Upgradeing kit lens

kallope

kallope

Suspended / Banned
Messages
128
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello, im new here, and just upgraded from a 350D to a 50D. At the moment im using the kit lens that came with my 350D on it which is a canon 18-55mm lens.

I want to upgrade this to get the best out the camera possible. I currently have the kit 18-55mm and have also got the canon 100-400mm L lens. I shoot a veriaty of different picture from nature shots, sports photography, portraits and landscapes.

The cannon 100-400mm L lens covers my nature shots and the sports but i feel i need a better lens to replace 18-55mm lens. Any suggestions on what the best lens replacement could be. Im looking at the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM second hand, but would like to hear your opinion on other lenses or would this be a great replacement?

I dont have a budget on this, as im willing to pay for the quality a decent lens will bring.

Thanks

Mike
 
thanks for the advise,

would those lenses be better than the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM that I had been looking at?
 
kallope said:
thanks for the advise,

would those lenses be better than the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM that I had been looking at?
Click to expand...

I'd prob go for the Canon myself. You also want to invest in a fast prime (e.g. 50mm 1.4) as I tend to use this more than my 24-105L kit when I bought my 5D.
 
I replaced my kit lens with a sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and canon 50mm 1.8 for around £270, the extra reach on the sigma is quite handy at motor sport events especially if I'm close to the track. Image wise I'm much happier with it.
 
Kallope,

I'm also quite new here, I took some advice a while back to change my standard zoom lens (Canon EFS18-55mm IS) for the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5. I can happily say that 90% of the time, I would not look back at the kit lens, colour and sharpness are dead-on, although it has to be said that the IS function could possibly have saved a few otherwise 'binned' low-light shots using the Sigma.

Hope this helps
 
24-105, especially as a walk-about lens (lighter than 24-70) plus IS negates 2.8 "most" of the time!
 
On a 50D, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a more useful choice than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L or the 24-105mm f/4 L IS. Many people feel that 24mm isn't wide enough for a walk-around zoom on a cropped-sensor camera. Optically the 17-55 is on a par with the two L's, probably better than any Tamron or Sigma alternatives, and it gives you f/2.8 and IS. It's what I'd go for if I were you.
 
Thanks for all the reply's guys, with all these options it just makes my job to choose the right one more difficult.

You have picked up on the lack of the wider angle on the 24-70mm lens, I am intending to buy another lens next month with that pay packet to cover these wider angles. But undecided on that also, think that will be between EF 10-22mm or the EF 16-35mm
 
Good advice from StewartR. EF lenses are designed for full frame format and with crop format you are just paying for something you can't actually use. There are big benefits to EF-S, for example, compare the EF 17-40 4 L and the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS that Stewart recommends - more range, f/2.8 throughout, and IS. Plus it's sharper, and has less distortion.
 
agree with stewart with the 17-55 2.8 IS, i have the 24-70L and it is a little long on the wide end on a crop sensor body. However i have the 10-22mm to cover my wide needs.
 
kallope said:
Thanks for all the reply's guys, with all these options it just makes my job to choose the right one more difficult.

You have picked up on the lack of the wider angle on the 24-70mm lens, I am intending to buy another lens next month with that pay packet to cover these wider angles. But undecided on that also, think that will be between EF 10-22mm or the EF 16-35mm
Click to expand...

I have the 10-22mm - excellant lens and really lightweight so is always in my bag. I then have the 24-105 on my camera all the time as a walkabout lens.

It can be a little long at times at the wide lens, but nothing a step or two backwards doesn't cope with, or swapping to the 10-22.

The long end has been a godsend and I've left the 70-200 out of my bag now in favour of the 100-400
 
I have thought about a 50mm prime, and from looking at flicker I do like the results. Im currently watching a few of them on ebay, to see what price a second hand one goes for.

So if i got a quality 10-22mm or the EF 16-35mm that would make up for the lack of width in the 24-70mm.

Byker28i said:
......It can be a little long at times at the wide lens, but nothing a step or two backwards doesn't cope with.....
Click to expand...

Nice easy way to compensate for the cropped sensor :D
 
been watching the 1.4's. Like the idea of a 1.2, but there just too much money

are the 1.4 worth the extra money than a 1.8?
 
What abou the 17-40. I replaced my kit lens with this and at the time used it 90% of the time (also had 50 1.8). I found it worked really nicely on a crop camera. Cheaper than buying 10-22 and 24-70 as well!
 
i upgraded my 18-55 non IS with the 17-55 IS USM Canon that StewartR suggested - nice lens, fast, light (although not really had chance to put it through it paces fully yet).

Reason for this is that i've already got a 100-400 and was looking at getting a 50-150 sigma so that i'd have 17-400 covered in a nice 3 lens package with a tiny bit of over lap

Just need to find a 50-150 at a reasonable price next :)

Gary
 
As Stewart suggests - The 17-55 EFS F2.8 IS is a cracking lens on the 50D. I really do like this lens, great sharpness and versatile. It was due to this lens that the nifty never go on the camera and got moved on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top