'These' compared to my kit lens.

  • Thread starter Thread starter C.J
  • Start date Start date
C.J

C.J

Suspended / Banned
Messages
107
Edit My Images
Yes
I've had my 500D with the kit lens (18-55mm) for 18 months now, and have thoroughly enjoyed it. But I'm now wanting to try better lenses.

I rarely find myself needing to zoom in further than the 55mm, so I don't feel I need a 300mm lens just yet. I do however enjoy taking wide-ish pictures (on 18mm) so wider would be nicer.

I want better IQ. I only take holiday snaps, and enjoy messing around with it, nothing serious (the odd landscape, mainly portrait, rarely macro).

I've been looking at the 'nifty fifty' as TPF refer to it as (1.8), and I understand this is a better lens in terms of IQ? I've also been looking at the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8. In theory this would replace my kit lens? (Ie similar zoom, but overall a far better lens?). The Sigma I'm looking at = Link

To give you an idea of what I've done with the kit lens, and what I like capture, I've added some links below of recent snaps.

I'm hoping a better lens will improve these shots? Will a 17-70 be the answer?

1. http://flic.kr/p/asvNhn
2. http://flic.kr/p/asvNUB
3. http://flic.kr/p/asyraL
4. http://flic.kr/p/asvMLz

Any advice is appreciated. :thumbs:


Edit - Adding to the 17-70mm lens, will this be the same as my kit lens in terms of AF/MF? IS?
 
Last edited:
That sigma is what I use! It was considered a massive step up from the older Canon kit lens and I would say it it still optically an improvement on the new one whilst also having the benefit of being slightly fast, slightly wider, longer and closer focusing making it a great general purpose lens. What you will loose is the IS from your current kit lens some people consider this a big deal others don't but I'd say once you've had it you'll notice when it's gone!

Personally if it was my money I'd be looking for either the newer OS version of that sigma lens but I would also seriously consider either the Sigma or tamron f2.8 standard zoons (17-55ish) the constant aperture is really usefull and f2.8 at 50mm would improve your portraits and they are both better optically than your current kit lens.
 
Canon's 50mm f1.8 (Nifty Fifty) is a very cheap, fast, prime that offers remarkable value for money in terms of its low light capability and image quality, but it's built like a toy. It has the same field of view as an 80mm lens when you put it on a crop camera like your 500D, and a lot of people use it as a portrait lens. Personally, I find it far too long for a standard lens, and too short for a telephoto, so I don't own one.

You have a few choices if you want to upgrade your kit lens. I don't know anything about the Sigma, but the Tamron 17 - 50mm f2.8 seems to have an excellent reputation. The cream of the crop is probably the Canon 17 - 55mm f2.8, but it's an expensive lens.
 
Tamron 17 - 50mm f2.8 has some reliability issues? Some are good some are bad. Like any lens i guess?
 
Do any of the sigma/tamron's offer IS? Is that the only difference I'd notice between them an a Canon?
 
C.J said:
Do any of the sigma/tamron's offer IS? Is that the only difference I'd notice between them an a Canon?
Click to expand...

They both do versions with IS(Sigma call it OS, Tamron VR) however the Sigma is pretty expensive and the Tamron isnt as sharp wide open as the non VR version.

Do you need IS? at 50mm I wouldnt say its essential unless your taking landscapes or other shots with small appatures and/or in low light. A large 2.8 appature will be alot more helpful when it comes to people shooting in low light.

I'd also bare in mind that the 18-55 IS is actually a pretty sharp lens, its weaknesses are the variable appature, autofocus speed/nose, build quality rotating front element etc.
 
Moreorless said:
Do you need IS? at 50mm I wouldnt say its essential unless your taking landscapes or other shots with small appatures and/or in low light. A large 2.8 appature will be alot more helpful when it comes to people shooting in low light.
Click to expand...

I'd agree it's not essential but once you've had it you get used to being able to hand hold at speeds you have no hope of without IS and it also allows masks any flaws in your technique that might become apparent when you loose it.

The Tamron lens is a tricky one, while from what I've seen and read the non-stablised version is sharper wide open it's not the night and day issue that many people seem to present. If you are a 200% zoom in PS type then you will notice the difference but in more real world situations the difference is much much less apparent. The quality issues are also worth taking with a pinch of salt, this is a very very popular lens and sell by the bucket load with the majority of people being perfectly happy.

I'd be very tempted by the new sigma OS version it has reviewed very well even though it is slightly more expensive.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for the replies.

So the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 OS (Like this?) would be a replacement to my 18-55 lens?

In terms of IQ, is the Sigma I've linked to an improvement to my kit lens? And I'll not lose any features I'm currently using?
 
Imho Save up for the Canon 17-55 2.8
After years of personally chopping and changing with Sigma,Tamron lenses and being dissapointed i've finally bit the bullet and got the Canon and it's superb
Expensive yes but truly a pro grade lens and the iq is astonishing
 
C.J said:
Thanks again for the replies.

So the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 OS (Like this?) would be a replacement to my 18-55 lens?

In terms of IQ, is the Sigma I've linked to an improvement to my kit lens? And I'll not lose any features I'm currently using?
Click to expand...

As a walkaround lens, the 17-70 OS is really good. It has good OS, it does macro, its sharp a few clicks down, its small/light, good range etc.

For me, 17-70mm isnt a range I use a lot - I could even get away with not using it, and as such I would never spend a large chunk of money on this range.

I would say its an ideal kit lens replacement. Also consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - which is also pretty good and also cheap.
 
Dan74 said:
Imho Save up for the Canon 17-55 2.8
After years of personally chopping and changing with Sigma,Tamron lenses and being dissapointed i've finally bit the bullet and got the Canon and it's superb
Expensive yes but truly a pro grade lens and the iq is astonishing
Click to expand...

Even on a 500D, the £7/800 lens is worth it, over the £2/300 Sigma/Tamron?
 
Last edited:
For me yes, Like i say it's just my opinion but i reckon you get what you pay for
I've now got the 17-55 and the 70-200 2.8 non is and can't see how you can get better iq wise on my 60D
 
C.J said:
Even on a 500D, the £7/800 lens is worth it, over the £2/300 Sigma/Tamron?
Click to expand...

Yes, very much so, if you can afford it. The lens is by far the most important component if you want the best image quality you can get. Basically, a dirt cheap body like an old 300D or 350D and an excellent lens will give you wonderful results - providing you play your part - but an expensive professional body coupled with an inferior lens won't come close.
 
Ok great. That makes sense.

I now understand the Canon 17-55 is better than the Sigma/Tamron equivalent.

Is the Sigma/Tamron 17-55 / 17-70 (with OS/VR) still a better lens to the kit lens I currently have in terms of IQ?

Looking at my images I posted above, will the Sigma/Tamron improve these images much?
 
C.J said:
Even on a 500D, the £7/800 lens is worth it, over the £2/300 Sigma/Tamron?
Click to expand...

The OS Sigma 17-50 is £550 so its not really that much cheaper than the Canon, espeically since the Canon is quite easy to find used for around £620. Performances wise the big difference seems to be that the Canon has much sharper boarders at 2.8.

The 500D might be small but a 15 megapixel sensor is still very hungery for quality glass if you can afford it. Weight might be something to consider though given that your putting the lens on such a small body and I think the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC scores in that reguard being 100-150g lighter than the other lenses mentioned.
 
Any f2.8 lens is going to be quite a bit heavier than an f3.5 - 5.6, and it is a consideration, but a lot of people find that a grip helps to balance things out. I think you can find third party ones at a reasonable price, and this might be something to think about if you plan on getting a telephoto at some point too?
 
You may also want to consider Canon 15-85 IS f3.5-5.6. It is not f2.8, but the range is good ( and wide for your landscape use ), and the image quality is good.
 
Thanks. How does the 15-85 compare to the kit lens for IQ?

I like the sound of a wider lens.
 
Looking at its reviews, the image quality should be comparable to Canon 17-55mm IS. You get more range, but you can't do as thin DOF as you can with f2.8 and not as good in low light.
 
I did a comparison test between the 17-70 OS lens and the 18-55 IS kit lens and the difference was marginal. The 17-70 was only slightly better. The Tamron 17-50 is one of the sharpest and nicest lenses out there. I would go for one of those..... or the 15-85 which is also a really good lens.
 
Alternatively, if you want to take wide landscape photo, you can keep your kit lens and look at adding UWA lens:
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8

If you go with Canon 15-85, it may already be wide enough, though. ( depending on what you want )
 
C.J said:
Thanks. How does the 15-85 compare to the kit lens for IQ?

I like the sound of a wider lens.
Click to expand...

Have a look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27. These are submitted by end users, not "professional" reviewers.

Both lenses are very well regarded. The 15 - 85mm offers a better range and build quality, but has a variable aperture and is quite slow. The 17 - 55mm is f2.8 throughout, but IMO the build quality leaves something to be desired. It's not bad, but not quite what it should be at this price point.

15mm on a crop camera is equivalent to 24mm on 35mm film or a full frame digital body. That's quite wide, but not extremely wide. You'll have to go for something starting around 10mm or 12mm if you want that.

I'm not quite sure which one I would choose. It depends what you want to use it for of course, and I'd be tempted by the 15 - 85mm, but the f2.8 on the 17 - 55mm might swing it for me. You won't go far wrong with either, and these lenses hold their value. You can usually sell them on without taking much of a loss if you decide to change.
 
Thank you once again. All great answers.

I understand the 15mm is the equivalent to a 24mm. Does this also apply to my current kit lens I'm using?

What I mean is, if I'm currently using 18mm on my 18-55mm (for a wide-ish shot), and use the 15mm on the 15-85mm, will I actually get a wider shot? (I assume both lenses lose a few mm).

/Daft question.
 
Last edited:
focal lenght is a physical property of the lens it does not change if you put it on a different camera. The only thing that changes if change sensor size is the field of view.

so in order to say have a FOV of 54 degrees you would need to have a focal length of

APS-C 24mm
FF 35mm
6x4.5 MF 55mm



C.J said:
Thank you once again. All great answers.

I understand the 15mm is the equivalent to a 24mm. Does this also apply to my current kit lens I'm using?

What I mean is, if I'm currently using 18mm on my 18-55mm (for a wide-ish shot), and use the 15mm on the 15-85mm, will I actually get a wider shot? (I assume both lenses lose a few mm).

/Daft question.
Click to expand...
 
C.J said:
I understand the 15mm is the equivalent to a 24mm. Does this also apply to my current kit lens I'm using?

What I mean is, if I'm currently using 18mm on my 18-55mm (for a wide-ish shot), and use the 15mm on the 15-85mm, will I actually get a wider shot? (I assume both lenses lose a few mm).

/Daft question.
Click to expand...

Yes. 18mm on a crop body gives the equivalent field of view of 28mm on full frame, so it's a bit wider. You can see the difference, but 15mm is not extremely wide.

One thing to bear in mind, and please forgive me if you already know this. Wide angle lenses increase the field of view in all directions - not just horizontally - so you can end up with an awful lot of unwanted foreground and sky and a very small mountain range in between them!
 
From what I've seen, ultra wide will give it the fisheye look, which isn't what I want.

Something wider than the 18mm will acheive the shots I'm looking for.

The 15-85 is looking promising, as it'll give me a few mm each side of the kit lens, better IQ (which is what I'm wanting), but with the same DoF and f3.5-5.6.

I think a 50mm 1.8 as well might be worth me getting, for the DoF/low light shots too.

Does that sound like a good start to replacing the kit lens?

arad85 said:
For real life examples of the lenses see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll have a look now.
 
arad85 said:
For real life examples of the lenses see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx
Click to expand...

Thanks.

This image (to me) doesn't make sense unless I'm missing something.

It says it's taken at 15mm. So I'd assume a wide angle? (More than 18mm on my 18-55?).

15-85mm-f56.jpg
 
I don't think it's a full frame image of a lens at a a particular focal length, it's just a part of the frame used to compare all the lenses beneath at the different apertures, I think. I.E. it's not the whole image at 15mm.
 
Last edited:
C.J said:
Thanks.

This image (to me) doesn't make sense unless I'm missing something.

It says it's taken at 15mm. So I'd assume a wide angle? (More than 18mm on my 18-55?).

15-85mm-f56.jpg
Click to expand...
If you read the sentence just above the picture ;) it says:

"These sample crops were taken from a location about 33% into the left side of frame."

I.e. they are crops from a third of the way into the frame. I.e. the corners will be worse, the centre probably better.
 
I really should read :bonk:

Now to source a 15-85mm and 50mm 1.8. I think.
 
50mm F1.8 is great for experimenting with nice big apertures but IME on a crop sensor camera like my 450D and your 500D is just too long to be practical for anything apart from portraits.
 
How do these compare in terms of IQ? Let's say @ 18mm, f3.5. Similar to the images in my first post.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 @ £350
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 @ £180
Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 @ £600

I'm using Flickr to get an idea of what is achievable with each.

I'm leaning towards the 15-85, but can't convince myself the price tag is worth it.
 
Last edited:
C.J said:
I'm leaning towards the 15-85, but can't convince myself the price tag is worth it.
Click to expand...
The 15-85 has IS. It is very, very good (clearly not as useful on moving objects, but hand held nighttime for buildings for example is excellent). I don't think the others do (prepared to be corrected here - not sure if that's the price for an IS tamron or not).

You should be able to get it cheaper if you PM kerso on here. He may take a while to return your PM, but he's trusted (I've spent over £3k with him) and can normally source Canon stuff cheaper. The item will be a US import, but all Canon lenses carry a full international warranty so will be warrantied for work here during the guarantee period.
 
arad85 said:
The 15-85 has IS. It is very, very good (clearly not as useful on moving objects, but hand held nighttime for buildings for example is excellent). I don't think the others do (prepared to be corrected here - not sure if that's the price for an IS tamron or not).

You should be able to get it cheaper if you PM kerso on here. He may take a while to return your PM, but he's trusted (I've spent over £3k with him) and can normally source Canon stuff cheaper. The item will be a US import, but all Canon lenses carry a full international warranty so will be warrantied for work here during the guarantee period.
Click to expand...

There have been a few debates about international warranties, but I have a feeling that Canon's only applies to the L series. OTOH Ian supplies a UK invoice that is good for warranty work, and he's often said that he'll make good on any problems in any case. He's got an excellent reputation.
 
MPB (ad banner at top of page) Has a 17-55 for £619 and a couple of 15-85's
 
Thanks for the replies again.

The Tamron @ £350 is for the IS (VC) version, which I think is reasonable.

What's Tamron's reputation for lenses?

I rarley find myself needing any more zoom than 55mm, so the 17-50 Tamron should do, but as I've said from the start, it's picture quality that's important.

So, Tamron 17-55mm f2.8 VC vs. Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6.

Also, I was speaking with WarehouseExpress earlier, and they suggested the Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6?
 
Last edited:
Photozone have some of the easiest to follow reviews, the overall grades are obviously somewhat subjective but charts are quite simple...

Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC....

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=1

Canon 15-85 IS...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=1

Canon 17-85 IS...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/402-canon_1785_456is_50d?start=1

Canon 18-55 IS kit lens for comparison...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d?start=1

The main difference between the 15-85 and the 17-85 is the former has sharper corners at the wide end, less CA, better IS and 2mm extra at the wide end that translates to about 13% more coverage horizontally and vertically.

When your dealing with SLR's remember that long range zooms that provide high quality are very rare indeed, having a times 6 zoom like the 15-85 with high quality thoughout the range is going to cost a prenium.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. The 15-85mm seems to be a bit better built too. I got the 17-85mm as a kit lens with my 30D, and it's a lot better than I expected, but I wouldn't have paid full price for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top