Some comparisons 18-55 vs 15-45

Last year, I upgraded my original EOS M with 18-55 to an M50, which came with the 15-45 kit lens. I sold my M with the 18-55 at that time, since I liked the 15-45 for wide angle. I find my 15-45 decent at the wide end but quite soft at the long end. The news of the new Sigma 18-50 for Sony has gotten me thinking about upgrading my kit lens. There aren't many options for EOS M unless you want to adapt a heavy DSLR lens, so I started looking through my old pictures with the 18-55 and comparing them with the 15-45. To my surprise, the 18-55 was better than I remembered. Pictures seemed sharper in general, with better contrast and colors. I found a copy in "excellent" condition on MPB for $70, so I figured there was not much to lose in giving it a try.

As a parent, most of the pictures I take are of family, so I decided to do some portrait comparisons between the two lenses. Here are a couple of yours truly at 45 mm, wide open aperture, with the camera mounted on a tripod. These were converted in DxO with the same adjustments done to both.

18-55

15-45

Right off the bat, I find the 18-55 image more pleasing. The 15-45 is a bit dull in comparison. The wider aperture at this focal length for the 18-55 also helps a bit for portraits. Now take a look at some 100% crops (from SOOC JPEG with Auto profile):

The 18-55 is significantly better than the 15-45 when it comes to sharpness at 45 mm. I also tested a different subject at 45 mm, and it's the same story (also better microcontrast and color):

At the wide end, I went down to 18 mm for an equal comparison. Here are similar portrait shots (again wide open with the same adjustments done to both in DxO):

18-55

15-45

There's not as big a difference here, but I still prefer the 18-55's rendering. Here is a 100% crop:

The 15-45 is satisfactorily sharp at the wide end, maybe even a little better than the 18-55. I haven't shot the bush again at the wide end, but I still plan to do that later (or other stationary subject). I'll post that when I do. Now, I know there is a lot of copy variation with the 15-45, and some have reported either very good or very bad results with it. I think mine is probably about average. It's not terrible, but not great either. The long end is especially lacking in IQ on my copy.

I still have a little testing to do, but based on these results, it's definitely looking like I'll keep the 18-55 and sell the 15-45. In addition to the image quality, I also greatly prefer the build quality of the 18-55. It's all-metal, as far as I can tell, and just feels solid and smooth, whereas the 15-45 feels cheap. I'll miss the wider angle, but I've been wanting an ultra-wide lens for landscape photography anyway, so I will probably buy the 11-22 to cover that. If Sigma brings the new 18-50 f/2.8 to EF-M one day, it will be a drop-in replacement for the 18-55.