New walkabout lens to replace kit lens (18-55)

necarey1

necarey1

Messages
30
Name
Nicola
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there!

I have a Canon 600D and I am looking to upgrade my 18-55 kit lens to something that has a bit more focal length and also something a good bit more sharper! Possibly pay up to £400 and would def consider second hand (new user so I cannot access classifieds). Maybe looking at a 18-200? I have been looking at lens reviews on the Internet and find some quite contradictory! Some of the lens I have considered are;

- Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

- Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC HSM Optical Stabilised

-Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (shorter length but it looks like a good lens!)

If anyone has been though the same dilemma and purchased a decent lens that has produced great photos for them please let me know :D
Thanks!
Nicola

Edit; interested in landscape, street and architecture photography. So something wide is ideal :)
 
Last edited:
First lens I got after my kit lens was a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS HSM. You don't hear much about it but it's fantastic, I still use it as a walkabout lens on my 450D.
 
I'm doing the same as you. Think I've set my sights on the 17-85 mm f4 IS USM lens. Any trying to find somewhere near me that has one so I can have a look.
 
Last edited:
Bmwjc said:
I'm doing the same as you. Think I've set my sights on the 17-85 mm f4 IS USM lens. Any trying to find somewhere near me that has one so I can have a look.
Click to expand...

If you want sharper and faster your best choice is the 17-55 f/2.8... a good bit of money but up to 2 stops faster. (it's the DX equivalent of the 24-70 f/2.8)

If you want more versatile focal lengths the 18-200 is probably the better choice. The Sigma is probably @ f/6.3 @ 200mm and 250mm is negligible difference. Either way, it's going to be a "good light" lens.

Nothing is perfect... I'd give more help, but I shoot Nikon so I have little experience with Canon lenses.
 
funkyrayman said:
First lens I got after my kit lens was a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS HSM. You don't hear much about it but it's fantastic, I still use it as a walkabout lens on my 450D.
Click to expand...

I've got one of those (450D and 550D) and i find it frustrating. At times it's great although its always front focussed slightly for me.
I've got an issue with it on the focusing though in that i get a large number of misses - far more than i'd expect from a lens. I couldnt narrow down any common trend such as aperture/OS on or off, focal length etc but on a lot of tests focusing in live view vs auto focus on the same identical point the AF was softer or slightly OOF a relatively high percentage of the time.

I've got to the stage now i dont trust the lens so im using a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 over it. I've lost reach but a far higher keeper rate off this lens.

Which brings me onto the topic here - for £400 getting a really good lens to cover lots of lengths will be hard. I'd look for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 combined with a Canon 55-250 IS f/4-5.6 (new for about £110, second hand for less).

That'll give you the advantage of a good fast lens for most things and a decent quality telephoto for further.
 
You might get close to a 24-105L with that budget. A great walk about lens.

The 28-135mm can be had very cheaply (around £150) and is another really nice lens for cheap money.
 
Last edited:
I borrowed a friends Sigma 18-250mm OS and if Im honest the range is brilliant but the IQ lets it down. Dont get me wrong it wasnt terrible, not by any means, but it just wasnt sharp enough for what I want and I dont think I could live with that enough to make me buy one.
I have the Canon 17-85mm IS lens, although not as larger range, is far more to my preference but that is only my opinion. I usually find that large range lenses usually have a trade off with IQ.
 
Personally I think the best walkabout on a crop canon is the 15-85. It goes wider and longer than the standard lens and has pretty good iq. The 24-105 is brilliant but you lose too much width (for me). The others compromise iq apart from the 17-55 which is meant to be excellent but has the same focal limitations as the standard lens. Also price wise the 17-55 and 24-105 will probably blow your budget. It's all a compromise.
 
I have a 450d and a 5d mark 1 and the 24-105 f4L is fantastic lens on both. A bit pricey but worth it. You might be lucky and pick up one second hand.
 
gnirtS said:
I've got one of those (450D and 550D) and i find it frustrating. At times it's great although its always front focussed slightly for me.
I've got an issue with it on the focusing though in that i get a large number of misses - far more than i'd expect from a lens. I couldnt narrow down any common trend such as aperture/OS on or off, focal length etc but on a lot of tests focusing in live view vs auto focus on the same identical point the AF was softer or slightly OOF a relatively high percentage of the time.

I've got to the stage now i dont trust the lens so im using a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 over it. I've lost reach but a far higher keeper rate off this lens.

Which brings me onto the topic here - for £400 getting a really good lens to cover lots of lengths will be hard. I'd look for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 combined with a Canon 55-250 IS f/4-5.6 (new for about £110, second hand for less).

That'll give you the advantage of a good fast lens for most things and a decent quality telephoto for further.
Click to expand...

That's really interesting, got to be down to poor quality control. I've always found it to be exceptional, especially given the price. I bought it as a cheap travel lens and ended up loving it.
 
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 would be worth a look, it's a cracking lens. And +1 to the very good value Canon 55-250 too, if you keep your eyes open used you'll have a bargain pairing for just about your budget. Cheers
 
I've used a 24-105 on a 550d & 7d & love the lens. Most used on the camera
 
RichardTaylor said:
Is there a Canon 17-85 mm f4 IS USM lens?

I own a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, however a constant F4 Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens would be even better.,
Click to expand...

No, there isn't, the only 17-85 Canon do is the one you have.
I have the same lens and tbh, IQ wise I reckon the 17-85 is no better than the 18-55 IS, the only real benefits are the extra range and the Ultrasonic focusing motor.

Nicola, the only one on your list I would consider would be the 15-85. (y)
 
funkyrayman said:
That's really interesting, got to be down to poor quality control. I've always found it to be exceptional, especially given the price. I bought it as a cheap travel lens and ended up loving it.
Click to expand...

I'd agree it looks like a QC issue and its so maddeningly inconsistent its sometimes excellent but often frustrating.
When it works i love the lens and the 70mm at the long end comes in handy.

Sadly though i've heard QC is a relatively common sigma issue.
 
i upgraded from the 18-55 to the 17-85 and thought it was much better.
i then upgraded that to a 24-105 f4L and even though the L glass had much better IQ, i didn't use it as much and really missed the range of the 17-85!

As for the 17-50/17-55 f2.8's, YES they're faster and have better IQ, but i don't class them as genuine 'walkaround' as their range isn't too great.

If money wasn't a problem i think the best you could get would be the 15-85mm.
If money is tight, go for a 17-85mm (2nd hand for around £160-199)
 
In terms of build quality, focusing speed, range etc the 17-85 is a considerable step up over the 18-55 but in terms of IQ I don't see much of a difference.
The old non IS 18-55 yes, but not the newer IS one.
Unless the 18-55 IS I had was particularly good of course? :shrug:
 
jakamo said:
^^ +1
Click to expand...

The question was for a walk around lens and even if its people to landscapes the 17-55 is the first choice. I love that lens but had to sell it to go full frame. I bought the new 24-70 mark II and so far I'm not seeing much a of a difference on iq. Granted I have a brand new camera and lens so only time will tell which one i like better. Hoping its the 24-70 considering the price I paid for it.
 
Hi,

I went though this dilemma, I did a lot of research and review reading and ended up buying the 15-85. I must say I haven't looked back, its a brilliant lens with a great focal range for general use. Its far better than the 17-85 (which I also looked at).

This review of the lens swayed me http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

A snippet from the summary

The general purpose lens field is a crowded one, but the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens stands out from that crowd by, as I said at the beginning of this review, offering top-tier image quality over an excellent general purpose focal length range in a nicely-sized/weighted/built body with great AF and an excellent implementation of Image Stabilization at a for-what-you-get great price. This is not a cheap lens, but I think it is a great value for what you get.
Click to expand...

Hope this helps

Steve
 
I recently picked up the 15-85mm and must say it has really impressed me. IQ is very good and the range is extremely useful. Auto focus speed was the biggest surprise as it is a lot quicker and quieter than the 18-55mm I was using previously.
The only excuse I have now if i miss a shot is user error....
 
Last edited:
I borrowed a Canon 15-85 for my 7D off a friend a while back and I think it's a great performer. The IQ is great and as mentioned above the AF is fast and quiet. If I only had 'crop frame' cameras then I'd definitely have one, however, as I've got a FF and 'crop' then I only buy lenses that will be able to be used on both (EF mount only).
 
Another vote here for the 15-85. I've recently bought one for my 7d, and find it great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top