm, I have seen the outcome of both lens and no doubt in my mind the 17-55mm is one heck of a lens but in my opinion is overpriced, I much rather buy the Tamron 17-50mm for half the price. If I'm paying $1000 for a lens, it better have a red ring or be white!

nemesis47 wrote in post #10871981
... But I have also seen that many (may be most) knowledgeable people in this forum own a 50mm 1.8 as well, but 18-55 isn't anywhere close. Hence the post.

That's due to its f/1.8 capability. 3+ stops is a lot of light gathering ability.