Is Canon 18-55 IS worth 6K?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr. Studd

Forerunner
Hey Guys,

I have 18-55 non-IS version right now, for which i am getting 2K.

So is paying 4K worth it for the 18-55 IS Lens?

Thanks!
 
dpreview:

So whilst this lens is indeed very good, if not exceptional for the price, and certainly very much better than its unstabilized predecessor, surprisingly enough it still can't quite match the more expensive lenses in the range.
 
imho, you really dont need IS for something as small as the 18-55..If you have stedy hands the non is will be more than enough (18-55) :P
 
I've used both the lenses and the 18-55 IS has not only the Image Stabilizer added but is also optically superior and is more than worth the 4k.

The IS is not for gimmicks and definitely works. When I tested this lens with Chaos, we were able to manage 1/10 sec handheld shots at f4.5 during the night.
 
The 18-55IS is in a different league compared to the elcheapo 18-55. The former is an extremely sharp lens while the latter is a blurry mess. The IS version is hard to beat even for twice the price and at 6k its a steal. Stay away from the normal one. Its pure rubbish.
 
@Anish and @Chaos: Thanks guys for clearing up my confusion.

Just tested 18-55 IS yesterday and the optical quality is way better than

the non-IS version.

@apsk121 : I already have 18-55 and 50/1.8 lens. I am happy with the 50mm

but for general usage 18-55 non-IS sucks.

Also the feel of zoom ring in the IS version is nice :)

So going for 18-55 IS this weekend hopefully.
 
dhirukholia said:
Also could someone suggest me a bugdet 300mm zoom lens?

Is canon 75-300mm USM III any good (I am afraid NOT)?
Click to expand...
before you go for a super tele zoom, do rethink what all will you be doing...

super teles are for birding and wildlife, and if that is what you are gonna do, then buy one.
also, do take into consideration the fact that an 75-300 will be equivalent to a 120-480 on the 1.6x crop cameras (unless you're a 5D(1:1), 1D (1.3x) or 1Ds(1:1) person), so even a 200 mm lens would be good as a zoom ~ 320

and 200's are available with better apertures, and if you wanna spend some, get the 70-200/f2.8 L. is expensive, but is supposed to be GOOD

do take a look here for good reviews of all sorts of canon gear.

Canon Digital SLR Camera and Lens Reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com
 
dhirukholia said:
Also could someone suggest me a bugdet 300mm zoom lens?

Is canon 75-300mm USM III any good (I am afraid NOT)?
Click to expand...

Thats a piece of crap. Spend around 13k INR and get the brand new 55-250 IS. Its an EF-S but who cares. Its a way way way better lens. Infact according to the MTF charts, its sharper than a 70-300 which sells for close to 27k.

@McCrazy: Dude think a little before you suggest something. He's looking at a cheap lens and you recommend him a lens that costs 2000$. Most amateurs like us neither need that quality nor can we afford it.
 
@Chaos: right on target!!!

@Psycho_McCrazy: You seem to be RICH :P

70-200 f/4L IS USM is for 47K (have to sell both my kidneys for that!)

55-250 IS -> Tested this lens yesterday, good sharpness and I am happy
with f/5.6 aperture. Hell at 11K I really can't complain. Can I?
(Planning this as soon as I get my salary!)

75-300 -> is crap! agreed.

Thanks guys.

BTW is Manfrotto 703B a good tripod for 4-4.5K ?

Regards,
Dhiru
 
The 728B is significantly better for a bit more. Spend the extra bit. With regard to the 55-250 tele, well you won't be shooting wide open anyway most of the time so the f/5.6 hardly makes a difference.

Mr McCrazy was talking about the 70-200 f/2.8L IS I assume. Thats way more than 46k ;).
 
ohh... yeah he mentioned 70-200 f/2.8L IS -> heh ... only in my dreams ;)

Planning to buy 55-250 IS and Manfrotto 728B by month's end hopefully.
 
^ And who says so? Try shooting a 1/5 sec handheld with a 16-35 f2.8 (Arguably the EF best wide-angle) and a 17-55 f2.8 IS and tell me which is sharper :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom