Replacement for kit lens

[toastboy]

I have a Canon 300d and 400d with 17-55 kit lens, 10-22 wide angle lens and 75-300 telephoto lens. The kit lens is letting the side down but I'm not sure what to replace it with. I've read that the L glass is a waste of time on the cropped sensors so what are my options? Ideally I need something to cover the 20-75 range that isn't covered by the other lenses but would be a decent upgrade in quality from the kit lens.

[JohnS]

It's a bit pricy, but the 24-105 F4L is a great walkabout lens.

[jamieboy]

I bought the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, based mostly on the photozone.de review. Although it's maybe more a "slightly better alternative", rather than a "decent upgrade".

[jason-l]

toastboy said:

I've read that the L glass is a waste of time on the cropped sensors...

That's interesting.

I would have thought a cropped sensor (therefore, typically with higher pixel denstiy) would also benefit from HQ optics? After all, ignoring vignetting risk on large sensors, a high pixel density is more demanding of the glass's resolution, no?

[miniman]

toastboy said:

I've read that the L glass is a waste of time on the cropped sensors so what are my options?

Don't believe that for a moment. The difference between a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L is significant in my experience (having tried the Sigma then bought the Canon). Superior in every way IMHO.

[looop]

Canon 24-70mm F2.8 or if its too expensive the Sigma version is meant to be almost as good.

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

toastboy said:

I've read that the L glass is a waste of time on the cropped sensors so what are my options?

Actually, the real problems are with non L glass on full frames. The edges of cheap lenses can be terrible for CA etc. I've seen lenses that look fine on a 1.6x sensor that have all the quality of a camera phone in the corners on a full frame body.

[aspender]

Won't quite provide the full range you want, but the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS might be worth a look:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[VxDuncan]

Try the TAMRON 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8 for constant aperture F2.8 lovelyness! I'd love the Canon IS, but I'm on Nikon. Don't worry about the slight loss of range over an 18-70 - we survived with 28-80mm FF std lenses for years!

I have the tamron and can't fault it.

[toastboy]

You've got to love PH. 7 replies, all different.

Does the F2.8 aperture make all the difference? I'm leaning towards something in this range as it will give me something extra to play around with.

Whats the equivalent of IS in Sigma or Tamron lenses?

[poah]

if you want to replace the 18-55 with the same focal length then I suggest the sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro (not the non marco one), for somthign bit longer and not as wide then the tamron 28-75 f2.8, if you want canon then you'll ave to fork out more than double that

[RobDickinson]

toastboy said:

You've got to love PH. 7 replies, all different.

Does the F2.8 aperture make all the difference? I'm leaning towards something in this range as it will give me something extra to play around with.

Whats the equivalent of IS in Sigma or Tamron lenses?

F2.8 makes a lot of difference. You can shoot with faster shutter speeds, control and limit DoF more, and typicaly faster lenses are sharper stoped down some. I'd rather have the 17-50f2.8 Tamron than the sigma 17-70 as 20mm extra isnt all that, but constant f2.8 IS all that.

Sigma has IS but not on short lenses (18-200 has IS I think).

The sigma 18-55F2.8 (or whatver) is almost as good as the tamron I've heard.

The canon 17-55f2.8IS is exelent and should realy be an 'L' lens but lacks the weather sealing and its an EF-S lens.

BTW even the lowly 300D benefits from good glass.