Replacing Canon kit lens.

Raptor Mike

Raptor Mike

Messages
2,812
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
When I bought my Canon 1000D I got an 18-55 kit lens and a 75-300.
Since then I've bought a used 60D body only (just over a year old). I was going to keep the kit lens and sell the 1000D as body only. Then I read this review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-Lens-Review.aspx

So my question is do I get rid of my kit lens with the 1000D and what do I replace it with. Also what about the 70-300?
Thanks in advance, Mike

PS I like landscape and motorcycle sport if that helps in any suggestions.
 
Last edited:
Looking at very different lenses for both! Which would you want to focus (pun not intended) on first? Some cracking used bargains around!
 
I do more landscape than anything. We also use the camera for family snaps/days out etc. I don't want to spend a fortune. I wonder what you think of this lens
http://www.parkcameras.com/21642/Sigma-18-200mm-f-3-5-6-3-II-DC-OS---Canon.html That would cover both my current lenses within reason.

Also if I sold the 1000D with the kit 18-55 (not IS) and the 75-300 (not IS) all together as I bought it roughly what should I charge? It cost me £440 about 2 and a half years ago.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I had a 1000D and this week have just purchased a 60D. I had intended to keep it as back up but I can't see myself using it again with the 60D being so much better at everything!

I don't know about the Sigma in question but if you do landscape photography have you considered a wide-angle lens like the Sigma 10-20 and keeping the 18-55 for general purpose?
 
The kit 18-55 IS II is a fairly good lens for general shooting, despite its plastic mount and build quality. However, the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 are both regarded as being excellent lenses in the range and both are better optically and in build quality than the Canon.

The Sigma 18-200 has had some pretty good reviews on here recently and I can also recommend the Sigma 18-125 OS as I had one and got some great shots with it. The Canon 55-250 IS is also a highly regarded lens for IQ relative to price, however it's also got a plastic mount and body, and will probably be far better than your 75-300 (which I found was awful when I had one). Ideally for motorsports you'd want a fast lens, f2.8 or thereabouts with a good reach but you can get some outstanding results from the 55-250.
 
modchild said:
The kit 18-55 IS II is a fairly good lens for general shooting, despite its plastic mount and build quality. However, the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 are both regarded as being excellent lenses in the range and both are better optically and in build quality than the Canon.

The Sigma 18-200 has had some pretty good reviews on here recently and I can also recommend the Sigma 18-125 OS as I had one and got some great shots with it. The Canon 55-250 IS is also a highly regarded lens for IQ relative to price, however it's also got a plastic mount and body, and will probably be far better than your 75-300 (which I found was awful when I had one). Ideally for motorsports you'd want a fast lens, f2.8 or thereabouts with a good reach but you can get some outstanding results from the 55-250.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, that's REALLY helpful. I have been trawling through lenses and reviews on both Park and WEX and each time I find a lens that looks good there's a bad focus review or simular.
 
SO at the moment it's between

The Tamron 17-50 and keep the 75-300
http://www.parkcameras.com/4427/Tam...-8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical-IF--Canon-fit-.html

Or get rid of both lenses to get the Sigma 18-200 and buy a really wide lens for landscape in the future
http://www.parkcameras.com/21642/Sigma-18-200mm-f-3-5-6-3-II-DC-OS---Canon.html

Or get rid of both lenses, replace the 18-55 with the Tamron 17-50 and replace the 75-300 with the Canon 55-250
http://www.parkcameras.com/21438/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5-6-IS-II.html

My concern is that is the Sigma a Jack of all trades, but a master of non?

I loved some of the others but at just shy £500 they are a bit over budget...at the moment

Thanks for your help, Mike :)
 
Last edited:
Raptor Mike said:
SO at the moment it's between

The Tamron 17-50 and keep the 75-300
http://www.parkcameras.com/4427/Tamron-SP-AF-17-50mm-f-2-8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical-IF--Canon-fit-.html

Or get rid of both lenses to get the Sigma 18-200 and buy a really wide lens for landscape in the future
http://www.parkcameras.com/21642/Sigma-18-200mm-f-3-5-6-3-II-DC-OS---Canon.html

Or get rid of both lenses, replace the 18-55 with the Tamron 17-50 and replace the 75-300 with the Canon 55-250
http://www.parkcameras.com/21438/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5-6-IS-II.html

My concern is that is the Sigma a Jack of all trades, but a master of non?

I loved some of the others but at just shy £500 they are a bit over budget...at the moment

Thanks for your help, Mike :)
Click to expand...

I have a 55-250 for sale if you are interested

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=471320
 
You don't have enough Post's to view the trade section yet.

MY suggestion is to go with the Tamron and possibly the 55-250. Or do with out the telephoto for a while and Invest in a second hand 70-200 f4L. Usually can pick them up around £380-£420 depending on age and condition.
 
Raptor Mike said:
Ah it says I need to have contributed 25 posts. Once this has been written that will be 5 left ;)
Click to expand...

Oh yeh I forgot about that. You have 25 posts now any questions just ask I will Have loads of pics of said lens after I finish work in a couple of hours . And I have loads of feedback. Not from here but I can send you some links of some of it
 
From my personal experience, def recommend the Tam 17-50 non vc. A absolute cracker of a walkabout / general lens. spends the most time on my 60D.
Not quite as sharp as the Canon 17-55 but close, and a lot cheaper.

I also have the Canon 55-250 which is a good choice for the money for a budget tele.

You will find the Sigma 18-200 to have poorer image quality compared to the 17-50 + 55-250 combo. This is the trade of for a convienient "one size fits all" superzoom I'm afraid.

Lastly, for landscapes, most def worth saving up and getting the Sigma 10-20, simply a brilliant lens :) cant recommend it enough.

Hope this helps a little

Jamie
 
JamieAxe said:
From my personal experience, def recommend the Tam 17-50 non vc. A absolute cracker of a walkabout / general lens. spends the most time on my 60D.
Not quite as sharp as the Canon 17-55 but close, and a lot cheaper.

I also have the Canon 55-250 which is a good choice for the money for a budget tele.

You will find the Sigma 18-200 to have poorer image quality compared to the 17-50 + 55-250 combo. This is the trade of for a convienient "one size fits all" superzoom I'm afraid.

Lastly, for landscapes, most def worth saving up and getting the Sigma 10-20, simply a brilliant lens :) cant recommend it enough.

Hope this helps a little

Jamie
Click to expand...

Yes that helps a lot but what does VC mean?
 
So itsme93 is sending me the Canon 55-250. Once I'ce sold the other kit I'm going to go for the Tamron 17-50. I know there's no IS (VC) but the reviews are outstanding.

Thanks all for you help and advice :)
Mike
 
Let me know how you get on with the 55-250, as I am thinking of getting that lens, and curious about the image quality.
 
Hi mike
Sorry bout late reply. Yeah vc as mrgrubby said.
There is a stabilised version of the tam 17 but its reported by many to not as sharp.
Just keep an eye on shutter speeds and you'll be absolutely fine without vc :)
Let us know how you get on with your new lens :))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top