Next step up from a 18-55mm

S

Sarky

Messages
84
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been using the kit lens for about 2 months, but since I bought my 50mm f/1.8 I've not been too happy with it. I've taken some good photos with it, but it can be very soft and I find the focal length range lacking/limiting.

I know its unfair to compare the 50mm against it but I prefer using my 50mm over it for general shots but I don't like using the 50mm as a walkabout lens as I find some shots I want to take aren't possible due to the crop factor.

So whats the next step up from the 18-55mm that I should be looking at? I can't justify spending £600+ on a lens but I don't mind saving up for one if I know it'll be worth it - and as all my lenses are second hand I'm quite happy doing that too.

Forgot to mention; I wouldn't mind a lens with a focus distance ring, whatever its called but shows the distance of the object.
 
Last edited:
Wuyan says his Nikon 18-200 is a good lens - I know it won't fit but you could look at similar focal length with Canon?
 
j07cmt said:
Wuyan says his Nikon 18-200 is a good lens - I know it won't fit but you could look at similar focal length with Canon?
Click to expand...

There's a 18-135mm lens which seems good, but I don't want to go for it if its not a massive improvement over my kit lens
 
I can never really understand the popularity of 50mm lenses on APS-C cameras as I normally prefer a wider view. Anyway...

You could go for a 28/35mm f1.4/1.8 as that'll give you a near enough FF 50mm FoV on your camera or you could go for a 17/18-50mm f2.8.

Going for a longer focal range like 18-125mm or 24-70mm will give other compromises and choices to think about.
 
Problem with the super zooms like the 18-200mm they a made for convenience not out and out IQ. IQ is probably comparable to the kit lens. How much extra range do you want? You could look at the sigma 17-70mm owners of this lens are always raving about it. Then there is Canon's 15-85mm and 16-85mm.
 
Like you, I had an 18-55mm and 50mm as my first two lenses. I bought an 18-135mm as I was going on holiday in Thailand and wanted the range. I took both the 18-135mm and 50mm. The former for daytime and latter for evenings. The 18-135mm is a great walkaround lens. The 50mm is definitely not wide enough on a crop sensor. I have since bought a 35mm f2 which I absolutely love in combination with a zoom lens.
 
woof woof said:
I can never really understand the popularity of 50mm lenses on APS-C cameras as I normally prefer a wider view. Anyway...

You could go for a 28/35mm f1.4/1.8 as that'll give you a near enough FF 50mm FoV on your camera or you could go for a 17/18-50mm f2.8.

Going for a longer focal range like 18-125mm or 24-70mm will give other compromises and choices to think about.
Click to expand...

I'm with you 28/30/35mm on a crop all the way. I was saying the same thing on another thread the whole "everyone should have a nifty fifty in there bag" it's old advice from the 35mm film days.
 
woof woof said:
I can never really understand the popularity of 50mm lenses on APS-C cameras as I normally prefer a wider view. Anyway...

You could go for a 28/35mm f1.4/1.8 as that'll give you a near enough FF 50mm FoV on your camera or you could go for a 17/18-50mm f2.8.

Going for a longer focal range like 18-125mm or 24-70mm will give other compromises and choices to think about.
Click to expand...

I haven't used a 35mm on a cropped sensor yet, so I'm fairly used to the 50mm and the reduced view. The lack of view is the main reason why I can't use the 50mm exclusively as a walkaround lens like some can.

rjbell said:
Problem with the super zooms like the 18-200mm they a made for convenience not out and out IQ. IQ is probably comparable to the kit lens. How much extra range do you want? You could look at the sigma 17-70mm owners of this lens are always raving about it. Then there is Canon's 15-85mm and 16-85mm.
Click to expand...

Thats probably the range I'm thinking about. For me, the 18-55mm range is ok for me but sometimes I want that little bit extra reach so up to 80 is probably ideal.
 
LPC-6 said:
Like you, I had an 18-55mm and 50mm as my first two lenses. I bought an 18-135mm as I was going on holiday in Thailand and wanted the range. I took both the 18-135mm and 50mm. The former for daytime and latter for evenings. The 18-135mm is a great walkaround lens. The 50mm is definitely not wide enough on a crop sensor. I have since bought a 35mm f2 which I absolutely love in combination with a zoom lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks, was the 18-135mm a good step up in image quality over the 18-55mm or was it similar?

I have a 55-250mm but I don't use it much, would rather have a good general purpose lens.

woof woof said:
I can never really understand the popularity of 50mm lenses on APS-C cameras as I normally prefer a wider view. Anyway...

You could go for a 28/35mm f1.4/1.8 as that'll give you a near enough FF 50mm FoV on your camera or you could go for a 17/18-50mm f2.8.

Going for a longer focal range like 18-125mm or 24-70mm will give other compromises and choices to think about.
Click to expand...

I haven't used a 35mm on a cropped sensor yet, so I'm fairly used to the 50mm and the reduced view. The lack of view is the main reason why I can't use the 50mm exclusively as a walkaround lens like some can.

rjbell said:
I'm with you 28/30/35mm on a crop all the way. I was saying the same thing on another thread the whole "everyone should have a nifty fifty in there bag" it's old advice from the 35mm film days.
Click to expand...

I like the nifty fifty because of the price of it and the awesome IQ! The 35mm costs a fair bit more than it.
 
A friend of mine owns the 28mm f1.8 and from what I see, many of his pictures come out quite soft. At first I thought he post processed them until I went on a shoot with him and saw them on his camera that way at 100% crop

If you can't get on with a 50mm then I'd highly suggest a 35mm. I was in your shoes and didn't realise how much more useful a 35mm was until I got one.

If you're looking to upgrade your kit lens then

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is supposedly one of the best budget upgrades you can make. If you can live with the focus noise
 
There is of course the Sigma 30mm f1.4.

I used one on a Canon 20D and thought that it was very good. The only complaint I had was that when manually focusing the action feels a bit gritty. Other than that the HSM works great and allows full time manual focus adjustment and I found the lens perfectly useable at f1.4, sharp in fact.

One thing to keep in mind, and anyone owning a 50mm f1.8 should know anyway, is that with a XXXD you're limited to a max shutter speed of 1/4000 sec so when shooting with wide apertures in good light you may be restricted to something like f2.8 and may need to add an ND to go wider.
 
There is a simple reason for the popularity of the 50 1.8 for Canon users. It is £70.

Agree that the length is compromised but the alternatives are 3 times the price (not saying that isn't justified but it is 3 times the price nonetheless)

I used a 50 for quite a while and didn't know what I was missing until I got a 40 which to me seems dead right. Personally, a 30 may be too wide for me as I use the one lens for everything.
 
Shumbalicious said:
A friend of mine owns the 28mm f1.8 and from what I see, many of his pictures come out quite soft. At first I thought he post processed them until I went on a shoot with him and saw them on his camera that way at 100% crop

If you can't get on with a 50mm then I'd highly suggest a 35mm. I was in your shoes and didn't realise how much more useful a 35mm was until I got one.

If you're looking to upgrade your kit lens then

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is supposedly one of the best budget upgrades you can make. If you can live with the focus noise
Click to expand...

Yeah there's nothing wrong with my 50mm, I love it. Its the kit lens which annoys me.

That Tamron looks very good, does the lack of IS/VR have much of an effect? My kit lens and 55-250mm are loud at focusing so I doubt the noise of the Tamron will annoy me ;)
 
Sarky said:
I've been using the kit lens for about 2 months, but since I bought my 50mm f/1.8 I've not been too happy with it. I've taken some good photos with it, but it can be very soft and I find the focal length range lacking/limiting.

I know its unfair to compare the 50mm against it but I prefer using my 50mm over it for general shots but I don't like using the 50mm as a walkabout lens as I find some shots I want to take aren't possible due to the crop factor.

So whats the next step up from the 18-55mm that I should be looking at? I can't justify spending £600+ on a lens but I don't mind saving up for one if I know it'll be worth it - and as all my lenses are second hand I'm quite happy doing that too.

Forgot to mention; I wouldn't mind a lens with a focus distance ring, whatever its called but shows the distance of the object.
Click to expand...

How strange...3 years on and I still have my 18-55mm, its easily as sharp as I would like, even wide open.

Can you post a shot with exif that you are unhappy with?

Edit: sorry didn't see you had canon. Yep it's a bit rubbish. This is the problem I have with canon and their entry lenses - most of them just aren't very good.
 
Last edited:
Sarky said:
Thanks, was the 18-135mm a good step up in image quality over the 18-55mm or was it similar?

I have a 55-250mm but I don't use it much, would rather have a good general purpose lens.
Click to expand...

It was marginally better, but I wouldn't say by too much.

I forgot to mention I have the 55-250mm as well, but way too often when you're walking around that you'd need to change lenses. The 18-135mm I thought was the perfect range/size/weight ratios.

The only time I really use the 55-250mm now is at sporting events. But I've been trying my best to leave my camera at home for these and just enjoy the show!
 
Yup. But a 17/18-50mm f2.8 has a wider zoom range, a wider aperture and could be more compact and lighter too, as well as being sharper. The 17-40mm f4 could make a good choice though if using a film body too or having an eye on a future FF DSLR.
 
Sarky said:
That Tamron looks very good, does the lack of IS/VR have much of an effect? My kit lens and 55-250mm are loud at focusing so I doubt the noise of the Tamron will annoy me ;)
Click to expand...

There us also a vc version of the tamron that is very sharp.
 
woof woof said:
Yup. But a 17/18-50mm f2.8 has a wider zoom range, a wider aperture and could be more compact and lighter too, as well as being sharper. The 17-40mm f4 could make a good choice though if using a film body too or having an eye on a future FF DSLR.
Click to expand...

I've picked up the 17-50mm since my last trip to Thailand. I'm going to have a hard time deciding whether to bring the 17-50mm f2.8 or the 18-135mm for the next big trip.

Though I am eyeing the 24-105L these days.
 
woof woof said:
Yup. But a 17/18-50mm f2.8 has a wider zoom range, a wider aperture and could be more compact and lighter too, as well as being sharper. The 17-40mm f4 could make a good choice though if using a film body too or having an eye on a future FF DSLR.
Click to expand...
They want a bigger range, thats why i didn't suggest this lens and the tamron.
 
I like the sound of the Tamron 17-50mm lens...the extra focal length would be nice but I understand that IQ can deteriorate with a greater focal length difference.

Now, VC or non VC 17-50mm?
 
I was referring to how you said you couldn't use it as a walk around, 35mm would be great, you should try it! :D

As for the Tamron they say the non VC is actually sharper. I've been looking at upgrading my kit myself and am looking at one of those.
 
Shumbalicious said:
I was referring to how you said you couldn't use it as a walk around, 35mm would be great, you should try it! :D

As for the Tamron they say the non VC is actually sharper. I've been looking at upgrading my kit myself and am looking at one of those.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I know someone with one so I might have to go ask them nicely...

Yeah thats what I've read, but I think the VC would be more useful for me and I think I could sacrifice some sharpness for it if it makes a justifyable difference.

I think with a walkaround lens I'd prefer flexibility personally, but I may end up replacing my 50mm in future :)
 
Last edited:
I have the vc and its very sharp. There is a thread on here all about vc vs non vc. People do SAY the non vc is sharper but alot if these have never tried the vc.
 
This tamron lens subject seems to crop up everywhere on here lately..:LOL:
anyway big +1 from me on the VC version..both are great and would be a decent improvement over the kit lens.Nice and sharp wide open to.
 
Sarky said:
Forgot to mention; I wouldn't mind a lens with a focus distance ring, whatever its called but shows the distance of the object.
Click to expand...

Distance meter. i only really use it during video, rarely checked it during shooting. the focus ring where you can adjust without flicking the switch is called auto AF override.

i personally would not get a third party lens for walk about. if it's got annoying design decisions like lack of AF/M switches, you'd always be thinking what you could have bought.




j07cmt said:
Wuyan says his Nikon 18-200 is a good lens - I know it won't fit but you could look at similar focal length with Canon?
Click to expand...

it's an excellent lens. i found it to be sharper than 35mm prime, but that could be due to VR or other factors. either way it's the best lens i've used.

but it depends on what Tom wants: more zoom range or faster lens?

Phil Young said:
sorry didn't see you had canon. Yep it's a bit rubbish. This is the problem I have with canon and their entry lenses - most of them just aren't very good.
Click to expand...

lol, on the other hand, Nikon kit lens is slow and VR isn't very good.

i was surprised on fast an old Canon film 28-80mm kit lens was when i compared to my 18-55mm kit lens. :(

rjbell said:
Problem with the super zooms like the 18-200mm they a made for convenience not out and out IQ. IQ is probably comparable to the kit lens. How much extra range do you want? You could look at the sigma 17-70mm owners of this lens are always raving about it. Then there is Canon's 15-85mm and 16-85mm.
Click to expand...

that's not the case with Nikon 18-200mm. IQ is fantastic between 18-70mm, much better than kit lens, contrast is vastly superior, not forgetting fantastic VRII and AF motor.

at 135mm it indeed is softer compared to 55-200mm "other" kit lens. but overall it punches way above its weight.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Nikon kit lens is slow and no good VR??? ...we must have 2 different lenses...
Click to expand...
compared to: 55-200mm "other" kit lens, Canon 28-80 USM film kit lens, Nikon 18-200mm, Nikon 35mm prime, and Sigma 12-24mm. Yes.

great website! i was right, 18-200mm is just as sharp as 35mm prime in centre and mid-frame! there's also no chromatic abbreviation on super zoom, surprisingly.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
of course that's at f5.6. wide open at f4.5 it can't compare to fast prime at f4.
 
matt b said:
I have the vc and its very sharp. There is a thread on here all about vc vs non vc. People do SAY the non vc is sharper but alot if these have never tried the vc.
Click to expand...

StuartH said:
This tamron lens subject seems to crop up everywhere on here lately..:LOL:
anyway big +1 from me on the VC version..both are great and would be a decent improvement over the kit lens.Nice and sharp wide open to.
Click to expand...

Another +1 for the VC Tamron.

As Matt says, lots of people like to perpetuate the story of the VC and sharpness, but owners of it will tell you different. Its a sharp lens (sharper than any of the 3 non VC versions I've had over the years) with excellent VC.
 
Depends what you really want to spend, most of the better lenses are still over £300.

There are several lenses out there varying in cost and performance.

18-55mm I think is on the 3rd generation of lens and for a small outlay not a bad lens.
17-85mm has an excellent focal range, performance a tad average for the outlay
15-85mm is the replacement for the 17-85mm and is one most people tend to go for when they want to upgrade their kit lens. Certainly the best of the bunch so far.
28-135mm is also a contender, however you lose the wide angle aspect because 28 + the crop factor doesn't really give you wide angle (@ 45mm)
Then there's the 17-55mm which is the top od the bunch

Then there are several other non canon lenses to consider like the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non IS etc etc etc which would set you back used about £200-250

But it all depend what you want to spend, £70-700
 
I have the tamron 17-50 VC which is definitely a worthy upgrade, there is also the non-VC version, the sigma 17-50 OS is supposed to be very good, sigma also do a 17-70 OS for a bit more reach. Way out of my budget was the canon 17-55 IS. A lot comes down to budget and reach. For primes look at the exif data for your photos and see which focal length comes up the most.
 
pete.rush said:
Depends what you really want to spend, most of the better lenses are still over £300.

There are several lenses out there varying in cost and performance.

18-55mm I think is on the 3rd generation of lens and for a small outlay not a bad lens.
17-85mm has an excellent focal range, performance a tad average for the outlay
15-85mm is the replacement for the 17-85mm and is one most people tend to go for when they want to upgrade their kit lens. Certainly the best of the bunch so far.
28-135mm is also a contender, however you lose the wide angle aspect because 28 + the crop factor doesn't really give you wide angle (@ 45mm)
Then there's the 17-55mm which is the top od the bunch

Then there are several other non canon lenses to consider like the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non IS etc etc etc which would set you back used about £200-250

But it all depend what you want to spend, £70-700
Click to expand...

Awesome reply, thanks! (I'd rep or thanks if there was a button :) )

As I said in the OP, I'm easy as to what I spend as long as its worth it. I can't justify spending more than say £500 because I know I'll be more than happier with a cheaper lens which performs fairly well.

So far, its the Tamron 17-50mm which seems to tick all the boxes for me.
 
wuyanxu said:
Distance meter. i only really use it during video, rarely checked it during shooting. the focus ring where you can adjust without flicking the switch is called auto AF override.

i personally would not get a third party lens for walk about. if it's got annoying design decisions like lack of AF/M switches, you'd always be thinking what you could have bought.






it's an excellent lens. i found it to be sharper than 35mm prime, but that could be due to VR or other factors. either way it's the best lens i've used.

but it depends on what Tom wants: more zoom range or faster lens?
Click to expand...

I'm not put off by the Tamron, so far reading the reviews I can't find anything wrong with it that might put me off.

I'd prefer a faster, sharper lens. Range would be a bonus.

vickylou said:
I have the tamron 17-50 VC which is definitely a worthy upgrade, there is also the non-VC version, the sigma 17-50 OS is supposed to be very good, sigma also do a 17-70 OS for a bit more reach. Way out of my budget was the canon 17-55 IS. A lot comes down to budget and reach. For primes look at the exif data for your photos and see which focal length comes up the most.
Click to expand...

I forgot about this in Lightroom. Most of my shots are either at 18/20mm or 50mm, closely followed by 55mm. I think I could live without the extra 55mm :p
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
compared to: 55-200mm "other" kit lens, Canon 28-80 USM film kit lens, Nikon 18-200mm, Nikon 35mm prime, and Sigma 12-24mm. Yes.

great website! i was right, 18-200mm is just as sharp as 35mm prime in centre and mid-frame! there's also no chromatic abbreviation on super zoom, surprisingly.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
of course that's at f5.6. wide open at f4.5 it can't compare to fast prime at f4.
Click to expand...
To be fair the 35mm is not very sharp, but still sharper than the 18-200mm. I sold a 50mm to buy one to accompany my tamron 17-50mm then decided the Tamron was sharper so didn't bother.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
To be fair the 35mm is not very sharp, but still sharper than the 18-200mm. I sold a 50mm to buy one to accompany my tamron 17-50mm then decided the Tamron was sharper so didn't bother.
Click to expand...

If you aren't getting sharp shots with a Nikon 35mm you aren't using your stuff correctly.
 
Phil Young said:
If you aren't getting sharp shots with a Nikon 35mm you aren't using your stuff correctly.
Click to expand...
Not as sharp as a 50mm and no sharper than my Tamron 17-50mm, that's what i'm getting at. Very handy lens to have for not a lot of money but not important for me at the minute.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top