Lens upgrade from kit lens 18-55

Z

z101

Suspended / Banned
Messages
195
Edit My Images
No
Hey everyone, just a few questions. So I have been in to photography for a while I have the Canon 450D and I have been getting decent shots along with the kit lens (18-55mm), which I now want to replace.

It is time for an upgrade, but I'm not the best on lenses. In a nut shell I have a budget of 300 euro and don't mind second hand. I would use the lens for people landscapes, animals etc.

I'd like some advise as to what lenses you would recommend and why, aka what I would gain by having them.

Or just thinking should I put the money towards a 50 or 60D?

Thanks in advance for your help
 
Standard advice here is Tamron 17-50 non VC. You can also consider Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 f2.8. I had both and they were very good for the price. Actually I think that Sigma 18-50 is the best value at the moment. You can grab one for £160-170 on ebay if you're lucky. I sold mine and regretted afterwards.
 
Ramaz said:
Standard advice here is Tamron 17-50 non VC. You can also consider Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 f2.8. I had both and they were very good for the price. Actually I think that Sigma 18-50 is the best value at the moment. You can grab one for £160-170 on ebay if you're lucky. I sold mine and regretted afterwards.
Click to expand...

Thanks actually that sigma 18-50 is the one I was looking at. I looked up a used one on ebay but they are not too plentiful.
 
What's wrong with your kit lens? What won't it do?

Unless you want to do something specifically that the kit lens cannot do (and the IS version of the 18-55 is pretty good, and exceptionally good value) you could end up wasting a lot of money, and lose the IS into the bargain.

The main advantage of the lenses you're looking at is they run down to f/2.8, if that's what you're missing.
 
Last edited:
Well I find that a f2.8 really gives a brighter shot. I have found myself in low light situations, but not too often. In church and at night time mainly. I have a 50mm f1.8 but I find when its down around the f2 or f3 it lacks sharpness. But maybe thats something that cant be improved.

Other than that.
 
z101 said:
Well I find that a f2.8 really gives a brighter shot. I have found myself in low light situations, but not too often. In church and at night time mainly. I have a 50mm f1.8 but I find when its down around the f2 or f3 it lacks sharpness. But maybe thats something that cant be improved.

Other than that.
Click to expand...

If the sharpness issue is not simply a matter of shallow depth of field, an inevitable consquence of low f/numbers (forgive me if you know this ;)) then you're moving in the right direction.
 
The kit lens really is very not bad, and as pointed out is not really worth replacing unless there is something specific you can't achieve.

Based on your stated subjects, I wouldn't bother, but would look for someting that added to your armoury than simply replace...

How about something even wider or longer?
 
I agree. I would look at the 50mm 1.8 which is great for portraits in low light and maybe the 55-250mm to give u more zoom
 
HoppyUK said:
If the sharpness issue is not simply a matter of shallow depth of field, an inevitable consquence of low f/numbers (forgive me if you know this ;)) then you're moving in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply! :) Well the lack of sharpness doesn't seem to be caused by the D.O.F. as cretin areas of portraits are a little fuzzy, when I would expect them to be sharp (all at the same distance.) I am wondering if lets say the sigma lens would be sharper shooting at f2.8.

abdabs said:
I agree. I would look at the 50mm 1.8 which is great for portraits in low light
Click to expand...

That post you are agreeing with, thats me telling everyone that I allready have the 50mm f1.8.
 
z101 said:
Thanks for the reply! :) Well the lack of sharpness doesn't seem to be caused by the D.O.F. as cretin areas of portraits are a little fuzzy, when I would expect them to be sharp (all at the same distance.) I am wondering if lets say the sigma lens would be sharper shooting at f2.8.



That post you are agreeing with, thats me telling everyone that I allready have the 50mm f1.8.
Click to expand...

TBH, I'd be surprised if you would see much improvement in sharpness over the 50 1.8 across the frame.

Check that this isn't a DoF issue, you don't get much of it at f/2.8 when shooting groups for example. See how much you've got by inputting your camera setings here and check that the subjects you're shooting are in fact within the sharp DoF zone - camera model (adjusts for sensor size), focal length, f/number, distance http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

For example, if you are shooting with a crop format Canon (which you are) at 3m with a 50mm lens at f/2.8, your DoF will be only 38cm/15in. And if you go pixel peeping at 100% it'll start going a bit soft at around half that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, do you get more background blur with lenses with lower f. Eg F2.8 lenses vs f4 lenses even if they are both set at f4?
 
z101 said:
Thanks, do you get more background blur with lenses with lower f. Eg F2.8 lenses vs f4 lenses even if they are both set at f4?
Click to expand...

No. Same focal length, same f/number, same distance - same DoF, same background blur, same everything.
 
But I see shots in newspapers every day (sport shots) that have blurred backgrounds and are if focus. How is this so???
 
z101 said:
But I see shots in newspapers every day (sport shots) that have blurred backgrounds and are if focus. How is this so???
Click to expand...

That's not comparing like with like.

Different focal length, different f/number, different distance = different DoF, different background blur, different everything (including a different field of view [angle of view] which has quite an influence).

Check the DoFmaster link and see how depth of field varies varies as you change the various settings.
 
Last edited:
Do you have the 18-55 IS, or the original 18-55?

I found the 28-135 IS a good step up from the 18-55 with the 400d. I have now all-but replaced it with other lenses, but as a walkabout lens it does a pretty good job.
You might need to keep the 18-55 handy for extra-width (18-28mm). The 28-135 is OK for portraits, but difficult on group shots. I have gotten a pretty decent animal capture with it:
MG_9298.JPG


I have to say though, that the poor ISO handling of the 400d was much worse than I thought, and moving up to a different camera was great. What I find I don't like about the 28-135, is that now I have the 17-55 f2.8 I find the 5.6 of the 135 quite slow.
 
z101 said:
But I see shots in newspapers every day (sport shots) that have blurred backgrounds and are if focus. How is this so???
Click to expand...

Because the camera is panning to keep the subject in frame, ergo the background will be blurry whilst the subject being tracked is not.

Alternatively, the subject is so far away from the background that it goes out of focus, leaving the subject nice and sharp.
 
z101 said:
Thanks HoppyUk I kind of understand it better now! :)



Thanks, it is the original 18-55mm. Thats the one without image stabilization.
Click to expand...

Ah, that changes things. I thought the revised IS version was sold with the 450D. In which case, you would benefit from an upgrade - the non-IS version was not great.

The ones to look at in that range are the Canons 15-85, 17-55, and Tamron 17-50 non-VC.
 
HoppyUK said:
Ah, that changes things. I thought the revised IS version was sold with the 450D. In which case, you would benefit from an upgrade - the non-IS version was not great.

The ones to look at in that range are the Canons 15-85, 17-55, and Tamron 17-50 non-VC.
Click to expand...

Ya they do the new one with the 450D but somehow my AF stopped working and I replaced it this the older version.
 
z101 said:
No, thats what the OP wants to do see:
Click to expand...

Sorry I thought he might have made the decision but hasn't had a chance to update the thread.

I to am in the same position (sold my 18-55 non IS), I'm a total novice and I wanted a 'nice quality' walkaround lens, I wont be upgrading lens etc afer this. After doing much research and comparing the picture samples and reviews between the:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM

in my humble opinion and for my budget I think the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM would be the choice for me. If you haven't already check it out @z101 it might have some interest for you.

Rai
 
I'm in a similar situation to you, I've been looking at the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 as a replacement.
 
What is your budget?

I have a second hand 350D and bought a Tamron 17-50 VC which i'm quite happy with.

But I would try get a second hand non-vc one for about £200.
Or alternatively venture out for a longer focal length, get a canon 55-250 and see if it changes the way you shoot. the focal length can play a big part in bokeh also.
 
coldpenguin said:
I found the 28-135 IS a good step up from the 18-55 with the 400d.
Click to expand...

+1.

I used this lens on my old 350d for ages before I upgraded all my kit. I found it a very versatile range and better quality than the kit lens at the time. It might be worth a look if you don't need anything much wider or much faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top