replace my kit lens!

J

Jimmymac

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to replace the Kit lens for my 450D in the coming months, currently I own a 50mm F1.8 prime, 70-300mm IS USM and the 18-55mm kit lens.

What I want is to have a decent (and hopefully very good) walk around lens, budget could be anywhere from £500-£1000 so I wondered if it was worth looking into an L Class lens

Any suggestions as to whats worthwhile?
 
It depends on your definition of a walk about lens and whether you are prepared to buy second hand or if you want to buy new.

I have a Nikon 18-200mm VR for my walkabout lens which cost me about £350 used. I'm not sure of the Canon equivalent but with your budget you could afford a lot better lens but the question is, do you need to?
 
I'm using the 24 - 105L as my walkabout on a 450D, its almost always on there and I'd recomment it. My only crit is that its not wide enough @ 24mm - but then I got a 12 - 24 UWA to cover that.
 
Check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Performs WAY above it's price range.
 
or 17-40 f4l if you can live with less length, or 24-70 f2.8 if you can live with not so wide... neither has IS though.
 
what focal range are you hoping for?
 
is your 18-55mm the one with is? because i find mine very good. i'd love to see how a really good lens performs
 
no the 18-55 is the original pice of crap kit lens :D

not sure on focal range really, it has been handy having the wider range at the lower level of the kit lens but not essential, the 24-70 and the 24-105 L have been of interest, i'd at least like it to be a fairly fast lens. Noth of these seem to fit the bill, the 24-70 probably being the better option as over that the 70-300 can take over.
 
Jimmymac said:
no the 18-55 is the original pice of crap kit lens :D
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised, considering they only cost £100, I reckon you'd be hard pressed to get more bang for your buck! Personally for crop sensors, I and many others think the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is awesome, and considering you can get them second-hand for £200 would leave you a lot of spare cash! For me, 24mm on crop isn't wide enough for a general purpose lens, leaving the only other option as the Canon 17-55 IS which is probably the best general purpose lens for crop sensors, but I can't see how it's worth 3 times as much as the Tamron!!
 
Jimmymac said:
no the 18-55 is the original pice of crap kit lens :D
Click to expand...

No, the 450D 18-55mm kit lens has IS :)

It's not the best though. I am using a 24-105 L as a walkabout on my 450D and I love it. However it is lacking a little width on a crop body. Depends on what you want from a lens :)
If I were replacing the kit lens with a like for like focal range I'd be looking at the 17-55 IS USM f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. A stabilised version of the latter is due soon.
 
blimey does it? spot the noob :D

cheers for the info so far, my general photography is pretty varied from landscape, to people and sports. I want to invest in a new lens and with my 30th coming up in a few months it seems people are asking what I want so I was going to ask them to all chip in for a top class replacement for the kit lens. I figured a nice piece off "L" glass would be the right way to go but perhaps something like the tamrom or something else would be a better option.

I am really pulled towards the 24-105 or the 24-70 though :D
 
Jimmymac said:
i suppose the question should be, money aside (as i'm not paying for it) what would be the best choice, 14-105, 24-70, 17-55 IS USM or the Tamron?
Click to expand...

Money aside, if you're not going to be going to full-frame any time soon, the 17-55 IS. It's better than the Tamron, not by a huge amount, and definitely not worth the price difference (in my opinion anyway!), but if money was no object, then I would say it's the best option!
 
full frame could be an option in the future, i've been using the camera more and more lately and upgarding the body is something i have toyed with......


can I take this on another tangent then potentially! I suppose the crux of all of this is that I want a new lens, but i'm probably not sure what I need. My initial thoughts are to replace the kit lens but a few suggestions here and other places are that the kit lens isnt really that bad and maybe keeping hold if it would be a sensible idea. I have my 50mm prime and the 70-300mm for zoom so should I be looking for something else.

What i'd like is something thats fast, especially for low light conditions, the 50mm has of course helped me out there somewhat but it would be nice to have something faster (if thats possible) as I like taking night shots without the flash and that has a bit of focal range at least. Most of my pictures are just general snapping around although there has been thoughts of moving into something else. Budget wedding photography is one to subsidise my current earnings and worry of an industry thats all over the place (I know I will need to become a lot more capable with the camera first before I even consider it)

So if you could get just one lens, what would it be? Right now i'm undecided as to if I should be replacing the kit lens or looking at something else entirely, any pointers?
 
Why don't you find some toggers who have these lenses and have a play?
 
Jimmymac said:
full frame could be an option in the future, i've been using the camera more and more lately and upgarding the body is something i have toyed with......

can I take this on another tangent then potentially! I suppose the crux of all of this is that I want a new lens, but i'm probably not sure what I need. My initial thoughts are to replace the kit lens but a few suggestions here and other places are that the kit lens isnt really that bad and maybe keeping hold if it would be a sensible idea. I have my 50mm prime and the 70-300mm for zoom so should I be looking for something else.

What i'd like is something thats fast, especially for low light conditions, the 50mm has of course helped me out there somewhat but it would be nice to have something faster (if thats possible) as I like taking night shots without the flash and that has a bit of focal range at least. Most of my pictures are just general snapping around although there has been thoughts of moving into something else. Budget wedding photography is one to subsidise my current earnings and worry of an industry thats all over the place (I know I will need to become a lot more capable with the camera first before I even consider it)

So if you could get just one lens, what would it be? Right now i'm undecided as to if I should be replacing the kit lens or looking at something else entirely, any pointers?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you want a new toy, preferably an L toy with a red ring on it ;) In which case you know where to look, but if you want to upgrade your kit lens (and the IS version is pretty sharp!) then for your budget the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is not only the obvious choice, but the perfect one. Great lens.

Other 'toys' might include a 10-22 super-wide, good flash gun, or body upgrade to 7D, but I think you would benefit from upgrading the kit lens, not so much because it's no good optically, but for the f/2.8 throughout of the 17-55 and because it's a nicely made lens to use.
 
I had the 28-135mm lens on my 40D but I am wanting to upgrade to better glass - so was thinking of the 24-105mm

But that was my general walk about lens

SS
 
I used to have the Tamron 17-50 and thought it was really excellent on a 400D, better than the 28-75 on my 5d probably, but now I only have FF (5D and MkII) and use the 24-105 F4 IS as a walk-round. Great value used - I picked up a nearly new one, boxed, for just under £600 on another forum. And as you have suggested that lens could stay with you when you migrate to full frame.
 
HoppyUK said:
Sounds like you want a new toy, preferably an L toy with a red ring on it ;) In which case you know where to look, but if you want to upgrade your kit lens (and the IS version is pretty sharp!) then for your budget the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is not only the obvious choice, but the perfect one. Great lens.

Other 'toys' might include a 10-22 super-wide, good flash gun, or body upgrade to 7D, but I think you would benefit from upgrading the kit lens, not so much because it's no good optically, but for the f/2.8 throughout of the 17-55 and because it's a nicely made lens to use.
Click to expand...

oh you read me so well :lol:

a flash gun is certainly a must at some point, but for the moment when its needed I can hire one for a bargain price from Calumet, only once have I needed one so far and that was for a friends wedding (and it was a god send).

I think the 17-55 is sounding like just about the better solution at the moment but I will take the time to digest everything mentioned in here first and perhaps see if I can try the odd one out to get a feel for them

Thanks for everyones help, as I say, its going to be a few months before this actually comes into play but best I work on it early to get the right one, may come back with more questions but for now its a big cheers from me :thumbs:
 
24-105, with it's excellent IS, is only F4. Consistent at least. I'd go for the 24-70 personally and upgrade your 70-300 to one of the 70-200's in the future to go with it.
 
Well first I would evaluate whether you are going to go full frame within the next few years. If the answer is yes then scrap the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as it's an EF-S lens for crop cameras. If you are going to go full frame then the obvious choice for a walk about lens, would be something in the range of 24-70mm. Not necessarily an L lens, but that focal length atleast.
However, if you are going to stay with a crop body, then for me personally (and this is personal and you need to check what works for you) I couldn't use something that started at 24mm for walk about. I always find myself needing the wide end of 17-55mm focal range. So I would say if you go crop route, again select what focal range you want and then you can look at the lenses to compare. I personally couldn;t justify the Canon 17-55mm price tag over the 3rd party contenders from Sigma and Tamron. (Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Sigma 18-50mm macro f/2.8,) I bought the Sigma. In some tests in fact, the Tamron is sharper than the Canon. Arguably IS is not really required at such a short focal length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top