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