Revisited - 18-55IS vs. 17-55IS/2.8

I know there has been a lot of discussion about these 2 lenses here.

I am currently using the 18-55 and the 70-200IS/4 but are thinking about getting the 17/55. However after reading Ken Rockwell's review about these 2 lenses I am reconsidering.

"The 18-55 does about 90% of what the 17-55/2.8 does for about ten times the price"
Would you guys agree with this assessment?

Thx

Redog said:

I know there has been a lot of discussion about these 2 lenses here.
I am currently using the 18-55 and the 70-200IS/4 but are thinking
about getting the 17/55. However after reading Ken Rockwell's review
about these 2 lenses I am reconsidering.
"The 18-55 does about 90% of what the 17-55/2.8 does for about ten
times the price"
Would you guys agree with this assessment?

Thx

Click to expand...

in terms of sharpness yeah, maybe even 98%, but I still do feel the kit, lags in color and contrast and bokeh and AF, and speed. I just don't like the way slightly OOF but very busy details sharpen in such a nasty way on it and the color just doesn't seem as rich (as my tamron, never used the 17-55 but it is supposed to be great).

Redog said:

I know there has been a lot of discussion about these 2 lenses here.
I am currently using the 18-55 and the 70-200IS/4 but are thinking
about getting the 17/55. However after reading Ken Rockwell's review
about these 2 lenses I am reconsidering.
"The 18-55 does about 90% of what the 17-55/2.8 does for about ten
times the price"
Would you guys agree with this assessment?

Click to expand...

No. The 17-55 is fives times the price of the 18-55 IS, so it's wrong in that sense.

I have the 18-55 and rented a 17-55 over the weekend because I needed a low-light lens. I didn't get a chance to do rigorous testing of the lenses. And, in fact, haven't finished processing some of the photos I took. That said, I didn't see anything in the photos I did process that would make me think the 17-55 is worth the extra $800. (If I were to spend another $800 on my kit, I'd choose to fill a hole rather than replace an adequate lens. Either a macro or the 70-200/4.)

That said, the 3.5-5.6 designation of the 18-55 is misleading. It goes to f/4.0 then to f/4.5 very early in the zoom range (somewere around 28 mm, I'd guess.) And goes to f/5.6 at around 50 mm. 2 stops at the long end may be worth it depending on your type of photography.

Haven't used the 18-55 is. I have the 17-55 & it is my most used lens. I have heard that the 18-55 is close in sharpness, but I take indoors without a flash and other low light & action stopping situations & I know that I would miss the 2.8. I also don't know if the 18-55 has the elements & characteristics in the glass to get the quality optics of the 17-55. I think that you would have to hear from someone who has owned both to get an unbiased comparison.
--
One day I'll learn how to post photos. I am 61 & technically challenged.

Thera are so many choices today.

If you get the 18-55 IS in a kit with e.g. 450D then you can say the 17-55 would cost 10 times as much. At least in Sweden where I live.

That would make me think twice. I have the 17-55 but today I probably would have settled with the 18-55 IS and maybe bought a 50mm 1.8 and a 10-22

totally agree - the 18-55 is a very good buy. Light, discrete, superb IS and focus as good / silent as USM (if you are lucky to get a good combination of body & lens).

That told, sharpness is very bad at 50mm+. It has the worst results at 50mm for a set of 4 non-L lens I tested:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14916911@N00/2691730567/
compared to the best:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14916911@N00/2691717161/

(more details there http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28700748 or on the dpreview formal test)

Now, the next question is: how much does sharpness matter to a successful photo ? I am waiting for a field of sunflowers to blossom in a few days, then will make a large print to test)

There is the law of diminishing returns. I wouldn't be able to say whether the 18-55IS delivers 70, 80 or 90% of the 17-55IS, but only you can decide whether the differences are worth it. They include: better sharpness, especially corner sharpness, fast and silent USM focusing, meaning getting the shot instead of missing it, constant max f/2.8 which may let you shoot at lower ISO, get the shot instead of missing it, and achieve more background blur when you want it, shots at the wide end have virtually no barrel distortion, and CA is less at all focal lengths, etc., etc. In 90% of the shots none of this may matter... and even when displayed on my good 24" 1920x1600 monitor I cannot tell the difference between a plain jpg from my old 300D with 18-55-non-IS kit lens and the 450D with 17-55IS in shots that both can get. So is it worth the difference? I still think so, but I don't expect everyone to agree.

Redog said:

I know there has been a lot of discussion about these 2 lenses here.
I am currently using the 18-55 and the 70-200IS/4 but are thinking
about getting the 17/55. However after reading Ken Rockwell's review
about these 2 lenses I am reconsidering.
"The 18-55 does about 90% of what the 17-55/2.8 does for about ten
times the price"
Would you guys agree with this assessment?

Thx

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D and and the Canon G6.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Enicar said:

Thera are so many choices today.
If you get the 18-55 IS in a kit with e.g. 450D then you can say the
17-55 would cost 10 times as much. At least in Sweden where I live.
That would make me think twice. I have the 17-55 but today I probably
would have settled with the 18-55 IS and maybe bought a 50mm 1.8
and a 10-22

Click to expand...

That's my thinking also. I would love to have the 17-55 but may get a 50 prime and a wide angle such as the 10-22.
thx, for all the valid points

What camera are you using. I have the old version of the 50 1.8. It works great for low light. I have the 40 D, but it worked fine when I had the 400D. The 50 1.8 II has been reported on many threads to have focus problems on the xxD series, but if you could get one for low light then the 18-55 would be fine. They are very inexpensive.
--
One day I'll learn how to post photos. I am 61 & technically challenged.

I owned the older kit mk2 18-55 kit, and now a Tamron 17-50, but I have done several comparisons of online samples of the new IS kit and the 17-55 F2.8 IS as well. From what I have seen, the new IS kit has greatly improved sharpness, but contrast, color, bokeh and AF haven't really seem to be improved. When I compared the my Tamron to my kit, I found everything to be better on the Tamron, except the field curvature, but on the originial kit, The kit was still softer in the corners than the Tamron's field curvature made it appear.

Is the 17-55 F2.8IS worth 6x the cost of the 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS? That's a matter of opinion and usage. It's kind of like askingis the 85mm F1.2L worth 4x the price of the 85mm F1.8. For me, I like having F2.8 available at all focal lengths, and excellent IQ about 2/3 - 1 stop down. The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and Canon 17-55 have that. The kit is quite a bit slower, 2/3 - 2 stops. Outdoors, it's not a big difference as far as lighting, but for DOF, bokeh, contrast, and color, there is a more significant difference.

The Tamron is an excellent in between IMHO. It's 2x the price of the kit, you sacrifice IS, but get F2.8 and better IQ. I also have better luck with the AF of my Tamron than my Canon non-IS kit once I got a copy that focused properly at wide angle. Now, is the Canon 17-55 F2.8 worth 2.5x the price of the Tamron? It adds IS and USM and has a flatter focus plane, yet it is bigger and heavier.

So my conclusion is, as most probably found as well, it depends on budget, usage, etc.

--
Main Albums: http://picasaweb.google.com/Carskick/
Older Albums: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carskick

It can be true depends on how you want to use the lens. Same as the comparison between 85/1.8 and 85/1.2. If you need that last 10~20% (or whatever that means to you) then there is only one way to do it. On the other hand you can be perfectly happy with 18-55 IS or 85/1.8 and no one will question your decision.

Redog said:

I know there has been a lot of discussion about these 2 lenses here.
I am currently using the 18-55 and the 70-200IS/4 but are thinking
about getting the 17/55. However after reading Ken Rockwell's review
about these 2 lenses I am reconsidering.
"The 18-55 does about 90% of what the 17-55/2.8 does for about ten
times the price"
Would you guys agree with this assessment?

Thx

Click to expand...

I have done a lot of side by side comparisons with my 17-55 against my 50.8 in different lights at different subjects. The IQ comes out pretty well even. I know that I have a really good old copy & though the new version is reported to have the same optics, everyone with an old copy seems happy with theirs & many with a new copy don't. I don.t know why. However I am still very happy to have my 17-55 because to have a zoom that equals my prime in picture quality & having Is has been a good thing for me. My 17-55 is worth it to me but everyone is different & if the 50 works well for you & saves you money along with the 18-55 I say go for it.
--
One day I'll learn how to post photos. I am 61 & technically challenged.

Redog said:

I am currently using the 18-55 and the 70-200IS/4 but are thinking
about getting the 17/55. However after reading Ken Rockwell's review
about these 2 lenses I am reconsidering.
"The 18-55 does about 90% of what the 17-55/2.8 does for about ten
times the price"
Would you guys agree with this assessment?

Click to expand...

It doesn't have USM focus.
It doesn't have UD lens elements.
It doesn't have a constant f/2.8 aperture.

Those things make a big difference.

Can you notice a difference in performance and image quality between the 18-55 and the 70-200? If so, then you will also notice a difference in performance and image quality between the 18-55 and the 17-55. If not, then the difference may not be worth it to you.

--
Mark-B
http://www.msbphoto.com/

I've read in a few places that although the 18-55 is a great deal for the price, some people complain that the color and contrast are not very good. I'm still on the fence regarding this lens. I guess I should get off the fence for the price alone - but color and contrast are just as important to me as sharp.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Maria
--

My opinion is when every thing else fails people trying to defend/bash a lens will start to mention color and contrast. It's really hard to define what is good color but I don't think it's easy to find a modern lens that have unpleasant color. Besides in this days and age of digital photography and post processing you can pretty much get any color and contrast you want.

Marla said:

I've read in a few places that although the 18-55 is a great deal for
the price, some people complain that the color and contrast are not
very good. I'm still on the fence regarding this lens. I guess I
should get off the fence for the price alone - but color and contrast
are just as important to me as sharp.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Maria
--

Click to expand...

I'm very much a beginner (owned a dSLR all of a week or so now!) so please take everything I say with a large pinch of salt.

I own both the 18-55 and the 17-55 lenses and bought them both at the same time as I bought the camera. For most of the photos I wanted to take I knew I won't be able to use a tripod and would often be in low light outdoors or just be indoor photos, hence the wider aperture appealed.

However, just as important for me was the fact that the 17-55 has a constant aperture, as a beginner its sooooo much nicer for me to be able to set my exposure correctly and then happily play around with the zoom and adjust composition taking several pictures without having to worry about changing the exposure because the the aperture changed because i changed the focal length by 5mm. I really do find this quite valuable.

In use over the last week or so I've found the fact that the 17-55 has a good focus ring to be a big advantage also. I often switch to manual focus or adjust the focus after the camera has autofocused and the fact that the 17-55 has a proper focus ring and also full time manual focus makes quite a big difference in usability. Oh and the 17-55 is also parfocal which the kit lens is not and that also helps.

Is it worth the extra money? To me it is just for the usability, you may not agree.

I can't really comment on the relative image quality of the two lenses as most of the time there's probably more user error in the images than anything else! I'm happy to try and do some comparison shots though if you think it will be useful. Just let me know what kind of environment and exposures and focal lenths you're interested in.

You may be wondering why I bothered to buy both lenses.... I decided to buy the 450D with the kit lens despite the fact that I was buying the 17-55 also as it was only £50 more with the kit lens and at that price it just seemed silly not to buy it, might be handy as a backup or if i need a small lens on the camera (the 17-55 is much larger physically).

You're right! Your comments make sense.....I appreciate your input.

Maria
--

18-55 will not do 90% of what 17-55 will do. 18-55 can compare to 17-55 only starting F8 - F11. That means that when you travel and visit outsides it's ok. But when you want anything else, it will not. It can't compete under low light situations. I bought the 18-55is, and yeah... the center is way better than the kit... but the corners aren't.
--
A happy Canon user...
http://www.redmin.net

firstly the 17-55 is only 6x the price and secondly only an idiot would believe Ken's statment

Redog said:

I know there has been a lot of discussion about these 2 lenses here.
I am currently using the 18-55 and the 70-200IS/4 but are thinking
about getting the 17/55. However after reading Ken Rockwell's review
about these 2 lenses I am reconsidering.
"The 18-55 does about 90% of what the 17-55/2.8 does for about ten
times the price"
Would you guys agree with this assessment?

Thx

Click to expand...

--
http://blog.quantum-capture.co.uk

update 12.07.08 Phottix 40D grip review

I have both on a 450D, and I agree that the kit lens will do 90% or more of the 17-55 work.

You really need low light and no flash to get any pride from the 17-55. If you intend to use the 17-55 and a small body like the 450D with the flash you'll get a nice shadow from the lens body on your pic, at least on low focal range ! add to this that the body seems to limit the aperture to F4 when using the flash (?!)

Add to this, I'm on my 2nd copy of the 17-55 and I'm still not satisfied with the 17-55 IQ. Center is already good wide open, but I have to close down to F5.6 at least to have perfect sides and F8 to have perfect corners. Needless to say the kit lens gives you the same for 1/6 price.

All in all I would say that if you're lucky enough to have a great kit sample, you will really have to think twice to upgrade to the 17-55, and take the risk of a disappointment. My opinion as usual...