canon 50d keep my 18-55 IS lens?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
So when I upgrade my 450D to a 50D I'm going to sell my 450D. Now should I buy the 50D without it's kit lens and keep my 18-55 IS 450 lens for it.

Or should I sell it wth the 18-55 lens and buy the 17-85mm IS lens?

Other than the extra 20mm are there any other advantages to the 50d kit lens over the 450d kit lens?
 
I'm no expert with Canon - but without a doubt the 17=85 IS is far superior.
 
If it's the 18-55IS, I'd keep it as it's reputed to be as sharp as the 17-85 although shorter range.
 
imagine said:
If it's the 18-55IS, I'd keep it as it's reputed to be as sharp as the 17-85 although shorter range.
Click to expand...


Are oyu sure? In all the tests in AP they claim its very soft?
 
lawrenceots said:
Are oyu sure? In all the tests in AP they claim its very soft?
Click to expand...

I've had both and I'd say the humble 18-55 IS (not the older non-IS version) is better optically. The 17-85 is a great lens to use with a really good range and nice feel, but it has more than its fair share of CA.

Neither will do justice to the resolution potential of the 50D. You need the 17-55 2.8 to do that (wonderful lens :) ) or possibly the new 15-85 when it becomes readily available and the price has settled down a bit.
 
I agree with HoppyUK and would pair a 50D with a Canon 17-55 f/2.8.
Another alternative is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8VC which is due for release.
You could also keep the 450D and invest in lenses because you will also need to do this with a 50D.
 
From what I've read the 18-55 IS is sharper. Tbh neither are magnificent lenses; I'd stick with the 18-55 until you can afford a 17-55/2.8.

That said it might be worth buying the 50D kit and flogging the 17-85 separately, depending on pricing.
 
tbm said:
From what I've read the 18-55 IS is sharper. Tbh neither are magnificent lenses;
Click to expand...
Sorry but I have both and the 18-55 is not a patch on the Canon 17-85 IS Ultrasonic
One is a cheap lens all plastic where as the 17-85 IS is much better built with a metal mount. And sharp as well.
 
Chaz Photos said:
Sorry but I have both and the 18-55 is not a patch on the Canon 17-85 IS Ultrasonic
One is a cheap lens all plastic where as the 17-85 IS is much better built with a metal mount. And sharp as well.
Click to expand...
Do you have the original non-stabilised 18-55 or the later IS version? I have the earlier one and can personally vouch for how un-spectacular it's performance is.

The IS version has a much better rep though - according the Photozone the 18-55 IS is a bit sharper than the 17-85 IS throughout most of the zoom range, with much better edge sharpness, arguably less distortion, slightly less vignetting and far lower chromatic abbs.

That said it is a third party review and you do have first hand experience of both lenses.. I'd imagine sample variation would make a difference to real world comparisons as well.

Admittedly the 17-85 is built much better, but then it is about double the price...
 
wow, that 17-55 f/2.8 is like almost a grand.

I have a 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM telephoto lens and a 50mm f/1.8, plus the 18-55 IS Kit lens

Are any of these lenses going to make use of the 50D. Is it a case of having a TVR and putting low value petrol in it.

Will I notice better picture quality with these lenses over my 450D? Or because the lenses aren't as good is it a waste of money to buy a better body to use with them?
 
50mm f1.8 would get you through until you have enough money to get another lens, have you considered primes?

i love primes and now im getting a sony 30mm f2.8 macro, a sony 50mm f1.4 and a tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. when i have enough ash i will then throw in a cz 70-300mm f4.5.6 G SSM lens.
 
I've got a Nikon 85mm 1.8, its a peach, though sadly won't AF on my new D5000 ;(
 
joescrivens said:
wow, that 17-55 f/2.8 is like almost a grand.

I have a 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM telephoto lens and a 50mm f/1.8, plus the 18-55 IS Kit lens

Are any of these lenses going to make use of the 50D. Is it a case of having a TVR and putting low value petrol in it.

Will I notice better picture quality with these lenses over my 450D? Or because the lenses aren't as good is it a waste of money to buy a better body to use with them?
Click to expand...

You can get a 17-55 2.8 for under £700. PM kerso for a price.

It's a bit like putting super in a TVR, if you want to get maximum performance from it (before it breaks down, that is). If you don't have a really sharp lens on a 50D you will not realise its resolution potential but you won't realise that either unless you print very big anyway.

In terms of sharpness, most lenses are quite similar in the centre of the frame at mid range apertures. The difference is at the edges and at low f/numbers. Plus with the 17-55 it is f/2.8 throughout, which is four times brighter than the f/5.6 that the kit lens does at the longer end. Big difference that is costly to achieve.

The 50D is really quite a different camera to the 450D in all sorts of ways apart from the sensor, and much better in all of them except weight, if that is a consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top