Canon 18-55 kit lens question

I had an Eos 400d with the non-IS lens and now have a 550d with the IS lens.

The quality is better with the IS lens, but to be honest you will take ages to get to the kind of standard in your photography where you will be criticising image quality between these two lenses above composition/exposure/colour balance....you could go on.

Forget the so-called 'significant' quality upgrade between the two because it's only significant if you are really looking. I would suggest that you just get stuck in with what you've got and enjoy.

Btw, if you want to extend your range, save up to get the Canon 55-250mm lens rather than saving for the IS 18-55....it's loads of fun (although not as much fun as the Canon 10-22!)
 
Yeah, I'm not going to throw money at lenses thinking my pictures are going to look proportionally better. I've been limited to indoor/low light messing around this week and a few shots have come out less sharp than I would have expected, but if anything it's teaching me how to hold a camera properly so it's all good.

I'm actually more interested in landscapes etc. for which I'll be using a tripod anyway, so the non-IS lens will probably be even less of an issue.
 
For landscape photography, a tripod is much more useful than IS. Find the sweet spot on your lens (normally around f8 ish and your shots should be pretty decent (from a lens point of view, at least).
 
cochoc said:
For landscape photography, a tripod is much more useful than IS. Find the sweet spot on your lens (normally around f8 ish and your shots should be pretty decent (from a lens point of view, at least).
Click to expand...

I agree, a tripod will be more useful than IS. I think the point being made above was that the Canon 18-55IS has significantly better optics and hence the upgrade would be worth it for any type of photography :)
 
I would say the 18-55 IS is better than the 18-55 non kit lens, how ever both are pants considering what you can buy for a walk around standard len.

I use a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 and it is sharp and much, much better than the Canon kit lens.

I would pop into a high street camera store with your DSLR and try some lens out.
 
Last edited:
Tysonator said:
I would the 18-55 IS is better than the 18-55 non kit lens, how ever both are pants considering what you can buy for a walk around standard len.

I use a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 and it is sharp and much, much better than the Canon kit lens.

I would pop into a high street camera store with your DSLR and try some lens out.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the 17-70 will be a lot better. It's also A LOT more money. We're talking about a £30 upgrade from non-IS to the IS lens. To upgrade to the 17-70, we're talking about a £200 upgrade.

On balance of cost, the best value upgrade would be the IS kit lens ;)
 
Namistai said:
Indeed, the 17-70 will be a lot better. It's also A LOT more money. We're talking about a £30 upgrade from non-IS to the IS lens. To upgrade to the 17-70, we're talking about a £200 upgrade.

On balance of cost, the best value upgrade would be the IS kit lens ;)
Click to expand...

Yes the 17-70 is apx £200 new, though there are always the used option.
When I first started I just got stuck in with the kit lens and saved up for a decent walk around lens when I had enough cash, which was the 17-70.
I did not want a collection a cheap lens which I would then in the future end up selling on, or be stuck with !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom