EF 22-55 f/4-5.6 USM as a (cheap) replacement for Rebel kit lens - how do they compare?

Why is a 18-55 going to be more expensive? If you look at the prices they go for on ebay I can't think of a cheaper lens than that.

I can't comment on the image quality of the two but there is quite a difference between 18mm and 22mm at the wide end.

Just buy another 18-55. When you get some more money look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Thanks Daniel, but things aren't that easy. I'm in Brazil, not the U.S., so if I buy a 18-55 off eBay it'll end up costing more than anything I can get locally because of all the import taxes (over 100%). And 18-55s aren't easy to come by over here, not without buying a new camera anyway.

I'm aware of the FOV difference. In case I get the 22-55 I'd budget for an EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM in the next few months.

Please keep ending your opinions! Thanks!

keep SSSSSending. Bad keyboard, sorry!

Sorry Diogo, I didn't realize your problem. Those taxes are a killer.

If you are on a budget the 22-55 could be a reasonable alternative to the 18-55. I must say I don't have experience with either of them, but people say that the 18-55 is quite good for its class.

If I were in your place I'd give up on the 10-22 as it is quite expensive (possibly even more so in Brazil?) and look at some alternative (Sigma 10-20) to free up some cash for a better mid-range zoom. But that depends a lot on your shooting priorities (and also local prices).

Could you test the 22-55 in the shop before purchasing? If you could take some pictures at various apertures you could compare with the 18-55 (see www.pixelpeeper.com for samples) and decide from there... In the end having a lens is better lens than no lens at all, so if those are your choices then just get something that works.

Extended discussion of this lens here:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004MhU

including Bob Atkins' opinion that "Its not a bad lens". You might search the archives here for more hits.

Thanks for the link, in fact I was aware of that thread but it doesn't quite answer my specific questions regarding the 22-55's performance when compared to an 18-55 and whether I'd be losing out on image quality by moving to the EF 22-55 f/4-5.6 USM from the kit lens.

The 22-55 was popular as a cheap wide zoom for FF film in 7 or 8 years ago. Lots of people used it on the Elan 7/EOS 30 and were happy with it. I considered one but decided to go with the 17-40 L instead.

Sorry. A direct comparison would indeed be ideal, but in its absence vicarious inference might be the best you can get :-)

Given the similar function of both lenses for APS-C sized formats and Bob Atkins' comment, I would guess they are of comparable quality. If the 22-55 is significantly cheaper than a replacement 18-55, and if you get some kind of warranty on the former, then its probably a good deal.

Look at it another way: What alternative do you have?

The half-stop difference in speed doesn't matter, but as noted the difference in range on the low end might matter to some shooters -- but apparently not to you.

If you want a lens right away and don't want to spend much, the 22-55 seems OK. If you can wait until you can afford it, the aforementioned Tamron 17-50 has a good reputation. It might be worth the wait. But if you can budget for the 10-22 in a few months, then it would seem to me you could budget for the Tamron in just a month or less. Heck, you could just as easily budget for the 17-85 IS, which I use and like despite the sniffy attitude of some lens purists hereabouts :-)

I'd say that the 22-55 compares to the 18-55 in almost every way. Plastic body, plastic mount, front focusing ring, 58mm filter... The 22-55 however, has a fixed rear element and works on FF without modification.

I wouldn't pay more than $45 for one that is NOS...more than that and I'd just get another 18-55 used for $50-60.

hth

Have you tried cleaning the contacts of your 18-55? This is the most common cause of err99. Contray to what some people claim, there is no real evidence that cheap plastic lenses do not last as long as other lenses. Of course they won't take abuse as well. The more expensive and complicated a lens is there more than can go wrong.

I sold my 22-55 with my 10D and I regret it. It was much better than the kit lens. Tiny and nice to have as a walk around lens. I would buy one again in a minute. I would never buy the kit lens again. I really disliked mine(kit). maybe I had a bad copy?

If you can afford to budget for a 10~22 in the next few months, then you must have some financial flexibility to allow you to consider alternatives to the 22~55. The 10~22 is a high-quality lens, and is an excellent choice if you want a really wide-angle lens on a 1.6-factor body. But it would be a very ill-balanced combination with the 22~55, and it is certainly not a good buy if your main reason for considering it is simply to fill the gap between 18mm and 22mm. The lens that seems most obviously suited to what you want is the 17~85IS - optically and mechanically a clear step up from either the 18~55 or 22~55. Not in the same league as the 17~40 or EF-S 17~55/2.8, but then neither is the price (and it is substantially cheaper than the 10~22 as well). And it is a very versatile lens. If you can keep your 18~55 going for a bit longer until the 17~85 is within budget, then I think you should consider it seriously.