IS lenses and non IS???

[AndyKH]

Hi guys and gals, whats the difference in the IS lenses and non IS lense canon are supplying with the 1000d at the min?

[SamHH]

Aside from the obvious, the IS version's optics were re-designed and are supposedly a lot better.

[flat-planedCrank]

AndyKH said:

Hi guys and gals, whats the difference in the IS lenses and non IS lense canon are supplying with the 1000d at the min?

Guessing you are referring to the 18-55mm lenses ?


Couple of reviews here...

Older non-IS 18-55mm - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/180-canon-ef-s-1...

Newer IS 18-55mm - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-1...



Cheers.

[RobDickinson]

Non IS = almost useless
IS = a decent lens

[stigmundfreud]

RobDickinson said:

Non IS = almost useless
IS = a decent lens

Sorry to disagree but the 18-55 is actually not a bad lens. Get confused why time and again it gets slated. Oh yeah I'll go compare it to my L glass...

[RobDickinson]

Huh You can get some decent shots with it yes but it was by far the poorest lens canon made when in production.

[LongQ]

stigmundfreud said:

RobDickinson said:

Non IS = almost useless
IS = a decent lens

Sorry to disagree but the 18-55 is actually not a bad lens. Get confused why time and again it gets slated. Oh yeah I'll go compare it to my L glass...

What stigmund said, in my experience with an 18-55.

So my assumption is that there is rather variable quality around for the older kit lens for at least some aspect of its manufacture. Could be glass and optics issues, could be mount or electronics issues or maybe just tolerance build up issues between lens and camera.

[AndyKH]

so the IS lense is the one to go for if i can find anyone with one still in stock?

[stigmundfreud]

without looking what is the price difference between the IS and the standard as I can guarantee no matter what the so called qualitiy issues are, I guarantee that either of the lenses will eventually end up in a bag never to be used again.

You might be better off considering body only then with the cost savings buying a more versitile lense that covers say 24-135. Sigma do a cracking lens that cost £99 new (bought about 3 to 4 years ago), it will give you much more practical range. In fact, I am going to guess the price difference between non-IS and IS is more than 100, if so I'd get the 18-55 (to get wider angle shots) and I'd get the 24-135. Ignore the nonsense about the non-IS being st

[SamHH]

RobDickinson said:

Non IS = almost useless
IS = a decent lens

I strongly disagree. IMO the optical quality of the lens being used is one of the least important elements in making a good photo, and anyway the optical quality of that lens is pretty good.