A nice video. No one ever talks about the kit lens, even though it is likely everybody's first lens, thus making it one of the most important lenses in photography. Canon does such a good job making inexpensive but effective lenses, and their kit lens gets the job done. I didn't realize that the new one was slightly slower on aperture, but realistically it won't matter. Neither lens is good in bad light, unless shooting fairly still subjects thanks to IS (I think both have 4 stops of compensation), so really I think it is splitting hairs on that. I would say that the new STM focus is the real big deal, given that it replaces the older lenses clunky and noisey focusing mechanism, making it quiet and smooth for video as well as stills (I think it even focuses faster than the older model too). That is a big improvement, one that I think outweighs the loss of about 1/3 of a stop on the aperture for two lenses that are not fast lenses anyway. One caveat on the STM though, it is focus by wire manual focus, and some don't like that. For a kit lens, it really shouldn't matter to most people, just putting that out there. Also, to anyone looking to trade up to the STM lens, don't buy this lens just for this lens. If you have the older kit lens it likely came with a camera that can't fully utilize the STM motor anyway. For stills it works on any camera, but for video you have to have specific Canon cameras to gain the advantage of silent focusing. Base models like the T6 do not have this feature, and this lens will still be noisey anyway. Older models like the T3i predate the silent focus for video (and AF in video too). If a new camera is in your future, it likely will come with this lens as long as it is not the base model (I currently recommend the SL2 as an inexpensive but still good camera). For what it cost new, you would be better to put that money into a new camera or a better lens (look into the Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 models, or the Canon 17-55mm F2.8, or even the Canon 24mm F2.8 STM). Also, these kit lenses are available second hand all over the place for 50 to 100 bucks, if you are ok with that. So many of them just go unused, so it's a pretty safe bet. Mine just sits on a shelf, came with an 80D I bought, but I just have no need for it.
Thanks for the side-by-side comparison. The problem I have with the newer lens is the failure to focus as close as the earlier one. I do a lot of product photography for online sales, and I typically use an 18-55mm lens and a 100mm macro. I bumbled upon a Canon 77D at a pawn shop for a good price, and it had the newer lens with it. I found that with the older version, I don't need to switch to the macro as often, and that is huge. Therefore the newer lens is set aside and I mounted the older version on my 77D, along with another on an old SL1 on a copy stand. If the newer lens were able to focus closer, I'd be more likely to use it. For walking around taking nature photos, though, it might not matter as much, because I'd be more willing to switch to the macro lens. For my work/product photography, though, it's just so much nicer if I don't need to switch.
Chris, I value your reviews more than anyone else. You do such a fantastic job and answer every question I ever have. Please keep up your channel and never stop. Thanks again!
Believe it or not but I have made a lot of improvements in my photography decisions just by watching your videos. And I love the fact that you don't take any one's side.
At 18mm the new lens has much more chromatic aberrations than the old lens with lots of color fringing that was not mentioned 5:50 Great Review with lots of great tests and detail - excellent! Thank you :)
Thank you for the review. I will mention I am surprised you left out one feature of the new lens that I find very useful. On the older model the lens rotates making a lens hood useless or worse, whereas the new version does not rotate, allowing the lens shade to perform it's function.
I'd choose the newer kit lens in every comparison shot but I have the older one, which isn't a good thing. 50mm 1.8 was a better choice for my merger needs. I'm adding a 24mm 2.8. I don't think my kit lens will see the light of day however having IS is desirable.
Thanks Christ, I was trying to make a decision by reading reviews at B&H and looking "customer photos" and I was going crazy. Now I Know what to do. Thanks a lot, and keep going!
Thank You so much for the video. I sold my 700D-kit some time ago and went for a 70D but I always missed that 18-55mm kit lens for it's insanely quick and silent AF. Now I already had my former lens in the cart but then stumbled upon your video. The new zoom-ring setup is a life-saver for me. For some reason that fully retracted 26mm position drove me nuts, back then hehe.
I honestly don't know why canon made this lens. I mean, it nice to have a smaller, compact lens for traveling. (I can see this lens pair with the Canon 100D or the Rebel 1xxxD series) but i can't see anyone using this for anything else. What canon needs to do is start rebooting some of their legacy lens like the Canon EF-S 15-85mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS USM, and/or Canon 10-22mm F4.5-5.6 USM. I use to be a Canon user, but i recently switch to Sony's A7ii + Sony a6300. They are both excellent cameras for Video + Photography, but I do missed using my Canon; you really can't beat Canon amazing colors and their excellent lenses.
I own and use an awesome but bulky Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 ...and I was looking for a compact lens when traveling lighter. The Canon 10-55mm f4-5.6 fits the goal but has a major problem... intensely obvious field curvature at shorter focal lengths. Unlike Canon's venerable 10-18mm EF-S kit lens, there is no extra depth to hide this effect (I can't simply focus longer to cover distant corners). At f/8 and 24mm, for instance, I need to focus at least 25 feet away to hold infinity corner sharpness, and by then, reasonably nearby foreground subjects are fuzzy. At ~32-55mm, the curvature is okay, but by then, there is no hope for holding both near and far focus, and the lens is probably best used as a short telephoto and close-up wide-angle. The final nail for me... image quality is workable, but lifeless compared to the Sigma lens.
@35mm the older lens (on the left) had a little bit more contrast in the center. All the other judgements were dead on though! I really enjoyed you putting the 2 side by side like this! You should do the same thing with crop sensor & full frame!!
I love your videos and the fact that you're using your Canon M3 from time to time. I bought this camera as my first "decent" one and can't decide wether to keep it or go for a 750D. The form factor and everything is nice, but it sucks that i need an adapter for EF-S lenses and the "missing" viewfinder bothers me. How come you use it even though you have way nicer cameras? Anyways, thanks for all the videos, they're great! Especially the intro is so nice and calm :D
I have the older lens. I don't think the newer one has enough of a change optically to bother changing.I prefer the slightly larger feeling lens. Good comparison.👍
Christopher, I really appreciate your reviews. They are an amazing resource. How would you say the EF-S 18-55 compares against the EF-M 15-45 in general quality terms?
I use both canon and sony, i love canon for photography and find sony great for videos. i had a sony 16mm, drop it once and it stopped work, im not using Canon FD lenses, i found these old glasses way but then sony lenses. I want to get a sony kit 16mm-50mm. after seeing this video i think ill just stick my old vintage glass
If I already have the new kit lens, would it make sense to get the Canon 17-55 2.8? In your review of that lens you said it was better than the kit lens, but of course you meant the older kit lenses, not the new 4-5.6.
I'll be happier with my Sigma 17x50, f/2.8. Even though an older lens the Sigma does costs a little more but it's still worth it. Thanks for pointing out that lens to me.
Chris, you didn't mention it, but I noticed a difference in "true" focal length when doing the side by side comparisons. It looked as if the new version is slightly shorter (in comparison) at the same focal lengths.
Drake Leroy 👌I have the 50 f1.8, the 24 f2.8 & the old 18-55 f3.5-5.6 STM. Honestly, I forced myself to take a few pictures with the kit lens today - just because I never use it. I love the 24 & the 50, and the kit lens rarely comes out of my bag...
Chris, I have a question.. Which another channels that you know, talk about lenses and reviews as you do? But oriented on Nikon. I love your videos and your accent, grettings from México.
I'd love to see a comparison between the 24mm pancake, the kit lens, and the 18-135mm lens, all shot at 24mm with the same settings. I'm most interested in how they compare in terms of sharpness, chromatic aberrations, and distortions. The 24mm pancake may be better in low light with the wider aperture, but is it also better than the kit lens in daylight/landscape conditions when I might be stopped down to f/8 or f/11? I know it can do things the others can't due to the wider aperture, but I'm really interested to know if it can do the same things they can do even better. Could do the same experiment in various lighting/conditions and see how they turn out when shooting the same subject at the same settings.
Christopher Frost Photography haha, yes, don't we all! Without a full video review, what's your opinion on it? Is one of them better than the others in terms of sharpness/clarity/color/etc.? I'm debating whether or not to buy the 24mm pancake. I don't really need it for low light or nicer bokeh since I tend to shoot outside, w/ aperture stopped down, during the day. I would get it though if it made better images than the kit lens under those conditions. I do wish it had image stabilization.
Hello Christopher, i'd need your wise hint, please! 😂 Basing on your opinion, should I prefer the 18-55 3,5-5,6 IS STM or the 4-5,6 IS STM? I bought an eon 850D with 4-5,6, but they sent me the older 3,5-5,6 so I'm considering the replacement. Every suggestion would be super-appreciated. Thank you!
Hey, what would u advise for a video shooting (food channel on RU-vid)? I'm now using this kit 18-55mm one, not bad at all, but it really lacks a good zoom and bokeh...🙄 which is needed often to make some juicy videos of a ready meal... some advised to get a 2.8f at least, i.e. thinking more of a diaphragm, but I was thinking more of a focus length maybe, and get 18-135 for instance? I'd really appreciate your advise🙏Thank you!
Chris, if you see this comment on your old video. Having looked at more than a few of your videos, the contrast on your test chart seems low for these lenses in relation to other tests you have done since. Having checked the Flickr images the colours and contrast also seem muted and muddy. I wasn’t sure if this was due to different exposure in the different tests or due to the quality of the lenses? Could I have your opinion?
I don't know if it is just me but I bought a canon rebel sl3 that came with this lens and it doesn't auto focus I've tried the old one and it focuses fine on the camera, but when i put on the new one it doesn't auto focus at all
Hi Chris or anyone who can answer. Are the pictures from your tests- for sharpening barrel distortion etc- jpgs, raws, and do you do any processing? Cheers
I have recently found out that the 18-55 is actually not too bad. I just have the old one. I wondering if it's worth the money to get it in stm (I have the 50mm as an stm and the focus is considerably better than that of the old 18-55)
Christopher, I have the older 18-55 kit lens. I'm looking at the newest Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. In your opinion should I keep the Canon kit lens and put my money toward a different lens. On a budget so my options are limited. More than focal length, my goal is the sharpest image on a budget. Can you suggest an option or two?
DapperDan I was wondering this at first but yes if you get the STM version of the 3.5 -5.6 lens the auto focus is silent due to the STM focusing capabilities 👍
As for me - 18-55mm 3,5-5,6 STM lens are THE BEST for video. 95% of my video I recordet (prodused) by this lens... ONLY one bed idea - plastic bayonet. Waitihg for new version with metalic bayonet.
I don't think you are going to see a version of the kit lens with a metal mount ever again. They use the plastic mount to save money, and since 99% of these lenses will be bundled with a new camera for an additional 50 dollars they are going to go cheap on them everytime. But given that it is made from a nearly unbreakable polymer, I wouldn't sweat it. If you want a lens that has a metal mount, the same general zoom range, but also has a constant aperture of F2.8 then you should look at the Tamron and Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 lenses.
I have a Canon EOS rebel T100 18-55/3.5-5.6 lens. Will a Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6,telephoto lens fit my camera? Please help. I just want a stronger lens and need to know if it will fit.
Is the hidden feature or the constant apature at 5.6 and lower on the 4-5.6 STM or on 3.5 -5.6? Because I have the 4-5.6 Version (but not on a Canon camera; I use it on a BMPCC6K) and it is not working like you say? Is it maybe my camera, wich do not support this feature? Best regards and all respect from cologne....
Thanks for this! Just wondering what would you recommend as an upgrade to this, I am looking for something with: Similar zoom range a lower f stop Not noisy AF (I do home videos so lots of zooming in faces) Thanks!
i just got a 1300d last week and i thought it would come with this 18-55mm lens but i noticed this one has image stabilizer yet my kit's lens does not. i wonder why
Short version, the Canon wipes the floor with the Sigma. The Sigma is less sharp overall, has a lot more aberrations, and has poor AF performance. The Canon is one of the best 70-200mm lenses on the market, and imo is the best. But it is also very expensive, I don't suggest it to just anyone. If you want a solid performing F2.8 lens I would look at the Tamron G2 model. Lot of good feedback on that one. Sigma is just not good for zooms. Their primes are hard to beat.
Hi have just bought a M50 body only should I buy this lens or the EF-M 15-45 I have the adaptor already. Would this lens be sharper than the small Ef-m lens
No need. They're essentially exactly the same lens except the USM version's autofocus is a little sharper (and I think it's compatible with the Power Zoom module if you want that)
So would you suggest this lens over the previous one based on the f/stop ratio...? As a major factor for buying it... I ask becuase I always thought that a 3.5-5.6 aperture rating was superior to that of the ones which come with this new updated lens in your review. I am asking myself why Canon would do that and not produce a kit lens like Sigma and Tamron which is good enough for most people, professionals included. I mean, come on, surely Canon can, if anyone can...excuse the pun.
Sorry, I think you did not answer all my doubts regarding this lens and why Canon behave in the way they do, nowadays. I still don't get it. Apart from the size, design and weight, I cannot see any other reason to purchase this...as an upgrade, I mean Maybe I am wrong! Thanks for your response and dedication.
rich, I could be wrong, but I don't think it was intended by Canon as an upgrade. I think it just replaces the old model on new cameras. The small size may also lure someone like me who purchased the 18-135 kit lens with my T6i purchase.
