Kit Lens Upgrade Question..

F

fresh27

Suspended / Banned
Messages
143
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I've had my Canon 18-55 IS lens for a month or 2.. But am now thinking about upgrading it. I've been looking at the Canon 17-85 IS and the Sigma 17-70.

My question is, will I see a difference in image quality?

I like the fact that these lenses have the extra zoom and could be an ideal walkabout lens.

However, if I won't really see the difference would I be better getting a longer zoom lens (70-200/300) as eventually I want the full range, but obviously cost is an issue, and thought I would sort my 'walkabout' lens first as this would be the one I would use most.

Currently I have Canon 1000D, 18-55 and 50 1.8

Hope that makes sense :shrug: cheers
 
Your kit lens is the upgraded version of the one supplied with the 400D and it's the same lens as supplied with the 450D.
It's a great little lens and has received some very good reviews.
I also have the 17-85mm IS lens and whilst it's okay for outdoor, it is slow and not very good in low light.
Of the two, I much prefer the kit lens indoors.
I don't know much about the Sigma version but I've read some good things about it.
There are plenty of reviews online so have a google and do some reading before making your choice.

If you want something with more focal length, checkout the Canon 55-250mm IS, it's a cracking lens for the price and you'll find plenty of users here who own one and say it's good value for money.
 
A friend of mine has the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, very nice lens, I'm going to get this once I purchase my 40D. Only thing it doesn't have is IS but then at 2.8 constant it's a fast lens anyway.
 
Thanks for your input guys. It's a tough choice. I think it will just be a case of going for one. But I'm sure I'll be happy with whatever I decide.
 
To be honest I don't think either of those lenses are going to represent a huge improvment over your current lens, the only real benefit will be a little bit of length. In my opinion it's not worth replacing the 18-55is unless your going for something much faster such as canon's 17-55 f2.8 IS which would give you a massive boost. If I were you I'd splash my cash on either a 55-250 IS or a 70-200 F4.
 
What problems are you seeing with your kit lens?

obviously there is loads of reasons to change a lens, but what to get depends on the limitations you have and what problems it is causing you.
 
The next lens depends on your budget and which focal lengths you like. Hopefully using the 18-55 will have let you know whether or not you're always at the short end, the long end or in between.

The Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 is a good step up in terms of image quality and speed and is cheaper than the (slightly better) Canon.

You'll probably find the range between 55mm and 70mm useless, to be honest, so don't worry about having perfect continuity between all of your lenses.
 
My main aims are to improve the overall image quality of my pictures and get the 'full range' of lenses (ie maybe as low as 10, but 17 through to 2/300mm). But I just wanted to know others experience and the best way to go about doing things. Unfortunately I can't do it all at once :(
 
Get a zoom. I have heard a few good things about the IQ on the IS version of the 18-55 being better then the original 18-55.
I have the 17-70 and its a nice lens, but cant compare it to the 18-55 IS as i have never used it!
Id get something with more reach like a 55-200 etc
 
If you're looking for a second hand 17-85 IS (excellent condition) I have one for sale as I've just upgraded to the 24-70 2.8 L lens.
 
If you are looking to upgrade I would look at the Tamron 28-75 or the Sigma 24-70, both really good quality lenses and can be picked up for less than £200second hand.

As already said upgrade when you need too and not just because you want to, you will find that you will just want to change again, unless you get it right.

I dumped my kit lens for a 28-105, although a great little lens, I found that I wanted a constant apperature after a short while and as such upgraded to the Tamron 28-75, which I love.
 
I've been doing a bit more reading and it seems there would be no real advantage to change my kit lens to the ones I mentioned as I would only be gain some extra reach and not quality.

Time to look at zooms :) The 70-200 f4 L looks good and a nice price, just worrying it doesn't have IS.

Thanks for your help anyway

Decisions, decisions :thinking: :shrug: :)
 
It's an issue of semantics (well, I wouldn't say semantics exactly...) but your language will confuse people and make it harder to help you.

A zoom is a lens which has a variable focal length. A 10-22mm is as much a zoom as a 100-400mm is. A prime lens has a fixed focal length, so a 35mm lens is prime, as is a 600mm lens.

To describe length we say that lenses are wide (<50mm) normal (50mm) or telephoto (>50mm). These numbers are in 35mm terms. As focal lengths look different on different sensors you have to adjust them for your sensor size. On a crop digital body normal is around 30mm and on a medium format body normal is around 80-100mm for example.

For added confusion people tend to categorise in terms of:
Ultra wide, wide, normal, short telephoto, long telephoto, super telephoto. (And others)

Definitions are prone to adjust over time, 300mm is a long telephoto, but would have been a super telephoto a few years ago.

So what you want is a telephoto zoom, not just a zoom.

IS is more useful the longer your lens is, but it depends on what you're going to use it for. If you'll always be using a tripod and capturing static subjects you don't need IS. For everything else IS will be some varying degree of help, depending on circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top