step up from canon kit lens

T

Tekagudun

Suspended / Banned
Messages
176
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all
so its x mas fast approaching and I need a recommendation for a canon lens to fit 700d
its for my wife and she shoots landscapes only
we are new to photography and im looking for a step up from the kit lens 18-55
she tends to shoot at the wide end
prime or zoom ,all considered
I wouldn't say moneys no object ,it is x mas , but be reasonable
thanks
 
A step up will be tricky without considerable investment.
There is not much wider than the 18-55 with the exception of the great value 10-18 efs.
17-40 L is not much wider than what you have and that's over £500.
The 16-35 f4L is about the best value for money pro grade zoom but even then it's not a lot wider than 18mm.
 
A Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 should be easily in budget or there's a choice of 10-20mm range zooms if she wants wider.

I had the original Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and thought it was very sharp.
 
How about something with image stabilisation on it? Have you thought about buying a 'used' lens (with 6 month or longer guarantee from a well-established and reputable shop/dealer), as this can give a good saving? Perhaps something like a mint, used Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM might fit the bill (internet search for some reviews - and weigh up the cost of buying a good one second hand) or the current model type equivalent of this lens? This would give increased range over your current kit lens and also the image stabilisation, which should enable 'shake free' hand held photos in lower light than your current lens.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd stay away from the Canon 17-85mm. IMO the zoom range, USM and IS are all good but that's where it stops. I think that the aperture range is pedestrian, the image quality is just ok and the distortion is rather epic. I gave mine away and replaced it with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.
 
That's why I suggested reading the reviews and weighing up the cost against those. To be honest, the 17-85 IS was my main lens for years on a 400D and I found it did the job well enough (albeit used for report photos for work and general 'snapshots' rather than for 'serious' photography as a hobby). Yes, there are better lenses out there these days of similar zoom range, but they cost a lot more! Besides, that old 17-85 of mine was 100% better at the 51 to 85mm range than your Tamron! ;)

That zoom range was handy though, so does anyone know the latest equivalent Canon EF-S IS lens these days, and is it any good? I moved on to full frame a few years ago so have lost touch with the EF-S range, as they don't fit FF cameras.
 
Last edited:
I may have misinterpreted the original question.
Step up in quality or greater angle of view?
 
Mr Badger said:
That's why I suggested reading the reviews and weighing up the cost against those. To be honest, the 17-85 IS was my main lens for years on a 400D and I found it did the job well enough (albeit used for report photos for work and general 'snapshots' rather than for 'serious' photography as a hobby). Yes, there are better lenses out there these days of similar zoom range, but they cost a lot more! Besides, that old 17-85 of mine was 100% better at the 51 to 85mm range than your Tamron! ;)

That zoom range was handy though, so does anyone know the latest equivalent Canon EF-S IS lens these days, and is it any good? I moved on to full frame a few years ago so have lost touch with the EF-S range, as they don't fit FF cameras.
Click to expand...

Until a ribbon cable snaps.

YMMV etc but I wouldn't touch one of these (again) at any price. Free would be ok as you can bin it when it goes faulty or drop kick it through a window when you realise that the distortion is worse than your software can correct... but you can always I suppose do a max correction, save it and then run it through again.

Anyway, they say there's no such thing as a bad lens these days :D
 
Thanks for the replies
I think it's more of a quality issue as much as the range
 
woof woof said:
Anyway, they say there's no such thing as a bad lens these days :D
Click to expand...

If you exclude the Canon 50mm 1.2 and the 24-70 4.0 then most lenses are great these days.:exit:
 
woof woof said:
Until a ribbon cable snaps.

YMMV etc but I wouldn't touch one of these (again) at any price. Free would be ok as you can bin it when it goes faulty or drop kick it through a window when you realise that the distortion is worse than your software can correct... but you can always I suppose do a max correction, save it and then run it through again.

Anyway, they say there's no such thing as a bad lens these days :D
Click to expand...

The problem is that the bigger the zoom range the more distortion there is going to be at some point in that range, but the bigger the zoom range the more useful the lens becomes for everyday photography. Anyway, to get back on topic, if money isn't that big an issue and good image quality is required, then maybe a 'mint' used 17-40 L might fit the bill (as there shouldn't be any edge softness issue with a crop camera) and a mint one might be found for about the £399 mark with a guarantee from a reputable shop/dealer? However, no IS with that one. Perhaps read some reviews for that lens when used on a crop frame camera (I'm sure there's some on YouTube)? What do the others think?
 
Last edited:
If you are looking for just landscapes then look at something on the wider side but a good all rounder canon 15-85 sigma 17-50 or 17-70 will all do a good job. The canon kit lens to be honest isn't a bad lens.
 
FWIW

A while back I hired a 10-22mm EF-S for trip to Venice and found it a superb lens!

Edit - that was on a crop sensor 7D now I have the 5D3 , if I could justify the expense I would be getting the 16-35mm f4
 
Last edited:
Depends on your budget but I have just had a look on MPB
They have Canon 15-85's in stock in excellent condition for £290 and Sigma 8-16 EF-S fit ( crop) for £360 ,the Siggy is W I D E ( you get your feet in the shot if you are not careful)
Depends what you want and how much you want to spend
You could always lash out and get both!
 
28mm 2.8 IS is about £300 if you fancy a fixed length lens.
 
Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16mm F2.8 DXII Lens

Amazon £450 new.

18 very positive reviews on there

1 review very unhappy

Photo credit goes to Sergey N Green

109043471.1N3bNXPf.jpg
 
Having mused this for some time myself I can conclude the canon 11-24 f4 is the only option.
 
soupdragon said:
Having mused this for some time myself I can conclude the canon 11-24 f4 is the only option.
Click to expand...

I think it might be a bit more than the OP wants to spend but hey its Xmas

Personally I would go for the 24mm TS-E Mk2.
 
Not just the price, f4 on a crop sensor in the capital of overcast dull conditions AKA Britain, is not great.
 
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Best Canon crop lens by far. Certainly would be a step up in quality, second hand may be more affordable for you.

If you want wide angle then the suggestions above would all serve you fine.
 
Craigus said:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Best Canon crop lens by far. Certainly would be a step up in quality, second hand may be more affordable for you.

If you want wide angle then the suggestions above would all serve you fine.
Click to expand...

yup
I bought that very same lens, great lens and reputed to be the best EF-S lens money can buy. Problem is how much is the OP willing to spend as it's not a cheap lens by any stretch of the imagination although MPB sometimes gets them in for around £400
 
^ I agree, but the step up in quality is very hard to see from the kit lens to the Sigma or Tamron's that are mentioned above. Granted you get the extra stop, but aside from that most would be hard pushed to notice the difference. Whereas you would with the Canon 17-55.
 
These suggestions have given me plenty to mull over
I'll check used and see what can be had
Thanks
 
Box Brownie said:
FWIW

A while back I hired a 10-22mm EF-S for trip to Venice and found it a superb lens!

Edit - that was on a crop sensor 7D now I have the 5D3 , if I could justify the expense I would be getting the 16-35mm f4
Click to expand...
I like my Canon EF-S 10-22 lens. As regards image quality, Canon include this lens in their list of professional lenses.
 
Of what's out there without an eye-watering price tag, the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is just £200 and gets good reviews for sharpness. For a landscape photographer with only the kit lens at the moment, this focal length range is going to let her get so much more in frame and introduce lots of dramatic perspective. Maximum aperture is a bit small, and it apparently loses the first half a stop as soon as zooming in begins, but landscapes aren't usually shot at maximum aperture. It's equipped with IS so she'll be able to use quite slow shutter speeds handheld. If she uses a tripod then the aperture needn't be wide open and IS should be switched off anyway. The nearest alternative seems to be a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM for £120 more. For that you get 1 stop wider and it's constant through the zoom range, but no IS. It's quite a bit bigger and nearly double the weight of the Canon, almost as much as the 700D body alone. It also has an 82mm filter thread while the Canon is just 67mm. I think the Sigma would be a better choice for moving subjects in confined space / low light, like up front at a gig in a small venue. I've never used either of these lenses, this is just what I gleaned from credible reviews.

If my budget was around the Sigma's price, and I had nothing but the camera and kit lens, I'd buy the 10-18mm Canon and spend the rest on a tripod and remote shutter release. A polariser would be next, with step-up rings so it'll go on either lens. One advantage of buying a Canon lens, as opposed to third-party, is that she can download lens profiles to install in DPP that correct a variety of issues most lenses have to some degree, including geometric distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberration. All can be addressed somewhat in Photoshop (CA is very easy to remove) but profiling means adjustments are tailored for known properties of the specific lens at the settings used.
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
I like my Canon EF-S 10-22 lens. As regards image quality, Canon include this lens in their list of professional lenses.
Click to expand...

I had/have one (my son has it now) and it's a great lens, small, light so was always in my bag, because I used a 24-105 on my crop camera, although you do have to sometimes watch for chromatic aberration at the edges.
However I wasn't aware any ef-s lenses were considered as professional?

Quite good fun for tame big cats.. it's not out of focus, it was breathing on the lens
125684313.jpg


Not sure thats a good replacement on it's own for the18-55 kits lens
 
She has tripod ,remote shutter and tends to favour long exposure slow shutter speeds
And to be honest hs had some success with the kit lenses
The 10-20 canon seem readily available used so might be a idea
 
When I was on a crop Canon I had a Sigma 10-20mm and although it was good, I found I didn't use it that much and instead preferred to use the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (which I used to replace the kit lens).
Canon make 2 ultra wide lenses for crop sensors. The 10-22mm which has a good reputation and is bigger, heavier and more expensive and the 10-18mm which is much cheaper, smaller and has the same build quality as the 18-55mm kit lens.

Don't forget that landscapes are not all about going wide.

I'd say upgrade the kit lens to either the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, both likely to be found under £300, or the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 if you can afford it (it's also a bit heavier than the other two). All three of these will offer better quality optics and a wider aperture (better for low light and giving a shallow depth of field).
If you find you still need to go wider, you can always do a stitched panorama shot.
Or, if she finds that the 17-50mm isn't wide enough, you could get her the 10-20mm for birthday/anniversary later in the year ;)

Also don't forget there's more to photography than gear. Education is also useful; a good book or set of video tutorials can be very helpful. Alternatively, book (or at least suggest) a weekend away somewhere pretty to "properly test the new lens"; somewhere like the Lake District, Derbyshire/Yorkshire Dales, Snowdonia, Dorset/Devon/Cornwall, etc. That would go down well ;)
 
Canon 16-35mm f4L. Top lens and fairly light. You don't need IS for landscapes. Or Samyang 8mm, 12mm, 14mm 2.8 all manual lenses. Sigma art lenses are very good as well. You could buy second the older Canon 15mm 2.8. Faster lenses means you can do some astro (milky way) night shots, you can still use f4... but it all depends on budget. For me it would be the Canon 16-35mm f4, it's sharper edge to edge and lighter than my 16-35mm 2.8 ii.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top