cheap kitlens 18-55 IS vs 17-85 IS canons

Is the lastes 18_55 IS kitlens considered generally better than the older 17-85 efs IS lens?

The 17-85 seems to have a bad rep around here and there.

Do a bit of search
The 17-85 is bad mouth by many that haven't even had a 17-85
The 17-85 is a fine consumer lens, it has good IQ, Image Stabilization, USM AF, full time focus ring, great range, and reliable
The 18-55 IS is also a fine lens but lack many of this characteristics
Its downfalls are a bit of distortion on the wide end and that is a slow aperture lens (as expected on many consumer lens)
Other than that at the great price you can find this lens it makes great images and i think is a good value IMO
I haven't seen the newer vers 2 of the 18-55IS, I heard its only difference is cosmetic and a better IS system
Look at the image section of this lens and you'll find many great examples

datadump wrote in post #11834395
Is the lastes 18_55 IS kitlens considered generally better than the older 17-85 efs IS lens?

The 17-85 seems to have a bad rep around here and there.

yes, the 18-55IS kit lens is definitely sharper than the 17-85IS on a crop model
see:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2
or
www.photozone.de

In actual use, a Canon 18-55mm image stabilizer lens generated these pictures.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

i actually found the 17-85mm the better of the two - all IMO of course

watt100 wrote in post #11834498
yes, the 18-55IS kit lens is definitely sharper than the 17-85IS on a crop model
see:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2
or
www.photozone.de

oh of course.. the digital picture comparo site .. thx.
that new kitlens is ridiculously better than the 17-85.

i'm just looking for a solution for my wife's camera.. i just bought her a rebel body. i was gonna put on my 24-105L but she says its just too heavy. so she wants a super compact/light lens.

so she wants a zoom plus a lens that has shallow dof

1) a std zoom
and
2) a fast std prime 35mm f/2 28mm f/2.8

I replaced my 18-55mm IS with a 17-85mm IS USM and other than the fact it felt a lot better to hold (I have big hands) and it having USM (I like proper focusing rings, full time manual and the fast USM autofocus itself) I didn't like it.
There was just something about the images I was getting from it that didn't look right so I replaced it with a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM which I've been much happier with. Though that's probably not an option for most people with it only going as wide as 28mm, I'm not a fan of the wide angle look so I'm okay with it.

This was all purely based on 'feeling', I haven't sat and done chart tests or trawled through other people's lens tests.

I'm sure the 17-85mm can produce great images in the right hands but I just didn't click with it for some reason.

watt100 wrote in post #11834498
yes, the 18-55IS kit lens is definitely sharper than the 17-85IS on a crop model
see:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2
or
www.photozone.de

Interesting when you change the focal range to 50 look at the result:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

My point is both lens will give you very nice pictures IMHO
If your wife likes the 18-55 range and is good enough for her, get the 18-55, is smaller and lighter.

borism wrote in post #11835853
Interesting when you change the focal range to 50 look at the result:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

.

you're looking different focal lengths and different apertures in that link
fail !

same focal length, same aperture, same camera
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

watt100 wrote in post #11836030
you're looking different focal lengths and different apertures in that link
fail !

same focal length, same aperture, same camera
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

True
There:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1
f5.6 on both, cant see at 55 on the 18-55
The point remains IMO

borism wrote in post #11836105
True
There:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1
f5.6 on both, cant see at 55 on the 18-55
The point remains IMO

different focal lengths
fail again !

nice pics (and MTF image resolution data) at
www.photozone.de


same focal length, same aperture, same camera
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

watt100 wrote in post #11836319
different focal lengths
fail again !

nice pics (and MTF image resolution data) at
www.photozone.de


same focal length, same aperture, same camera
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

Again my point haven't change if you read my post
Plus no real life difference between 50 to 55 IMO, but I applaud your competitive post

borism wrote in post #11836335
Again my point haven't change if you read my post
Plus no real life difference between 50 to 55 IMO, but I applaud your competitive post

hint: for other comparable image resolution data on lens (with the same focal length) look here
www.photozone.de

applause, applause

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

In my experience with the two: 18-55 is better at the wide end, and 17-85 is better at the long end.

thanks all for the info. i think the latest kitlens with IS seems fairly impressive. and its pretty lightweight. it might fit the requirements for the lady. i still think i'll get her a 35 f/2 on the side...