Kit Lens Replacement

S

Slime

Suspended / Banned
Messages
46
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I've had my 400D for a few years now and although I have a nifty fifty, I'm still struggling with my kit lens for general use.

I quite like the idea of getting something with a bit more of a range in it, maybe something like the Canon 17-85 but would like to know what my options are. Are there better lenses in this price range?

Budget is between £200 and £300 and I would definitely consider 2nd hand gear.

Any suggestions?

Thanks :)
 
Really depends what you want, I normally look at 2nd hand Tokinas as good value, I've got a 20-35 and and 80-400 both of which were great value for money...
 
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM
is a good replacement. Found it for £312 on the net

The non OS version is good as well, £242.


Go into your local camera shop and have a look at one, have a play with it and see the difference between this and the kit lens. You will be suprised at the difference in build quality.
 
Sinbecks said:
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM
is a good replacement. Found it for £312 on the net

The non OS version is good as well, £242.


Go into your local camera shop and have a look at one, have a play with it and see the difference between this and the kit lens. You will be suprised at the difference in build quality.
Click to expand...

And another for the Siggy OS 17-70mm. Had it for a couple of months now - six weeks on my old 450D and now on my new 50D and it's been brilliant on both bodies. It's chunky and just feels like sheer quality! I got Calumet to do a price match (near enough) and got it for £317. :thumbs:

Cheers
 
Thanks for the replies. Looks like that could be the one to go for - especially after reading a few reviews. It's really between the 2 of them and from what I've read, the Sigma produces better quality photos which is obviously a priority for me.

Is it worth trying to source one second hand or is brand new the better option?
 
For 300 quid you might almost be able to afford a Canon 17-40.

In what way are you struggling with the kit lens?
 
I don't think the 17-40 quite has enough range in it. 40 seems a bit short to me. I'm only struggling with the kit lens because I don't feel it produces high quality images. Most of my shots are completely unsharp.
 
Not sure if a second hand 17-55 would even be in your budget. 17-85 isn't a great lot better than the 18-55 either. I've seen horrendous CA from it. Are you using the original 18-55 or the IS one? The IS one is supposed to much, much better. Maybe post some sample shots?
 
I can vouch fo the Canon 17-85 and the Sigma 17-70mm, on IQ there isn't much beteween the 2. The USM motor on the Canon is unbeatable IMO, dont get me wrong the HSM is good its just USM is so much better. Both feel good and solid and of course the Siggy has the benifit of a better aperture range, some people also say that Sigmas OS is better than IS, if it is it isny by much.

Oh just incase your intrested I am selling a Siggy 18-125mm OS HSM in the clissified section :).

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=228590
 
I have recently upgraded from the Canon 17-85mm to the NON VC version of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Although it does not have VC (IS) if careful it does give stunning results and is pretty damn sharp!!! It helps having f2.8 through the focal range. I regard the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as the poor mans Canon 17-40 f4L as i have seen many images created by the Tamron that are similar in quality and feel as the 17-40 L.
 
Another vote for the Sigma 17-70mm - this taken with mine yesterday (a bit of extra background blur added, but not too much from the original... you'll pick up a S/H one for around £150...

24qtzrn.jpg
 
trencheel303 said:
Not sure if a second hand 17-55 would even be in your budget. 17-85 isn't a great lot better than the 18-55 either. I've seen horrendous CA from it. Are you using the original 18-55 or the IS one? The IS one is supposed to much, much better. Maybe post some sample shots?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's the non IS 18-55, that's what the 400D comes with and it's ok but not brilliant by a long shot.

I'd suggest maybe the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, which I got to replace my kit lens, however I'm thinking of replacing it with the Tamron 17-50 due to wanting something smaller (the Sigma 24-70 is a heavy beast a it's the third party version of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L), the extra focal length is excellent though... as long as you have a wide angle or are willing to use the kit lens at the wider end...:)
 
Yeah you're right - It's the non-IS version. I certainly like the look of the Tamron 17-50 but the extra money puts me off a bit. If I can get hold of one second hand then I might consider it but I'd also be losing 20mm from the Sigma.
 
I was all set to buy either a Sigma 17-70 or an 18-50, but then I went into a shop, felt them both followed by a Tamron 17-50, and I bought the Tamron on the spot. Haven't looked back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top