Customer Reviews

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS SLR Lens

5 star:		(91)
4 star:		(48)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

PROS
* Very sharp across the image, even wide open.
* Low Chroma. I read a test ([...]) that found higher than normal amounts of CA in this lens at some apertures, but I don't see it. My standard test is to shoot bare tree limbs on bright sunny days & look for purple fringing, especially at the edges. I'm not seeing anywhere near the level of fringing shown in some of their test shots.If anything, I'd call it "low" I read elsewhere that one of Canon's goals in adding the aspherical element to this lens was to reduce CA, so I'm thinking maybe the lens tested in photozon.de was just a bad apple.
* Image Shake control works. I can't attest to how often it provides a full 4 stops worth of shake reduction, but I can see a very clear result when using it.
* Fast accurate focusing. One of the reasons I purchased this lens was because I was dissatisfied with the performance of my (more expensive) Sigma 17-35 EX (the newer model), which while sharp, is just too slow and inaccurate a focuser for close work in action sports. The new Canon solved that problem.
* Compact, light weight & unobtrusive. Not much bigger than a normal lens.
CONS
* Barrel Distortion at 18mm (28mm) While not exsessive for an inexpensive lens, this is one area where you will see benefit from spending hundreds of dollars for a much more expensive Canon "IS" or "L," or buying a fixed focal length lens. In most real world situations, it wasn't all that noticeable. I could usually correct for it in Photoshop, but this is not a lens for critical architectural work etc. I have taken hundreds of photos with this lens and barrel distortion has only called attention to itself a few times. I suspect this is one price paid for the very compact design.
* Not very fast. Another area where an "L" has an edge. At F3.5 28mm equivalent and F5.6 85mm this lens is relatively slow compared to a pro lens. This effects stopping the action in low light. OTH, you will have to spend hundreds more to get a usable top speed of F 2.8 and that is *only* one stop faster at 28mm equiv. I think both this lens' sharpness and the IS system mitigate this "Con." It took me a while to learn that I could shoot wide open at all focal lengths without having the outer third of the image turn to mush.That's pretty amazing for a zoom at this price. You don't have a stop or two you almost never use because it is too soft. And the IS system works well in low light, though that doesn't figure in in stopping the action.
* Does not have that red stripe. Sad to say, some will never buy this sharp, handy little lens because in is not an "L" and/or doesn't cost $[...]. Yes, it does does look a little "plasticy," probably doesn't have the build quality for heavy, everyday use by a real working pro, and does not look massive mounted on your camera body, like a "fast" pro lens that's squeezing out that last F stop. But IMO, it looks very similar to Canon's newer IS lenses, so there is no scarlet letter immediately identifying you as "cheap." In other words, "Get over it."

So, why did Canon produce such a good lens at such a bargain price? I'd say that it's because Nikon announced their intention to do the same a little while ago. Also, Canon's old non IS 18-55mm lens had the rep of being something of a dog. Finally, several competing cameras now have IS built into the body. Canon had to respond with a sharp IS lens that they could put on the Rebels & the 40D. In terms of sales, the low end of the DSLR market is both hot and very competitive. We're the beneficiaries.

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.

I only got this lens, vowing to only do "L" glass since using my 50mm f/1.2, because it got a sizzling review in PopPhoto. It's clarity was just under a $2,000 Nikon lens reviewed on the same page.

I opened the box, and got just what I expected for under $200-a small, cheap feeling lens. It is the first EF-S I've owned, and the white mark for aligning it to mount matched up on my Canon 40D, instead of the red mark I usually use.

I haven't had time to put it through the paces, but I will say that I am really impressed with the clarity of the pictures. I have a crappy Canon 28-135mm that is just pitiful in the clarity department-and that set me back $400! I put a shot of one of my dogs up for this product in the customer images. It's the one shot portrait of just her head (German Shepherd). Handheld this thing is as clear as my 50mm f/1.2-I swear!

Another thing I didn't realize is that you can get close to your subject with this lens. No, I mean REALLY close. I can open it up to 17mm and be 4" from my subject!

As a portrait photographer, I am really thankful to have a killer IS lens to let me play with wide shots of buildings, scenery, and maybe some fun people/pet portraits that differ from my more "sensible" lenses to date.

Thanks, Canon!

P.S. Now fix my stupid 28-135!!! :)

I bought this lens to replace the kit lens that came with my Rebel XTi and I am thoroughly impressed by its performance. The kit lens simply pales in comparison. The image stabilizer does its job very well, and the image quality is excellent.

There are many people and reviewers who compare this lens unfavorably with Canon's acclaimed L-Series lenses. I think those folks are way too picky - one can't expect a $200 lens to perform as well as a $1,000 lens. That's like comparing a little Honda Civic to perform as well as BMW M3. Not gonna happen, but for the price the Civic is an excellent little car. Likewise, this lens is a worthwhile investment towards getting excellent pictures. Pay no heed to the people who rate this lens poorly because it doesn't zoom as far (you should have bought a longer lens) or those who claim its build quality is not as solid (you should have spent a lot more money).

I've read the tech reviews containing information about vignetting, barrel distortion, bokeh, etc. The reality is, I am not a professional photographer (i.e., I don't put food on my family's table by taking pictures) so those things don't matter so much. All I care about is that the pictures come out crisp and the colors accurate. I take pics of my wife and baby, often in low light conditions without a flash. I shoot in JPEG high compression to save disk space and to make it easier to email the photos to our parents and extended family. If this is what you'll be doing, then buy this lens right away; you won't be disappointed.

Perhaps someday I will want to buy a camera with a longer zoom (which is why I got a DSLR camera) or I'll buy a faster computer so I can switch to shooting in RAW (thus necessitating an L series lens). Until then, I expect this lens will be on my XTi for a long, long time.

There are a number of good reviews already for this lens, but I would like to write this review from the perspective of someone who got this lens as part of a camera kit. Last year I bought the Canon EOS Rebel T1i which came with this lens in the package. I have also read a couple photography books (David Busch's T1i Guide and Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure, both which I highly recommend), and I have done a lot of research on lenses.

The main two rivals of this lens are:
1) Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
2) Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Both of those lenses are considerably more expensive than this one. The obvious advantage of the 18-200mm is range. If you don't ever want to switch lenses, you could probably buy this one and leave it on your camera. The 18-55mm IS and the 18-200mm IS have similar properties in terms of image quality, and they come with similar features. Basically, the 18-200mm is more convenient at a higher price, but you should expect similar performance.

The 17-55mm, however, is simply a better lens with better glass and near L performance at the price of an L lens. The 17-55mm has USM, which focuses faster, quieter, and more accurately, and the lens doesn't spin around when focusing. The 17-55mm has full-time manual focusing (you don't have to switch the AF off in order to adjust the focus manually), and it has a focal distance scale. These are very useful features for taking storytelling photos and other times when you need to set the focus manually. The 17-55mm is faster, having a constant f/2.8, and is much better at taking portraits and other type of photos that isolate the subject. Also, the 17-55mm has better IS. More than one reviewer of the 17-55mm has said, "throw out your kit lens, and buy the 17-55mm."

Well, I didn't throw out my kit lens (the 18-55mm IS), but I did think about selling it on eBay and buying the 17-55mm. Why, then, did I keep this lens? Well, the 18-55mm IS has three advantages over the 17-55mm, 1) it's much cheaper, 2) it's much lighter, making it more pleasant to carry around, 3) it came with my camera, so I had it already. Really, the 18-55 IS is not a bad lens. It can take some excellent pictures. In many situations it can take pictures that are just as good as those taken with the 17-55mm. Just keep in mind that you will never be able to get much bokeh with this lens, and it doesn't have USM. This lens is very sharp and doesn't have many image/color distortion problems. My main gripe with it is the auto focus, which is slow and sometimes jumps around trying to find the focus.

Just to let you know, instead of replacing this lens with the 17-55mm, I took that money and instead bought two less expensive but very good lenses:

1) EF-S 10-22mm USM (really the only lens to buy if you want to take any wide angle shots)
2) EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (a great portrait and indoor lens, which, in my opinion, can actually take better portrait photos than the 17-55mm; you might also consider the 50mm f/1.8)

I like my 18-55mm IS lens, and I think that I will never buy the 17-55mm. The next time I have $1000 to spend on a lens, I will probably buy the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM 1:1 macro lens. One last reason not to replace your kit 18-55mm IS lens with the 17-55mm is that if you ever replace your crop dSLR with a full frame dSLR, you won't be able to use your $1000 lens on it. If I spend that much on a lens, I would rather buy an L lens, which will last a lifetime.

The EF-S 18-55mm IS is not the best lens, but it is an excellent lens for the money. DON'T THROW AWAY YOUR KIT LENS! Keep it, and compliment it with other focal length lenses. I suggest:

1) EF 50mm f/1.8
2) EF-S 10-22mm USM
3) a telephoto zoom
4) EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM 1:1 macro

***UPDATE 12/21/2010***

First, I'd like to say that my kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm IS) is still working well and taking great photos. Very lightweight. Very good. No problems or complaints. Further, everyone should check out the tests and comparisons of DxO Labs. They compare different sensors, and different lenses on different cameras. This website provides invaluable information. Well, based on their tests on the T1i, the 17-55mm f/2.8 only slightly outperforms the 18-55mm IS. Given that small difference, is it worth all that money? Why not save up cash for L lenses that you can use on the full frame camera we all want to buy in the future?

Second, I can no longer recommend the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. The USM motor in mine started having some problems, and now the autofocus is often slightly off. If you are shooting at f/# less than 2, that means your shots will definitely be soft. Not good. Go with the EF 50mm f/1.8 instead. DxO labs actually ranks that lens as having better optics than either the f/1/4 or the f/1.2L! Save yourself some money and buy the EF 50mm f/1.8.

My EF-S 10-22mm and EF-S 55-250mm are still performing well. I am selling my 50mm f/1.4 to buy the 50mm 1.8 and a lensbaby composer. Happy shooting :)

I pre-ordered the lens and only paid as much for it as the non-IS, USM version and I think it was a good buy. The build is light and noticeably plastic ... and while it doesn't feel cheap, it does feel like a $150 lens. The good thing is the lens is very light in weight, the bad thing is the inner zoom ring may not be sealed very well.

I have taken a number of shots over the past two days but the light has been very overcast grey. As such, I have been unable to shoot outside subjects to really gauge contrast. The lens seems sharp and the colors are good (even in the grey light). The IS works differently than the IS in my 70-200. It is interesting to see images that were shot hand-held at speeds slow enough for a moving subject to blur yet have sharp backgrounds courtesy of the IS. I'll post a link to some images when I get a good sampling. I'll also update the review as needed. So far I would give the lens four stars for its value. It's priced right but the f/3.5-5.6 aperture, inexpensive build, and non USM drive are drawbacks.

For a comparison, I would give my EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM five stars for build, image quality, and value. I would also give my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM five stars because it is simply an awesome lens in spite of the EF-S.

When I think about buying the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM over the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (non-USM) I have to weigh the fact that I would be spending $1k for for a lens that will only work with a few Canon models, but it would be well spent on a lens that would probably always be mounted on the camera.

I just concluded my US vacation. Before my trip, I decided to buy this lens from Amazon and use it as an all-around lens for the trip. I reckoned that my 24-70L would be too heavy and couldn't fit my 30D my semi-leather case with it. So, I used this lens thoughout my whole trip.

When I reviewed my shots in my laptop, I couldn't find any fault with it. When I compared its pictures with the the shots from my 24-70L, I could barely notice the difference. Its just as tack sharp except in low light conditions where you will notice a slight advantage of the 24-70L.
Color comes out less saturated than the L lens though although very acceptable. Build quality is comparable with other non L lens. IS is superb.

To me, this is the best value for money among lenses that Canon has in its current line up. I will bet good money that this lens will out perform other L and non-L lenses 3x to 5X its price.

A must have for Canonians.

Yes, it's true. Before I got this lens, I took really bad pictures. Now, I still take really bad pictures, but they're much sharper! Is this lens as good as an "L" lens? No, but how can we compare this lens with a $1000 "L", not fair. This lens is only $180. But for the money, you get very sharp pictures, very real color (yes real), an Image Stabilizer and I can spend the other $820 on photo lessons. "It's not the lens that makes a good photo, it's the eye looking through the lens".

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens is a good beginner lens. It will help you take *REALLY* impressive-looking pictures in the most ideal of conditions such as well-lit environments and subjects that are not fast-moving.

But this lens also has its limitations. To explain these limitations, I'll break tradition and start with the cons:

Cons
----
- Slow Autofocus (AF)
This lens is a tad slow for fast-action, such as a soccer game or an aerial display. It's also doesn't do very well with objects that lack texture or objects that are light-colored. In such cases, it's not uncommon for the motor to whir back and forth indecisively for a second or two as it tries to find the focal point. Your best option is to first focus on another spot (with the same depth, of course) and then recompose.

- No Internal Focus (IF)
This lens has no internal focus - that means the lens barrel rotates to bring a subject into focus. A lack of internal focus would not ordinarily be a problem unless you're using a polarized filter. The rotation of the barrel will throw a polarized filter out of adjustment. It is a hassle to have to readjust the polarized filter after each change in the focal point.

- Not The Ideal Lens for Low Light Conditions
With a lowest F-stop (aperture size) at f/3.5, the images shot in low light conditions come out a little dark. You can, of course, compensate by increasing the ISO, but that will result in images with more noise.

Pros
----
- Light Weight
The light weight lens is perfect for lighter bodies, such as an Xsi/450D.

- Incredibly Sharp Close-Up and Portrait Shots
I'm just blown away by how much detail this lens captures in close-up and portrait photography. In close-up portrait shots, it's able to capture impressive details such as every wrinkle, every pore, and every imperfection on a person's face.

- Incredibly Useful Zoom Range (18mm - 55mm)
The 18mm provides for a very wide angle shot. The 55mm provides a satisfactory reach for most shots.

- Very Affordable
This lens is probably the best value lens, after the "Thrifty Fifty."

Alternative
-----------
You might also want to consider the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. The most apparent difference between the two lens (besides the hefty price tag of the 17mm) is that the wide angle end on the 17mm-55mm is 17mm instead of 18mm. But there's more. The 17mm doesn't have the afore-mentioned problems of the 18mm-55mm. It is also much sharper and has less chromatic aberration (blurry, multi-colored fringes). If you can afford to splurge a little, you may want to take this lens into consideration. (See the thedigitalpicture site for side-by-side sample picture and ISO chart comparisons.)

---
Overall, I'm very satisfied with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens. It may have some limitations, but in the right hands, it can definitely produce professional-looking results. If you're on a tight budget, this is *the* walk-around lens to get.

I pre-ordered this lens solely for the Image Stabilization. After I used it I was impressed by that plus it seemed a lot sharper than the old kit lens. Well, sure enough Photozone,de reviewed the lens and said it put out resolution figures equaling Canon's best lenses. This was good news, especially since bashing the Canon kit lens seemed to be a full-time job on many of the photography message boards. I'm glad I bought it. And for very little money I can get images the equal of $1100 lenses.