Customer Reviews: Read 37 more reviews...
 cheap, unusable f-stop August 13, 2008
30 year pro (dallas,tx)
0 out of 5 found this review helpful
ok so i know it comes with the rebel xsi and it's only 50 bucks more in most cases,however if you shoot full zoom and at 5.6 it's damn near unusable for sharpness sake. 2.8 would give a huge amount of difference. think flash and soft light vs. deer in the headlights white hot and black background.
if you are just using this to walk around in i guess it might work...but did you not just step up to a dslr camera? i want more and would pay a few bucks more for a usable lens. even the old standard lens of yesteryear was a 50 1.8 right? why not now.
love the camera with the 430 ex and 70-200 NON IS 2.8
 Terrific price on a great lens. August 13, 2008
Gary in Sun City, AZ (Arizona)
Amazon is offering this at a great price. I paid $190.00 at Adorama when they first came out. According to dpreview.com the optics are better than the original lens, and the image stabilization works well. They claim it is becoming the new standard kit lens. Don't pass up this deal.
Very happy August 8, 2008
S. Young
Have previously had cannon SLR products. But this is my first digital one. And so far we are completely satisfied with the lens. Before my standard lens was a 35mm-80mm. So I like the closer shooting distances with this 18-55.
excelente mejora August 4, 2008
Rafael Parra
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Tengo una canon 400D que trajo el 18-55 sin estabilizador. Ya habia leido que este nuevo lente no solo era mejor por el estabilizador sino que daba mejor definicion, pero ahora lo he comprobado por mi mismo. Le doy 5 estrellas porque no se puede conseguir algo mejor por su precio
 Maggot Colony August 2, 2008
Mr. A. Pomeroy (Wiltshire, England)
6 out of 6 found this review helpful
This lens has caused a mild stir on the internet in the last few months. To my mind, it's the zoom equivalent of Canon's 50mm f1.8, in the sense that it's very cheap but performs very well. On an optical level it has no obvious deficits apart from a bit of bulge at the wider settings. Physically it is small and light, and the image stabilisation works well. As a package, at this price level, it's hard to resist if you want a cheap decent walkaround lens. The only obvious competition I can think of is the Sigma 18-50mm, but that doesn't have image stabilisation, and from what I have seen it's blurry around the edges; at the very least, it offers nothing over the Canon 18-55mm IS and it's no cheaper.
This is the third version of Canon's 18-55mm camera kit lens. The first two editions of the lens were regularly derided on the internet for poor sharpness at the corners, chromatic aberrations, and general naff build quality. I can't confirm any of that, because I haven't used the older versions, although the samples I have seen were unimpressive. You can find these lenses going cheaply on eBay, because no-one wants them. In contrast, the 18-55mm IS has exceeded expectations, and has received good reviews, notably from Digital Photography Review and Photozone.de. They go into a lot of detail about the image sharpness and so forth, I will not try to duplicate their work.
I've had mine for a week or so now, and I've tested it and used it generally out and about. I like it, with some reservations. It's smaller and less conspicuous than my Sigma 18-125mm. It has far less distortion than my Canon 24-85mm. It's more versatile than my old Super Takumar f1.4, although in most other respects the Takumar squashes it like a bug, not least because it is made of metal. The 18-55mm's big drawback is its physical design. It's has a nice rubber zoom ring, and it feels tougher than my Canon 50mm f1.8. However, the front part of the lens, with the manual zoom ring, wobbles a bit. As the reviews have pointed out, the front of the lens rotates as it focusses (and moves back and forth a surprising amount), which makes it a bother to use polarising filters. It's a shame Canon didn't enlarge the body slightly, and completely enclose the front of the lens.
The motor whines a bit as it focuses, about the same level as my Sigma 18-125mm. There's one thing in particular that irritates me - most zoom lenses are physically shortest at the widest zoom level, and so it's easy to store the lens away. You just rotate the zoom collar until it stops, and stick on the lens cap. In contrast, the 18-55mm is shortest about half-way through its travel, and there's no way to lock it in place, which means that I have to pack it away partially-zoomed; my worry is that the manual focussing ring will catch on something, and break the whole front of the lens off.
Still, gripes over. The image quality pleased me. I wasn't being systematic, but there was nothing in the pictures I took that stood out as being particularly bad. There was some barrel distortion at the widest setting, but it was mild. At the rest of the zoom range I could not easily tell if there was distortion of not. It's nice and sharp in the middle, and sharpens up very well with software. The corners are slightly less sharp, but not noticeably so unless you're really looking for it. Having said that, my copy of the lens was blurrier in the left and bottom-left edge of the image, and had more purple and red fringing in that corner. Otherwise, even with a classic "tree against overexposed sky" shot, I could see only the tiniest amount of purple fringing. The out-of-focus bokeh is nice and smooth. The closest focusing distance is only a couple of inches or so, which is useful if you want to take semi-pseudo macro shots.
The image stabilisation is the icing on the cake. I managed to squeeze out shots at 1/10th, 1/5th that were usable. Alternatively, I could shoot stopped down at f5.6 or f8.0 in moderately dim light, for maximum sharpness. The lens benefits greatly from image stabilisation, because f5.6 at 55mm (88mm equivalent) is very slow indeed. Canon argues that IS turns this into f2.0 at 55mm. I'm not sure of that, but it isn't far off. Still, I was pleasantly surprised with the IS. It's of a type whereby there is one option - on or off - and you don't have to set a special mode if it's on a tripod, or if you're panning. Given the short telephoto zoom I can't see this being a useful sports lens, but within its limits the IS works well.
You don't get a lens hood. There is a lens hood available, but it's about twenty quid. It looks like a tea saucer with a hole in the middle. In fact it looks about as useful as a tea saucer with a hole in the middle, either for shading the lens, or for holding a cup of tea. I would be wary of fitting it onto the lens, for fear of nudging the hood and breaking off the front part of the lens. I haven't tested the lens for flare - the weather hasn't been very good - but I can imagine this being a weakness.
One other thing. The lens was dust-free when I took it out of the box, unlike my Sigma lens, which had some dust inside it. I suspect that over time the 18-55mm will become a dust trap, because it doesn't look very well sealed. Mind you, in five years it'll be worth pennies, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because it's so cheap (in fact it's notable that the lens is actually more expensive on eBay than it is here - perhaps Canon is finding it hard to make them fast enough). That's also how I feel about it being an EF-S lens; perhaps one day Canon will ditch EF-S, but by that time the 18-55mm will cost nothing to replace.
|
