|
I recently purchased the Image Stabilized version of the Canon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. It started with a disappointment, I received a poor performing one, but it was exchanged with no questions asked and now I believe I have a good version. I have had the original Digital Rebel with the kit lens, which I sold and replaced with a Rebel XT with kit lens. Just a few weeks ago I sold the XT also and got the XTi. The Xti also had to be exchanged because it back-focused so bad that I couldn’t get one sharp picture with it. Now I have a great working XTi. It’s a shame that all these Canon products don’t work the first time around…
Many people dislike the Canon kit lenses, but I have to say that for the money, they are a great value. I think that both the kit lenses I had with the Digital Rebel and the XT were quite good. I think the one I got with my XTi may not be as good as the prior two, but that is hard to say as I do not have the others to compare anymore. In the meantime I have tried a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC non macro version, which was no better than the kit lens and so I sold it too. I bought a Canon 17-40L f4 and returned it because it was not really much better than the kit lens. Recently I rented the new Canon 17-55 2.8 IS lens for a wedding, and was disappointed with it too. In my book the image quality of that lens versus the money it costs doesn’t justify purchasing this lens.
Well, now I own the image stabilized kit lens, and since there don’t seem to be many reviews about it out there, here is my own. I hope you find this helpful. Of course these tests were not done in a lab, so take them with a grain of salt if you want.
|
|
Might as well get right to it. I took the test shots with my Canon Rebel XTi (Canon 400D) of a house using a tripod. I used ISO 100, large/fine JPG, and Av (aperture priority mode) for all shots. Nothing was changed except the shutter speed during the test shots. I took the pictures with the kit lens first, and within one minute the pictures with the IS lens. There were no clouds in the sky, so all shots should be very similar in exposure. I took the pictures in this sequence:
Kit lens: At 18mm with f 3.5, then with f 8. At 55mm with f 5.6, then with f 8. IS lens: At 18mm with f 3.5, then with f 8. At 55mm with f 5.6, then with f 8.
I worked on the pictures with Photoshop. I did not change ANYTHING except cropping and rearranging the pictures as you see them below. Once they were rearranged I added the orange titles with a drop shadow. The comparison crops are original size.
|
|
Here is the first set of shots. These are crops from the exact center of the pictures which is also the focusing point (center sensor was used). |
|
From the above shots, I think it is clear that the IS version easily outperforms the regular kit lens in the center crops. The 18mm shots are maybe not as obvious, although even there I think it is fair to say that the IS lens is as good or better wide open than the kit lens stopped down to f 8.
Even more obvious are the crops of the 55mm pictures, the kit lens performs quite poor wide open, and much better at f 8. Wide open you can also see a good bit of purple chromatic aberration (purple fringing). The IS lens is again as good if not better wide open, and even better at f 8.
|
|
These are the original pictures shrunk to fit here. The inverted areas are the spots where I took the crops from. First the wide angle shot, then the tele shot. |
|
Now to the corner crops. As you can see, the wide angle crops are not exactly from the corner, but the closest objects to the corner, the trees. Bad setup on my part. Still the results show a lot. |
|
Here the results are a little more mixed. In the wide angle shots, the quality is much less than in the center, even with the IS lens, although the IS lens again is better than the kit lens. With the aperture at f 8, as expected, both lenses perform a lot better. The IS lens again being much better than the kit lens.
The tele corner shots surprised me a little, the kit lens performed quite well wide open, maybe even better than the center shot where it showed a lot of purple fringing, this could just be due to the different subject of course. Needless to say, the IS lens still beat the kit lens wide open. Stopped down to f 8, the kit lens doesn’t seem to have much improvement, maybe a little less purple fringing. The IS lens again gets a little better stopped down showing a tiny bit more detail, but not a huge improvement. |
|
Even though I was disappointed with the first lens being bad, the IS lens I have now is well worth its money. The most important factor for me is the fact that the IS lens performs very well wide open, which makes it even more useful with its image stabilization. No need to stop the IS lens down to get acceptable image quality, thus you get the shortest possible shutter speed combined with the IS, that’s what I was looking for.
Comparing the two lenses physically, they are pretty much identical. The IS lens has the switch to turn the image stabilization on and off. It’s rubber armor for the zoom ring is different, it looks nicer in my opinion, but the non IS kit lens is easier to grip. So it is a give and take. The IS lens is a tiny bit heavier than the kit lens, but you pretty much need a scale to notice the difference. They are basically the same size, except the IS lens is a fraction longer than the kit lens. Both are light and compact for walking around. Below a picture of the two next to each other. |
|
So, as a final comment and admittedly to my surprise, the IS lens is optically a lot better than the non IS kit lens. If you don’t already have the kit lens (or even if you do, like myself), the IS version is a noticeable upgrade in image quality for not a lot of money. I do wish I had some other lenses, especially the Canon 17-55 f 2.8 IS to compare, but I somehow think it may not be worth the extra $700, especially if you have to watch your budget.
Thanks for viewing this page, I hope it was helpful in making a decision! |
|
Canon Kit Lens Comparison
Comparing the Canon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 Kit Lens to the IS version. |