EFS 18-55mm IS (not II version) vs newest STM version

[catcher]

<p>All, <br>

Has anyone done any direct comparisons between the kit 18-55mm IS (not the II version) vs newest STM version?</p>

<p>I have other (bigger, heavier) lenses for serious work on a (bigger, heavier) 6D, but I've always appreciated the small size and light weight of the kit lens on a small DSLR (T2i) for family outings or other occasions when smaller matters to me. However, I've never been at all happy with the kit lens, especially at the long end. I realize it's not L, so I don't expect miracles, but on my copy even stopped down the long end is simply atrocious, especially with resolution. Soft, muddled, low contrast. Maybe that's normal? Or maybe mine's a bad copy?</p>

<p>In any case, I read online that people speak relatively highly of Canon's kit lenses, at least compared to other kit lenses, and in particular the new STM is getting pretty good press. </p>

<p>My question is whether or not it's worth picking up. I've got limited funds so it's not easy for me to spend on camera equipment, even relatively inexpensive items. </p>

<p>I'm most interested in resolution. Has anyone directly compared the original IS version (again, not the II version) with the STM? Or can anyone point me to something online?</p>

<p>By the way, I looked at Canon's MTF charts and they do show an improvement for the STM veresion over original IS. But, I'm not always sure what that translates into in real life shooting. </p>

<p>Thanks. </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Those lenses cost very little when sold with a camera, a lot more bought by themselves.<br>

The STM has a non revolving front focusing part, which doesn't wobble, good with polariser.<br>

The only checking I have done convinces me that each is 'better' than the non IS, non STM, which I assume is what you have.<br>

I have not checked the IS & STM against one another. I wouldn't think there was much between them, and I don't have res. figures.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Read this:<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I replaced the 18-55 II with the STM on my daughter's camera, and there was a demonstrable increase in resolution. If critical sharpness is your goal, I'd pass on any of Canon's kit lenses (including the 24-105 L); otherwise, the STM is a worthy upgrade of the earlier 18-55's.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Frankly, I think your copy of the 18-55 IS is probably faulty. If the image at the long end is <em>"</em><em> atrocious, especially with resolution. Soft, muddled, low contrast."</em> then it is likely you need a new lens.<br>

<br>

While the 18-55/STM is reputedly a smidge sharper at the long end, it is a smidge softer at the wide end. Unless you plan on taking advantage of the STMs capabilities, it is likely not worth spending much more on the 18-55 STM vs. the 18-55 IS. Given the performance of your copy, however, you'll most certainly want to replace it with <em>something</em>... For the ~$100 a fully functional 18-55/IS will cost you, it is certainly worth it.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I briefly owned the 18-55 IS and it was truly horrid: entire left side was soft! So I returned it. It was known in its day to be decently sharp but suffered from QC issues. Also, some lenses drift out of alignment with the wear and tear of mechanical parts or a good whack or two. My 70-200 4L became decentered after I jogged a couple blocks to catch a shot. Canon aligned it for free and it was tack sharp again.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I too have both a 6D with big L lenses and a T2i for my small kit. I use the 17-55mm 2.8 EF-S lens which is fairly large and heavy but spectacular in sharpness, color fidelity and 2.8 throughout the range. I also use the T2i with the 10-22mm and the 55-250mm II lenses for a very small but powerful travel kit. If it was me I would stretch the budget and get the very fine Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC lens. It is decent size and weight for a 2.8 zoom, very sharp, has good color, and is reasonably priced. It makes a perfect small, versatile package with the T2i. The kit lenses are frustrating because they are quickly to the 5.6 max aperture. Good luck! </p>

[catcher]

<p>All, <br>

Thanks for the feedback so far. Wayne, thanks for the link. Comparing the two lenses there shows an improvement in resolution, though again that's not clear to me how that translates to real world. Still, it's helpful to see. <br>

Also, to clarify I do mean the 18-55 IS (not the non-IS original), but as I understand it there are now three versions of the IS 18-55. The one I have is the first of those three. <br>

As I mentioned, I have wondered whether or not the one I have is defective in some way, but never pursued the matter. It's an inexpensive lens to begin with, so I never pursued it. Now that the STM is available (and apparently some improvement over any of the other versions with respect to resolution), it seemed like it might be the way to go. <br>

This is outside the scope of my original question, but I've seriously considered getting the SL1 kit. The SL1 is not significantly smaller or lighter than my T21, but it was still noticeably smaller and lighter when I handled one. <br>

Any other advice or comparisons would be much appreciated. </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>SL1 kit is good value; up to you to make the deal work for you when you already have an 18mp body. One lens or two lens kit ?</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I would definitely not upgrade a kit lens with another kit lens or only marginally better lens. I would hands down do as I did and go Tamron. Either the 18-50 2.8 VC or Tamron 18-270 VC Macro. The 18-50 F2.8 VC is a marvelous lens for the money. It is small light full time F2.8 with a great image stabilizer. Has a 5 year warranty and is dirt cheap. I had greate success with the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and this lens did not even have VC. I compare these with mainstream Canon non l-series lenses. Some of the Tamron like the 24-70 F2.8 VC are actually close in quality to frist general Canon L-series lenes. I.E. to me the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is better than the Canon 24-70 F2.8 version I and the Canon 24-105 F4 IS.<br>

Or get a Canon primes like the 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 (which I also have all of). </p>