What did you replace your kit lens with?

S

Set_Nights

Messages
387
Edit My Images
Yes
I hear a lot of people say how naff the Canon 18-55 kit lens is and have started to think about what I might want to replace it with when the time (and money :p) comes. I try and plan my lenses so I don't have any redundant ones or too much overlap in their use as I think that is kind of pointless. I currently have a 50mm prime which is awesome but I still want/need a good walkabout lens to replace the kit lens. I need the low f value so I have narrowed it down to 3 contenders:

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM

EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM

Decisions :eek:! The 17-55 would be the obvious direct replacement range wise and the IS is a bonus... I just don't know if it's worth shelling out that much for an EF-S instead of an EF as that would restrict my upgrade choices in the future. I'm sure both of the EF lenses would be absolutely awesome but they both are either a little more short or a little less long that I'm used to. Do you think I'd miss the wide angle or the zoom factor more? Especially considering I have a good 50mm prime, would the 16-35 maybe be better because it gives the extra wide angle and there's not that much in losing the 35-50mm gap?

So basically... EF-S or EF? If EF then 24-70 or 16-35?

I'd also be interested to hear what you upgraded your kit lens to and any pros and cons you've found in your choice.
 
18-50 f2.8 sigma. Much better than the kit lens but still not top quality. What would I go for from your 3 options? 17-55 deffo, unless I was planning to go full frame in the very near future then I would go 24-70. I would not go for the 16-35 there is just too much missing off of the long end for it to replace the kit lens.
 
The 18-55 kit lens is much maligned, the early version (without) IS was by all accounts not great, but the IS version that came with the 450D/500D is much better from what I read. Certainly there are some great shots on the POTN thread for this lens.

Anyhow, after trying a friends I went to 24-105L, only downside is its heavier!
Keep an eye on the classifieds here for one, £550-600 ish ?
I was lucky enough to get a brand new one for about that, it was a "white box" lens as it had come as the kit lens with a 5D Mk2.
 
I still have it.

For me it was better to spend money supplementing my kit with other lenses that you can see in my sig.

I will probably replace in the future with a f2.8, either the 17-55 or the 24-70 as I have the 10-22 for wide shooting.


Andy
 
I replaced mine with a tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc. Got it for 200 notes of Gumtree.
To good a bargain to miss and a major improvement on the kit lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tamron SP 17-50mm 2.8. Non VC which is important if you want out-and-out IQ.
 
The Nikon 18-55 kit lens is c*$p IMVHO and the dealer agreed with me, in fact he gave me a full refund on 2 of them.

I'm a glutton for punishment.

I replaced them with a 16-85, not cheap, but I usually find you get what you pay for.

D in W
 
Last edited:
I've always bought body only so no kit lens worries for me. :cool:
 
Sigma 24-70.
 
Craft said:
The 18-55 kit lens is much maligned, the early version (without) IS was by all accounts not great, but the IS version that came with the 450D/500D is much better from what I read. Certainly there are some great shots on the POTN thread for this lens.
Click to expand...
I have certainly had no complaints with my 18-55 (IS) kit lens, and in fact from what I've read, it's actually considered to quite good for what it is. :thinking:

I've just got a 18-135 IS lens, which I think will nicely bridge the gap up to my 100-400.
 
I also swapped the kit lens for a Tamron 17-50. Its probably my sharpest and most used lens.
 
The tamron seems a popular one... I'll add that to my possibilities :). I've never really look into 3rd party lenses as I never know how to judge them really.

The canon 24-105 and 18-135 don't have low enough f values for me I'm afraid :(.
 
I had a Sigma 18-50 2.8 for about a week... took nice sharp pics... but then I noticed that my AF was miles out!
So after spending a whole evening experimenting with it, setup on a tripod etc I confirmed that the AF was out

Also - I missed the IS of the kit lens - a lot more so that I thought I would.

So Im now saving for the 17-55 IS Canon
 
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC :thumbs:
 
I think my Nikon 18-105 kit lens is a good lens, no complaints from me so far
 
edit: didnt see your post on F stops sorry ..
 
Last edited:
I just got myself a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM which I'm very pleased with so far. I was toying with the Sigma 24-70, but wanted something wider (on a cropped body) and wanted OS/IS. Also considered the Canon 17-55, but wanted something longer - it was also a bit beyond my budget. The 17-70 is sharp, has a great focal range, has OS, is quiet and 'fairly' inexpensive. If it had a constant 2.8 it would be perfect, but that would have meant more £££.
 
If you need f2.8 on a crop sensor canon, then the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is pretty much the best option. Don't worry that it'll cause problems should you go full frame, as they hold their value pretty much as well as the L glass does.

Personally, I stuck with the 18-55 IS kit lens until I swapped cameras, ending up with a 7D, and the "f4 trinity" 17-40L 24-105L and 70-200L IS - plus the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM which came as a (upmarket) kit lens with the 7D, that spends most of it's time on the old 450D, but does double duty as a single walkaround lens if I can't be bothered carrying a full camera bag. I'm not too worried about wide aperture stuff, that's covered with a couple of primes, and most of my stuff tends to be landscape-ey stuff anyway, so we're talking f8 and a tripod anyway.
 
Set_Nights said:
I hear a lot of people say how naff the Canon 18-55 kit lens is.
Click to expand...

Well as far as I'm concerned that's rubbish!

About 5 years ago I bought my first digital camera, the 350D with the 18-55mm (non IS lens)

It took me about 2 1/2 years to get my next lens.

During that time I learnt how to USE the kit lens to get the best out of it.

Here are some pics taken on the 350D with that lens, either on its own or with cheap close-up lenses fitted to the front:

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Scamp

Taken with the kit lens fitted with a +10 dioptre close up lens

Spider on Dandelion Flower

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Dandelion Head

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Water and Algae

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Northampton Guild Hall


​

These and thousands more were all taken with that single lens and I was very pleased with the results, and I think most people would be.

The best and only way to get the best out of any lens is to find out what its limits are and then work within them.

Often you may find that its not the lens's limits which are giving you poorer results than you want but your own limits.

.
 
Last edited:
Originally replaced mine with a 17-85mm IS/USM, about to replace that with a 17-55 f2.8, both Canon obviously. I should of cut out the middle lens and gone straight to the 2.8. Buy once buy right.
 
A lot of people knock the kit lens but I like it in certain places, especially as the original one can be picked up now for £30-40, you can use it in places you wouldn't like to use an expensive lens.

I've had it strapped to the outside of a car, low, at speed, we've pointed it through the fence of big cat enclosures (it fits through a treat) etc.

Optically it's ok, apart from the edges at times.

I replaced mine with the 24-105 and the 10-22. If you're thinking of the 24-70 make sure you're happy about the weight, it's nearly 1kg.
 
TheCrewDesigns said:
petersmart some lovely photos there especially the macro shots :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks very much - I hope it shows that you don't need expensive equipment to come up with good shots.

Here are a few more taken with the 350D and kit lens:

IMG_01943.jpg


Flower-6.jpg


IMG_0116.jpg


Bee_on_flowers.jpg

​

The 2 close-ups were taken without any close up lenses added.

In fact the kit lens can get quite close on its own.

It took me about 5 years to get to the stage where I felt I would like to upgrade and bought a S/H 450D on here.

Yet even though that camera was (in theory) much better than the 350D when I look at the pics taken with the 350D I am still struck (and surprised) by just how good that little camera is.

And when you look back to the kind of great pics taken decades ago with much simpler equipment it becomes obvious that good pics really are all about the photographer and not the equipment.

.
 
i went for the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro initially, was a fantastic lens and never let me down for sharpness or image quality.

i had to get rid when i got the 1D as its a crop only lens so now i have a sigma 50mm f1.4, and that is also an excellent lens.
 
I went for the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS. Part of me wanted to go for the 17-50 f2.8/non-OS but it was about £250-300 (about 45% I think, but this was over a year ago) more than it at the time and, if I'm being totally honest, it's never overly bothered me when I've actually been using it.
 
I've replaced mine with Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC on my crop body. I can recommend this lens to anyone. Its much cheaper than canon ones , build quality is not bad either. The only tricky thing with this lens is that you need to try it before buy because some examples are softer than the others.
 
maninsuitcase said:
What do you think of it? I keep seeing reviews say it's soft in the corners but test charts aren't the real world.
Click to expand...

It lives almost permanently on the front of my D700. I haven't noticed any appreciable softness in the corners - besides, the points of interest are very rarely there anyway! In an ideal world where money was no object, I would upgrade it to the Nikon equivalent but here in reality, the Sigma will do me just fine!
 
I bought a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM ands its a stunning bit of kit on a cropped body and a full frame.

Cheers

Simon
 
petersmart said:
Well as far as I'm concerned that's rubbish!

About 5 years ago I bought my first digital camera, the 350D with the 18-55mm (non IS lens)

It took me about 2 1/2 years to get my next lens.

During that time I learnt how to USE the kit lens to get the best out of it.

Here are some pics taken on the 350D with that lens, either on its own or with cheap close-up lenses fitted to the front:

...


These and thousands more were all taken with that single lens and I was very pleased with the results, and I think most people would be.

The best and only way to get the best out of any lens is to find out what its limits are and then work within them.

Often you may find that its not the lens's limits which are giving you poorer results than you want but your own limits.

.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that it is usually the photographer that is limiting the quality rather than the equipment but it can help a lot. For me the main reason I want to upgrade is that I love shooting in low light conditions. I often find myself switching to the 50mm just for its great f value even when its not the optimal focal length :(.
 
Set_Nights said:
I definitely agree that it is usually the photographer that is limiting the quality rather than the equipment but it can help a lot. For me the main reason I want to upgrade is that I love shooting in low light conditions. I often find myself switching to the 50mm just for its great f value even when its not the optimal focal length :(.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more but don't forget that for over a century photographers got brilliant pictures with the most primitive equipment (compared to what we have)

Also many great pictures have been taken with a simple 35mm camera fitted with a standard 50 or 55mm lens (the "kit lens" of its day").

It's only since the explosion of digital cameras and lenses that the idea has come into being that buying a more expensive lens or camera will somehow make up for deficiences in one's techniques or abilities.

For instance if you look here you will see many pictures taken with the 75-300mm USM lens:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157625949886818/

This lens is usually considered to be another "rubbish" lens But as far as I'm concerened these pictures are all very acceptable.

And if you look here you will see 100% crop of this lens at 300mm - the distance at which that particular lens definitely does not shine - but it would still be acceptable to many people.

You say you want to take pictures in low light - have you tried shooting at 1600 ISO?

Virtually all of my indoor shots with the 50mm f1.8 are taken at that ISO.

Here's two examples taken with my 350D at 1600 ISO:

Chloe21.jpg


19_Sept_2009_-_1563.jpg

​

You really don't need ultra expensive equipment to get good pics just a willingness to experiment and try new things.

.
 
Sigma 17-70 and 18-50 before I finally stumped up the cash for the Canon 17-55, just wish I had done that in the first place.
 
Steven001 said:
Would it be wise replacing it with a 35mm f/1.8? I know it's doesn't cover all the focal lengths, but I want something fast and was considering selling my kit lens to fund it.
Click to expand...

If you find that you're using the kit lens at 35mm for most of your shots, then trading the kit in agains a 35mm prime may well be a good idea.
 
petersmart said:
Well as far as I'm concerned that's rubbish!

About 5 years ago I bought my first digital camera, the 350D with the 18-55mm (non IS lens)

It took me about 2 1/2 years to get my next lens.

During that time I learnt how to USE the kit lens to get the best out of it.

Here are some pics taken on the 350D with that lens, either on its own or with cheap close-up lenses fitted to the front:

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Scamp

Taken with the kit lens fitted with a +10 dioptre close up lens

Spider on Dandelion Flower

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Dandelion Head

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Water and Algae

Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Northampton Guild Hall


​

These and thousands more were all taken with that single lens and I was very pleased with the results, and I think most people would be.

The best and only way to get the best out of any lens is to find out what its limits are and then work within them.

Often you may find that its not the lens's limits which are giving you poorer results than you want but your own limits.

.
Click to expand...

nice :thumbs: i'm glad you posted these as i'v just bought my first DSLR (used), with a kit lens 18-55mm non IS, and your shots reassure me that good photo's are achievable using that lens, as it's going to be a while until i can afford a better one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pointblank said:
nice :thumbs: i'm glad you posted these as i'v just bought my first DSLR (used), with a kit lens 18-55mm non IS, and your shots reassure me that good photo's are achievable using that lens, as it's going to be a while until i can afford a better one.
Click to expand...

Glad to have helped.

I see you have the 20D in your profile - if that's the one you bought then it has the same MP count as the 350D which means you can easily get shots as good as these.

And as I said in the above post that's all I used for about 2 1/2 years, apart from the set of cheap close up lenses I bought from Ebay.

And looking back at all the pics i took with it I am really amazed by what is capable of.

So very good luck with it.

.
 
Last edited:
I went for the 17-40mm f4, as I didn't do much low light stuff.

My advice would be if you aren't planning on moving to full frame soon go for the EF-S lens, you will get the wide aperture and the focal lengths you want. Don't compromise because you may go full frame at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top