Canon kit lens upgrade

Wozzaaah

Wozzaaah

Messages
1,430
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, I picked up an old 350D recently and would like to replace the 18-55 non IS with something a bit better.
By using the forum search I think I've pretty much made up my mind as to which £200ish zooms to consider so here's the shortlist:

First choice seems to be the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Some reviewers don't seem to rate it too highly but most owners on here reckon it's a cracker for the price and the sample pics I've seen (particularly those by Odd Jim) look fantastic.

Second choice is the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM. Again, mixed reviews but as the price is similar it's one I have to consider.

Third and fourth choices are the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS but not particularly in any order.

Any reason to choose any of the others over the Canon 18-135 and are there any others worth considering?
It's just for general 'out and about' type photography plus running and cycling events.
I already have a Canon 55-250 which I'm very pleased with so I'm after a 'walkabout' lens.
 
I replaced my kit lens with the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS. A liitle more that the £200 you are looking to spend, but an excellent lens and so much better than the kit lens, and faster than the Canon alternatives you are looking at.
 
Alternatively, if you don't mind the shorter range, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC is well respected for sharpness.
 
Wozzaaah said:
Hi all, I picked up an old 350D recently and would like to replace the 18-55 non IS with something a bit better.
By using the forum search I think I've pretty much made up my mind as to which £200ish zooms to consider so here's the shortlist:

First choice seems to be the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Some reviewers don't seem to rate it too highly but most owners on here reckon it's a cracker for the price and the sample pics I've seen (particularly those by Odd Jim) look fantastic.

Second choice is the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM. Again, mixed reviews but as the price is similar it's one I have to consider.

Third and fourth choices are the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS but not particularly in any order.

Any reason to choose any of the others over the Canon 18-135 and are there any others worth considering?
It's just for general 'out and about' type photography plus running and cycling events.
I already have a Canon 55-250 which I'm very pleased with so I'm after a 'walkabout' lens.
Click to expand...

Why thank you! :thumbs:

I love my Canon 18-135 IS, and in fact, its this lens that has brought my enthusiasm back into photography and persuaded me to keep my gear. I originally bought this lens to go travelling with as it has possibly one of the most useful APS-C ranges available in one lens, without compromising too much.

Despite what the reviews say, its VERY sharp, the colour rendition is some of the best I've seen and the 4 stop IS is as good as Canon report it to be.

The only downside is a bit of barrel disortion at 18mm (but less than similar spec'd lenses) and the fact its variable aperture rather than f/2.8 (if it was f/2.8 it would cost five times as much!) so its not a low light lens for anything moving by any means. I've owned and used many lenses, primes, zooms, Macros, and I'd actually rate the 18-135 up there with the best of them in normal light, and in low light despite being a fairly slow aperture lens, the fantastic IS really comes into its own with static objects and scenes. Its certainly my most useful lens.
 
Last edited:
Owned the Canon 18-135mm and the 17-85mm, happy to see the 18-135 go, not so the 17-85 usm, faster focus and bette build, saying that, I would put theTamron 17-50mm f2.8 and the
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 above the Canons
 
Thanks guys. I did look at the Sigma 17-70 but it's just a little more than I'd like to pay at the mo and I'm looking for something with a bit more range so that also counts out the Tamron 17-50 for now.
Is the focussing of the USM on the 17-85 that much quicker than that of the 18-135 to trade the extra length for and would an amateur like me see the benefits of it for the sort of shooting I'm likely to do, i.e outdoor running and cycling events?
What range lens would you typically use for that type of shooting?
Price-wise there's little between the two so it's down to IQ and suitability really.
I'm not looking at producing 'professional quality' shots as they won't be for sale, just decent enough ones for personal use by club members.

Thanks for the replies so far, I can see I'm going to like it here. :thumbs:
 
I've just come across another recent thread where the 17-85 seems to be getting a bad rap.
I know they're prone to dust but other than that the price is right and there's loads about so would it be suitable for my needs or should I go with gut instinct and go longer?
 
Excellent! Thanks Mark.
I think it's a dead heat between the 17-85 and the 18-135 at the mo though I've not yet had any feedback on the Sigma 18-125 HSM.
Any others worth a look?
 
Hmmm...another thought...18-200?
Sigma with OS would set me back around £200 and MPB have several in stock.
Canon, not so easy to find used and comes in at around £350 which is a little more than I'd like to pay at the mo.
Opinions please? ;)
 
*Sniff*...bit quiet in here.....:'(

So, Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 DC OS
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC (non OS)
Tamron AF18-200mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD

Opinions on any of those please. ;)
 
If you have the 55-250mm I would question why you would want a 18-200mm lens. Your 55-250mm will be sharper than the 18-200mm, and is longer. The 18-200mm lens do not have a good reputation as they are known for being a compromise, however they are a good 'do-all' lens. As you have the 55-250mm I would look to get either of the following lens for £200:
- Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro (non-OS)
- Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro
- Tamron 17-50mm non-VC

I actually have a 55-250mm IS and a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 and I find it a great combination.
 
Out of these Lenses the Tamron 17-50 non VC gets Rave reviews from just about everyone
 
DaveKing said:
If you have the 55-250mm I would question why you would want a 18-200mm lens. Your 55-250mm will be sharper than the 18-200mm, and is longer. The 18-200mm lens do not have a good reputation as they are known for being a compromise, however they are a good 'do-all' lens. As you have the 55-250mm I would look to get either of the following lens for £200:
- Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro (non-OS)
- Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro
- Tamron 17-50mm non-VC

I actually have a 55-250mm IS and a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 and I find it a great combination.
Click to expand...

As I said a few posts above, I'm looking for something more suitable as a 'walkabout' lens and that's also suitable for running and cycling events.
It doesn't necessarily need to go to 200mm but to a beginner such as me the range seems very appealing and I'm not overly concerned about image quality at the moment.
The 55-250 is great, I'm really pleased with it but 55mm is way too wide to use it on it's own.

I do like the sound of the Sigma 17-70mm but I think it may be a little short for what I'm after? Used ones also seem quite difficult to find.

Thanks for the replies so far, really appreciate your help. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top