EF-S 18-55 IS2 vs IS STM

[geronimo789]

Hello,

I'm looking for a little input from those who have used one or both of these lenses. Since I can get the IS2 fairly cheap atm (89 eur bulk) I was wondering if I should go for it.

Now, before listing all the downsides, I know i'm getting a slower, softer lens than my tamron 17-50 2.8, and it's never, ever going to replace it for stills.

That said, I'm looking at it for two things:

- the low price makes it a "don't care lens" that I would hand to a drunk friend without too much worry
- I'm interested in the IS for the purpose of filming.

That said I'm left with some questions/doubts:

- how does the IS fare for movie shooting ? Is it a good IS implementation ? I can't find this anywhere on the net it seems.

- will the half stop (2.8-3.5) make a big difference for low light filming ? I don't think it will but never hurts to check ...

Finally, would the IS STM be worth the premium ? (150 eur instead of 90)
As far as I see the differences are:
- build quality (meaning it's just 'less crappy' I imagine)
- STM + focus ring: this one might be an advantage for filming, but not 100% sure if it will be so on my T2i
- improvements in IQ/distortion: don't care

 

[Lemming51]

geronimo789 wrote:

...

That said I'm left with some questions/doubts:

...

- will the half stop (2.8-3.5) make a big difference for low light filming ? I don't think it will but never hurts to check ...

f/3.5 is 2/3 stop smaller than f/2.8. And that's only at its widest. Zoom to longer focal lenghts it goes to f/4 - f/5.6 (1 - 2 stops smaller than f/2.8).

Finally, would the IS STM be worth the premium ? (150 eur instead of 90)
As far as I see the differences are:
- build quality (meaning it's just 'less crappy' I imagine)
- STM + focus ring: this one might be an advantage for filming, but not 100% sure if it will be so on my T2i

focus ring is a plus. a greater plus is the non-rotating barrel and deeper petal shaped hood.


IMHO, YMMV

 

[asad137]

geronimo789 wrote:

Now, before listing all the downsides, I know i'm getting a slower, softer lens than my tamron 17-50 2.8, and it's never, ever going to replace it for stills.

Do you know that? The tests at photozone.de indicate that the new 18-55 IS STM is a VERY sharp lens indeed, rivaling (if not besting) the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS at equivalent apertures. The 18-55 IS-II, not so much.

 

[geronimo789]

asad137 wrote:

geronimo789 wrote:

Now, before listing all the downsides, I know i'm getting a slower, softer lens than my tamron 17-50 2.8, and it's never, ever going to replace it for stills.

Do you know that? The tests at photozone.de indicate that the new 18-55 IS STM is a VERY sharp lens indeed, rivaling (if not besting) the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS at equivalent apertures. The 18-55 IS-II, not so much.

Looks like I stand corrected. I'm starting to be tempted to get the STM anyways, check it, and if good sell the Tamron (unless I feel like I'd miss 2.8 too much that is).

Or maybe the Canon 17-55 2.8 is the better option. IS, yummy USM and 2.8. No, i'm getting of track here, I'm about to spend too much money