Canon 18-55 EF-S Mark I vs II Comparison

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/08/2005 06:22:21 AM · #1

For those that own this lens, check out this comparison on Steve's Digicams:
//www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/rebelxt_samples.html
It's very enlightening as to what better lens can do in general.
Canon said that they did not change the optics of the Mark II, but from what all the reviews are saying, it appears that they did.
As expected, as optics improve, the picture is sharper at wide open aperatures in the corners, no real difference in CA (unfortunately) or center sharpness.
It's nice that he did side by side comparisons like this. If only more lens discussions/evals were like this...
As a side note:
If I didn't buy so much Cannon stuff, I'd consider changing systems to Nikon. They seem to take better care of their customers like offering newer firmware for the D70 that they have for the D70s.
Canon should be honest and say that they have made improvements to their lens, when they obviously did and also offer a firmware upgrade to the 300D to unlock all the functionality that they turned off. I think such tactics turn off their customers, as it is me. Apparently, this marketing strategy was bad, just look at the XT and Nikon D50, certainly doesn't seem to have features turned off now. Canon should do it's customers right and offer a firmware upgrade for the DR and be honest when they upgrade their lens.

Message edited by Manic - url-ifying.

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

05/08/2005 06:33:50 AM · #2

Hi Tom, how goes it?

I think you linked the wrong URL, as the one you included compares the 350D vs. the 300D, but using the same lens (from what I understand).

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

05/08/2005 06:35:25 AM · #3

Brian,
All is well with me, hope school is out for you. Hope to have you join us for the Queen Mary shooting.
As for the link, just scroll down all the way to the bottom.

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 06:36:22.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

05/08/2005 06:37:01 AM · #4

The lens comparison is at the bottom of that set. I'm really impressed, since the MkII is really noticably sharper... Makes me wanna chuck out the old 18-55 MkI non-USM that came with my 20D :o)

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/08/2005 06:39:34 AM · #5

It's getting late - no wonder I didn't see it! School is still going - I probably won't be able to make the Queen Mary, as that's right at midterms and I should be busy 'studying' around then.

It does seem as if the CA is a little worse on the older kit lens - especially at smaller apertures.

edit: And it does appear sharper in the very first shot, although I didn't notice it in the other few shots I looked at..

Going to sleep now - so tired!

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 06:43:00.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/08/2005 06:43:50 AM · #6

Originally posted by Manic:

The lens comparison is at the bottom of that set. I'm really impressed, since the MkII is really noticably sharper... Makes me wanna chuck out the old 18-55 MkI non-USM that came with my 20D :o)

We can't even buy the Mark II kit lens either.
The only 18-55 lens that Canon offers for the US market is a USM version of the Mark I for $140. I think the the Mark II offers the best value in the 18-50'ish range. What a nice thing for Canon to do if they would sell the Mark II version with USM for $140. Only lens that would compete with this would be the Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8 that sell for $500!!!
I think Canon is really dropping the ball on this one, since their other offering in the 18ish-midrange includes only 17-40L and 17-85IS, both about $600. So you can either spend $100 for the kit or $600, Nothing in between. Geeze...

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 06:47:55.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

05/08/2005 08:26:30 AM · #7

I don't know why anyone would buy the 18-55 USM for $140, when for around $225 you can have an 18-125 that's as sharp as any lens I've tried (Sigma 18-125). It's not quiet like a USM lens, but it's not big, comes with a lens hood, and takes great shots.

Maybe I just have an incredibly good sample, but I think others have found the same. Or for $400-500, you can get the newer 18-200!)

scuds

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/08/2005 09:26:48 AM · #8

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I have this sigma lens, and also the kit lens that came with the XT. I didn't even try the 18-55 lens, cz the sigm one is so much more superior. It doesn't come out of my XT.

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

05/08/2005 10:09:18 AM · #9

There was nothing about the comparison between the old and the new that could not be accounted for by "sample to sample" variation.

If Steve were to test two other 18-55 lenses, the results could well be reversed.

Besides, if they really changed their optics they would be beating that drum to call in potential buyers.

Philos

Canon EOS-30D

05/08/2005 01:28:04 PM · #10

I don't use my 18-55 EF-S markII that much, but shot some images when my new camera arived.
The first thing I noticed was that the lens performed much better then the older one on my 300D.

Because I have nothing better in the 18-24 range I still use it sometime's and it's not realy a bad lens if you know how and when to use it.