Replacing 18-55mm for canon 500d HELP

chiffs

chiffs

Messages
437
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
Had this lens since buying my 500D and have used it quite a bit but just find it not that great (sharpness, slow AF etc)

This has been tucked away and have been using the niffy fiffty most of the time (mainly my daughter at home)

Options im looking at and would like your opinion on are. Added a little note against each lens. Most would be second hand purchases.

Canon
17-55 f2.8 efs (Reviews are all good)
24-70 f4 ef (how well do these work on crop bodies? but loose a few stops)
24-105 f4 ef (how well do these work on crop bodies? but loose a few stops)

Sigma
Not really looked into them although a friend has a 18-50 macro which seems rather soft so not too sure really

Tamron
17-50 non vc tamron (some better than others so not an easy one too buy)


The main lens im interested in are the canons and would really like to know how the 24-70 and 24-105 perform on a crop body, ie sharp or not, fast af, picture quality.

Thanks for your time(y)

In the future i hope to upgrade to a 60d or 7d. Lens first.
 
I think the 24-xxx zooms on a crop have the big disadvantage of a lack of wide angle on a crop body.

With regards to buying something like a Tamron 17-50 second hand, I would suggest buying from somewhere like TP and you can then ask for 100% crops to see the image quality before buying.
 
There is no 24-70mm F4 - the Canon 24-70 is F2.8...
 
The 3 main upgrades for the kit lens are:
  • Tamron 17-50 non VC
  • Canon 15-85 IS (that's 15-85 NOT 17-85)
  • Canon 17-55
 
Hi Sean

What is your budget / how much would you prefer to spend ?

For the 3 - 4 Canon lenses you list there is about £400 difference in new price from the 17-40 F4 to the 24-70 F2.8.

If you've been using the 50mm and found it a great length for you, then I wouldn't have thought the 17-40 would suit, the 17-55 is a very nice lens, but you are at the max range of it.

The F2.8 of the 24-70 could be an advantage at home over the 24-105 F4, - what F stop are you generally using with your 50mm ?

The ideal focal length for me is the 24-105 - I used to have a 28-135IS lens and it an ideal length for me
 
I have a Canon 450D and have a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro and it is anything but soft! There is some copy variation but good ones are an easy match for my friends 17-55 IS, and the Sigma does not suffer from zoom creap! However if I had the cash I would buy the 17-55mm IS, 17mm is quite a bit wider than 18mm and contrary what others say the IS is useful when taking low light landscape shots handheld.

I have used the 17-40mm on a 450D and on a 5dmk1. On the 5D mk1 it is a brilliant ultra wide, on a crop it is a heavy and slow standard zoom.

Personally I don't like EF standard zooms on a crop. They are either not wide enough or not long enough, slower than EF-S equivelents, and expensive. Don't get sucked in by the 'L' branding. The Canon 17-55mm IS and the 15-85mm IS EF-S lenses are stunning value when you compare them to the EF equivelents
 
For crop cameras (which the 500D is) most people will miss the 17-24mm range more than benefit from the extended range of the 24->

Even an f2.8 will be 1.3 stops slower than the nifty fifty. For indoors, you're much better off with another fast prime - either 35mm or 85mm depending on whether you want to get closer to the action or not.

For walkabout lens, I personally wouldn't be without the 15 -85 on our 7D. There isn't much of a difference between it and the 24-105 on the 5D2 optically (once you've corrected the vignetting in camera or post that is). None that you'd notice anyway.
 
DaveKing said:
Personally I don't like EF standard zooms on a crop. They are either not wide enough or not long enough, slower than EF-S equivelents, and expensive. Don't get sucked in by the 'L' branding. The Canon 17-55mm IS and the 15-85mm IS EF-S lenses are stunning value when you compare them to the EF equivelents
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Thanks all for your replys.

Extra info and my thoughts.

Bugdet will hopefully be around the £500 mark , if i can sell the misses then maybe a few extra £.

Ok so general thoughts are not to bother with the 24-___L lens for crop. Thats them out the window :)

I think if the 18-55 was better quality and faster then i would of used it a lot more, so around that length should suit.

So that leaves me with.

Canon 17-55 f2.8
Tamron non vc, bargin price but unknown about how sharp it is until used if bought new. Second hand would make sense

Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro as mentioned by DaveKing (guess it might just be soft copy of i have seen, was on a nikon!) again second hand as if i am correct they dont make theses anymore?
Is there not a HSM non macro model? Any good?

Canon 15-85, extra reach would be nice but maybe a little slow.

The niffy has been used mostly in the low F numbers at home, the kit lens has been used with as wide an aperture as possible in conjuction with some bounce flash (seeing as my daughter is 14 months and does not stay still enough for longer shutter speeds.

Believe between the canon and the Tamron there is not a great deal of difference picture quality wise.
 
chiffs said:
Thanks all for your replys.
Believe between the canon and the Tamron there is not a great deal of difference picture quality wise.
Click to expand...

I've tried both the Tamron and Canon and am glad I paid the extra for the Canon 17-55mm IS. The IS is still useful in low light even at those focal lengths.
 
I have the 17-55 on my 7D. It's a great lens, and it only really comes off if I need to put something longer on. I don't think I've used my 10-20 since I've had the 17-55, and I primarily use my two 1.8 primes when I need a narrow DoF.

Personally I don't think you can put a better general purpose lens on a Canon crop for use in most conditions. The fast 2.8 aperture is more useful than the 17-85, but then that lens does have a little extra reach.

Steve
 
Is the 17-55 canon a better investment than the 50mm nifty?
Click to expand...

No, depreciation will be far greater on the 17-55mm, not surprising given the big difference in original cost
 
I found this to be the hardest of lens to try and chose, I spent ages looking at all the lenses in that focal range and decided on the sigma 17-70 os .
 
chiffs said:
Thinking I may as well bite the bullet and save for the canon then from what most have said unless that is I spot a tamron or sigma cheap for sale for the time being.

Ref the nifty, great lens and uber cheap. Worth every penny.
Click to expand...

TBH as brilliant as the Canon is it's not worth paying over twice the amount of the Tamron. You'd be hard pushed to tell the difference IQ wise, so why spend so much more when you REALLY dont need to?!

The Canon simply isn't worth the money as long as the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is on the market.
 
Last edited:
If he has the money though, or is willing to spend it on the Canon, why not? Arent some of the Tamrons a bit dodgy?
 
intel86 said:
If he has the money though, or is willing to spend it on the Canon, why not? Arent some of the Tamrons a bit dodgy?
Click to expand...

Because you could spend the rest of the money on something else, and still have a lens that is as good.

It's not rocket science!
 
Last edited:
I have read that one is not guaranteed to get a perfect example. Lots of people on net saying that some are getting imperfect examples?
 
Not seen this as an issue with the Tamron 17-50.

Where have you read this?
 
intel86 said:
I have read that one is not guaranteed to get a perfect example. Lots of people on net saying that some are getting imperfect examples?
Click to expand...

you can get a bad example (in a person's personal opinion of course) of ANY lens. There was a user on here recently who complained of a poor example of a Canon 70-200 f2.8L.

I havent seen many complaints about the Tamron though...
 
I went for the canon over the Tamron when in the same position. But that was my parsonal choice
There are alot of good things said about the Tamron so if you are just starting out then have a look at it and see what you think, that way you can spend the rest you have saved on other stuff you might need.
 
I had a very poor Tamron, though bought 2nd hand off ebay. I didn't keep it long and now have the great Canon 17-55mm.
 
Last edited:
Ok guys got me thinking again lol.

So two options, new or second hand.

If buying either what can be done to ensure its a sharp copy. Obviously a new lens I would have to try it once home but what would be the best way of doing this?

Where do we stand if a new lens is a bad copy?

Obviously a second hand copy From someone on here might then be a best bet. What should be asked for shot wise?

Nooby I know but don't want to see my self off!!!
 
chiffs said:
Ok guys got me thinking again lol.

So two options, new or second hand.

If buying either what can be done to ensure its a sharp copy. Obviously a new lens I would have to try it once home but what would be the best way of doing this?

Where do we stand if a new lens is a bad copy?
Click to expand...

Buy it mail order / Internet and you have 7 days to test and return if you aren't happy.

Obviously a second hand copy From someone on here might then be a best bet. What should be asked for shot wise?

Nooby I know but don't want to see my self off!!!
Click to expand...

Ask for some full size images uploaded somewhere, and also some 100% crops at 17 and 50, at f2.8 and f5.6. (at least that's what I would ask for).
 
definitely check in shop if you are going to buy there. I tried a Canon 17-55mm in Jacobs that had been sitting in the hot sunshine of a window for X weeks and it was rubbish. Even the staff agreed. I just plumped for Amazon and it was fine (as was my 55-250mm)
 
Got a 50mm for my 50D (Which should be here today). I like using the 50mm prime and was wondering should i buy another prime? Thing is, i like to shoot all things!
 
I love primes. I'd go for a 24 or 28mm, a 50mm (which you have already) and then 85mm - there's not much you can't cover with that lot!
 
Moos3h said:
I love primes. I'd go for a 24 or 28mm, a 50mm (which you have already) and then 85mm - there's not much you can't cover with that lot!
Click to expand...

If you have a FF body, otherwise where is the wide angle?
 
intel86 said:
Do i need a wide angle? Isnt 24mm enough?
Click to expand...

24 isn't wide on a crop body, the FOV equivalent means it is more like a 39mm lens. (you need to multiply by 1.6 to get the crop body equivalent.

That's the reason why kit zooms for crop bodies start at 18mm.
 
17-55mm if you want a constant f2.8, or the 15-85mm if you want a bit more range and don't mind the slower apertures (f3.5 - f5.6). The 15-85mm seems to be more solidly built too. I don't own either, but I've used and like both of them. The only drawback, for me anyway, is cost. Way out of my reach.

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 seems to be well thought of, and is much cheaper, but I have no personal expereince of Tamron.
 
I juggled between the Tamron 17-50 non VC and the Canon 15-85, bought the Tamron in the end and have been happy with it since day one. Even looking through the viewfinder it seemed sharper and the constant aperture is amazing. It's hardly off my camera body
 
Seen reports though that getting a good Tamron is a lottery these days?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top