Advice wanted on replacement of canon Kit-lens

[Snap_Happy]

Replacement of Canon 350D kit lens
I'm after splashing some cash. I have got an EOS 350D, but I'm still using the kit lens [18-55, f3.5-5.6, No IS] although I did pick up a (VERY) cheap zoom lens [Sigma 70-300mm, f4-f5.6] with it, and I have to admit that in terms of range coverage, I'm pretty pleased.

The dilemma I have now, is that, having played with my bro's lens [Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM] on my camera body, and seen the incredible difference it makes to image quality, I wanna upgrade [although sadly I have less money!]

I use my 18-55mm lens a lot more than my zoom, and whilst the zoom is probably the more disappointing of the two lenses in terms of quality, the sheer amount of use my main lens gets means that I think that has to be first to go, although I'm willing to listen to arguments.

I mainly use my camera as a walkabout camera, and enjoy taking photos of everything from landscapes, to details [especially indoors, i.e. low-light], to [usually distant!] animals.

Budget: I'd like to spend ~£200, but can probably stretch up to the ~£300 mark if the results justify the expense [which, I realise, is more often than not the case!].

I'm also after a feel on IS/OS vs non-IS. I obviously realise that an f2.8 lens diminishes the need for IS vs an f4 lens, but I would appreciate opinions on which is more likely to give the sharper picture, especially at the lower end of the light-range?

Basically, the lenses that I'm currently considering are:
* Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5
* Sigma 24-70 f2.8 [I've also seen a 28-70 f2.8 - anyone know the difference, or is this the same lens, but in error?]
* Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM
* Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM [a little more than I really want to spend, but the extra zoom would be quite useful - saves swapping lenses!]

Bit of a long one, but hopefully that covers most things!

Thoughts please people, and thanks in advance!

PS, if I do find a nice lens ~£200, I might also add the "nifty-fifty" in to my bag, with the "spare" cash, thereby doing away with a bit of the low-light issue!

 

[dazzajl]

Out of that choice, one of the Sigma f2.8's is probably going to be the best quality in terms of giving you that sharpness and colour you're looking for.

I don't remember which is the better, the 24 or 28 but there are lots of folks with them on here who no doubt will tell you what's what.

It's also great to have a constant f2.8 on your camera as it gives you that brighter viewfinder than the slower lenses.

 

[Snap_Happy]

Thanks for that Dazza, but do you [or anyone else] know which will handle better under low-light, i.e. an image-stabilised f3.5, or a non-image-stabilised f2.8?

 

[barbs]

I'm looking for a next upgrade and need a good general walkabout lens. After reading around for a Siggy 17-70 I read the OPs requirements and they match mine as well (camera, lens and lack of budget).

So would love to hear some more views from the more experienced out there.

I also have a 400d, sigma 70-300 APO and nifty fifty. I really need something to replace the 18-55 kit lens and the 17-70 seems spot on (unless Santa comes early and I get a 24-105L ).

Any thoughts (for the OP aswell)?

Thanks.

 

[pearce_jj]

Pushing your budget somewhat but Kerso has the 70-200mm F4L (non-IS) for £350 at the mo IQ should be just as good as the 2.8 you tried.

 

[Gofer]

Kerso also has the 28-135mm IS for £265 + £10 P&P

 

[barbs]

Kerso also has the 28-135mm IS for £265 + £10 P&P

I was actually very keen on the 28-135, but a recent review by Photoplus slated it. Out of the 10 or so IS lens they tested this came 2nd last with the 55-250 IS coming out tops.......

....based on that the 55-250 should fit the bill, but only thing is the 55 is not really wide enough.

So how good or bad is the 28-135?

 

[RobertP]

Adding to your confusion....

The kit lens is a lot better than most people give it credit for so don't be surprised if you don't see a big difference after your upgrade.

image stabiliser....Do you get many blurred pictures now from you having moved the camera? Things/people moving and being blurred from slow shutter speeds will still blur with an image stabiliser lens.

Getting more light in to allow better shutter speeds is a valid reason to upgrade so a lens with f2.8 makes sense. There is a big difference between 18mm and 28mm so you may still be using your kit lens if you buy something 28-whatever mm. Indoor low light without flash can be done at f2.8 but is easier with bigger aperture like the f1.8 of the 50mm - but that is a bit long for indoors on a crop sensor.

 

[barbs]

Good points Robert.

I guess half of my reason for upgrading was purely upgraditis, and the other half is that I want a lens with good range. I love the nifty fifty, but would prefer not to have to change the lens all the time when looking for something a bit wider. Although the kit lens gives me some of the range I often need I then switch back to the nifty.....now that I think about it this would seem to re-enforce your statement of a constant f2.8 as the next upgrade....

...if only I could get one of those for £200-300!

(to the OP - apologies if this is hijacking your thread, but as our requirements seem similar I hope this is helping us both).

 

[Snap_Happy]

I guess half of my reason for upgrading was purely upgraditis

Can't deny that one

(to the OP - apologies if this is hijacking your thread, but as our requirements seem similar I hope this is helping us both).

No problem - our requirements do indeed sound similar - the more the merrier

In answer to RobertP, I think the answer is that I do get some blur [especially pixel-peeping! ] that is partly due to being limited aperture-wise and partly [I must concede] from the fact that I am lazy and do the majority of my photography in "P" mode [linked aperture-shutter adjustment], apart from when I'm after a specific effect [as opposed to forcing the shutter speed, and having to get the image exposure back in post-processing]!

Reading up a little, the implication from the manufacturers [and I don't know if this is backed up by the users!] is that the image stabilisation is worth 3-4 stops, which, if I understand it correctly, is equivalent [in shutter-speed requirements] to an f4-f5.6 being an f1.4-f2 equivalent lens?? :shrug:

That said, I can't seem to find a "good" IS lens, and almost every lens I look at [in my price range] gets a serious amount of criticism.

All in all, thanks for the help guys and gals, I hope that you find what you're after Barbs, but I think my mind is now set on the 17-70 - It's got very good reviews all round, it suits my budget [i.e. I can still squeeze that nifty-fifty in! ] and whilst it's only f2.8 at the wide-end, that's when I'll want the extra speed for low-light, so all in all, should do the job nicely!

 

[CaptainPenguin]

It interests me that you and many other posters are comparing totally different lenses,your 18-55 is a wide angle to short telephoto equivalent to the old 28-80 in full frame terms,thje 28 to whatever lenses are more standard lens (28mm = 45mm in full frame terms) to full telephoto.
If you have used the 18mm end of your kit lens a lot then you need to look at lenses like the Sigma 17-70,if however wideangle is not really your bag then a 28 to something lens will do you fine .
A final thought as RobertP said when used sensibly and stopped down to f8 or less those kit lenses can give very good results so don't write it off to quickly

 

[Snap_Happy]

It interests me that you and many other posters are comparing totally different lenses,your 18-55 is a wide angle to short telephoto equivalent to the old 28-80 in full frame terms,thje 28 to whatever lenses are more standard lens (28mm = 45mm in full frame terms) to full telephoto.

I like to be decisive

If you have used the 18mm end of your kit lens a lot then you need to look at lenses like the Sigma 17-70,if however wideangle is not really your bag then a 28 to something lens will do you fine .
A final thought as RobertP said when used sensibly and stopped down to f8 or less those kit lenses can give very good results so don't write it off to quickly

Aye - I think the main advantage of asking this question is that it really makes me stop and think what I want, and why I want it, before I go out and spend all my hard-earned cash on it!

In reply to both points, yes I do use the wide-angle a lot, but what I don't, in fairness, use a lot is the higher-end of this lens, as I rarely find it gives me enough zoom. This said, when I swap to my 70-300, I then find I have too much zoom, so there are two bits here - one is a wish to blur the line between my telephoto lens and my walkabout lens, and the other is to improve the quality of my low-light shots.

Bearing in mind all that has been said before, I think that, realistically, that just gives me the 17-70 as my ideal lens - I think that I would miss the wide-angle capability if I went for the 24-70.

All good points - keep 'em coming! [I'll not place an order today probably!]

 

[mbscad]

Hi, just my two penneth,
low light photography is very difficult with consumer grade lenses (especially zooms).
I have the 28-135IS and despite what is reported to have been said in Photoplus I think it is an excellent walk-about lens. I have used it for low light work in a hospital and just about managed without flash.
I have upgraded to 24-105 now so sadly, I don't use my 28-135IS much now.
My solution for my low light work was to buy a proper flash gun.
Although I have some primes, all of my lenses (and all that I buy in the future) must have Image Stabilisation as my hands shake too much at low shutter speeds.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I like to be decisive

Aye - I think the main advantage of asking this question is that it really makes me stop and think what I want, and why I want it, before I go out and spend all my hard-earned cash on it!

In reply to both points, yes I do use the wide-angle a lot, but what I don't, in fairness, use a lot is the higher-end of this lens, as I rarely find it gives me enough zoom. This said, when I swap to my 70-300, I then find I have too much zoom, so there are two bits here - one is a wish to blur the line between my telephoto lens and my walkabout lens, and the other is to improve the quality of my low-light shots.

Bearing in mind all that has been said before, I think that, realistically, that just gives me the 17-70 as my ideal lens - I think that I would miss the wide-angle capability if I went for the 24-70.

All good points - keep 'em coming! [I'll not place an order today probably!]

I have been through this dilemma also i wanted a faster lens than my 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 that would sit below the 70-300mm and at the time i didn't think I'd miss the 7mm difference between the 24-70mm f2.8 and my original 17-70 so i got a siggy 24-70mm F2.8 which i'm very pleased with - sharp shots and a pleasant bokeh - I am also now the owner of a sigma 10-20mm as i did miss the 7mm difference - it doesn't sound a lot but i did find i missed it quite a lot. Apart from the extra expense ( and constant lens swapping - but thats one reason a bought a DSLR) overall l im glad i got the 24-70mm because i would definatley miss the constant aperture and the nice bright viewfinder image and the 10-20mm is also a cracking lens. As has been said it really depends why you want to upgrade.

 

[Ant]

i wanted to upgrade my kit lens, only because i had broken my original one, and i mean properly written it off...

So i got myself a 24mm prime, and LOVED it...

But i got fed up of having to zoom in and out with my feet, so i jumped in and got a 24-70 f2.8 Sigma out of the for sale section on here. Ace lens, really sharp up to about 55mm, where it starts to get soft.

I wouldn't think of getting the 28-70mm, as it's not wide enough at the wide end.

I would however, think about the 17-70, as it's nice and wide at the wide end, but don't forget, you'll just want to keep going wider, so you may as well get the 24-70, and then a wide lens, like a siggy 10-20mm or a canon 10-22mm.

 

[barbs]

Definately food for thought.
TBH I am not into lanscapes and if needed can borrow a 10-20 when the urge takes....so will I really need wider than a 28mm on a 400d? Maybe, but for what I like (candids, potraits etc) I do not think (famous last words!!!) that I'd miss the 17-28 range...... awhh decisions, decisions....

...so based on what RobertP said I will probably looking at a fixed f, after hunting I stumbled across a Sigma 28-70 DG EX (used). It this is good purchase for my needs, woudl anyone recommend this?

Thanks.

 

[barbs]

I think I might have answered my own question (with some prompting!).

I was being a bit thick :bonk: and forgot that I could use the kit lens to see the difference for myself. And TBH I was amazed at how much the 18-28 range is needed for smaller spaces and indoors. So I'll hunt a bit more.

 

[barbs]

Sometimes life is good!
My wife overhead my conversations with my bro about replacing my kit lens. Now considering she knows b****r all about my kit.... I was stunned when I came home last night to find a DHL package containing a Sigma 17-70

What a woman!

 

[Ant]

You lucky buggar!!

What a woman indeed! and a good choice with the lens