Replacement for the kit lens?

[Pierscoe1]

Hi all..

I have a 350D with the kit lens, and a Sigma 70-300mm.

I use the Sigma mainly for motorsports events etc, and as such is does fine for the job.

I would like to replace the kit-lens however.

Is there a good option here that doesn't cost the earth?

The kit lens is 17-55, and in an ideal world I'd like something a little wider, AND longer, with a really good max aperture..

say a 15-100 with constant f2.8

oh, and I don't want to spend more than the camera cost on a lens.....

is there anything worth upgrading to for this sort of all-purpose lens?

thanks all..

[Goldeeno]

Well if you want something with a constant aperture of 2.8, you will be spending alot more than your camera.
Canon 24-70 mm f2.8 L - £850
Tamron 28-105mm SP F2.8 - £600
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM - £660
Canon 70-200 f2.8 - £1000

Something cheaper.. try second hand, and tamron etc

Or 50mm Prime lens, f1.2,1.4,1.8 - £1000, £250, £80

Edited by Goldeeno on Thursday 15th May 01:11

[RobDickinson]

You wont get wider and longer and f2.8
, let me know when theres a 10-200f2.8 eh...


IMO look at the 17(18)-50 f2.8s' from tamron and sigma for value.

[Byker28i]

I replaced my kit lens with the 24-105 L F4 IS. A cracking lens and it's rarely off my camera. F4 consistant through the range, with IS for the low speed shots. I have the 10-22 so wide isn't an issue for me and that lens is light enough to take everywhere with me.

I paid under £600 delivered for it, but worth every penny.

[Pierscoe1]

I did say "in an ideal world"!

I'll have a look at the 17-50 Sigma, and maybe that f4 L mentioned just above.. although that's a lot of money...

seems there's a gap in the market for a better replacement to the kit-lens doesn't it?

[Andy M]

It doesn't cover all of your bases, but I'll recommend my first 'good' lens: Canon's 17-40L.

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod30.html

[4hero]

I replaced my kit lens with the 17-40L, very nice lens

[Byker28i]

Pierscoe1 said:

I did say "in an ideal world"!

I'll have a look at the 17-50 Sigma, and maybe that f4 L mentioned just above.. although that's a lot of money...

seems there's a gap in the market for a better replacement to the kit-lens doesn't it?

Well, there's the EF-S 17-85 F4-F5.6 IS lens, which is around £300-330 or cheaper second hand - around £200
Try looking at: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk - good for second hand stuff.

However - the thing with lenses, is really it's them that make the difference (IMHO).

[Pierscoe1]

Yeah.. I just found that one (17-40L).. looks very nice!

so far,

most similar to kit lens in length range
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM Lens (£660) seems very expensive for it's benefits, is the IS really that good?
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro Lens (£280) seems a good direct replacement, same range but f2.8, reasonable cost

the 'L' option
Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM Lens (£480) a bit short on range, but no doubt fantastic as it's L
Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM Lens (£650) think I might miss the bottom end of the range <24, and mega-bucks!

the longer ranges
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM Lens (£330) has the wide, and slightly longer range, IS, but quite high f of 4+
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens (£220) a bit more telephoto, and good low f's especially for the price
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens (£280) might miss the <24, but has the benefit of constant f2.8

do these conclusions seem accurate?

another question, why does the sigma 18-50 say it's a macro lens? is that purely because it can focus very close?

Not sure I want to stretch to the £480 L, so the choice there is between the Sigma 18-50 2.8, or 17-70 2.8-4.5 assuming I want to keep the wide angle end of the spectrum.

Any more info/opinions/suggestions welcome....

Edited by Pierscoe1 on Thursday 15th May 13:11

[Andy M]

For the best prices, contact Ian @ [e-mail]

He's currently away on holiday, so may not respond for a couple of days. For some background information, search the net for 'Kerso'.

[havoc]

I've just (literally) got the Tamron 17-50, after a similar (and drawn-out) debate myself. I had similar kit (Canon 70-300IS), plus the 28-135IS, and I wanted to replace the 28-135 with something wider but still decent lenght, then flog the 28-135 on...decided to keep it and add a 17-50 below it! Ah well...

Will let you know what it's like in about a week's time...

Edit: Took a few at Donington this morning, and it looks suitably sharp! Focus 'hunts' a little at times, but delivers fine, main gripe is the zoom-ring is backwards vs Canon (all Tamrons are, apparently), which is taking some getting used to...

Edited by havoc on Thursday 15th May 21:13

[DazGTR]

Had exactly the same dilemma recently..I have the Sigma 100-300 F4 EX for my longer range requirements and wanted something to replace the kit 18-55. I plumped for the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens - and I'm chuffed to bits with it.

[Pierscoe1]

arrghhh... this is so difficult!

I'm pretty sure I've narrowed it down to two now:

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX (£280)
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 (£220)

so for the extra £60 I would get the nice wide f2.8 all the way to 50mm, but lose the 50-70 part of the zoom.
Also there's the EX part.. is the difference in build-quality noticeable? It'll be my general-use walk-around take-everywhere lens, so needs to not fall to pieces!
Anybody know what the max aperture of the 17-70 is at 50mm, for comparison agains the f2.8 EX ??

some camera-porn to help decide:


18-50 f2.8 EX

17-70 f2.8-4.5

[RobDickinson]

18-50 f2.8 all the way.


20mm of zoom is walking forward 10meters or something. Whatcha do if you dont want f4.5?

[4hero]

Pierscoe1 said:

some camera-porn to help decide:

some more camera porn for you, I sleep with these 2 lenses every night





good luck with your choice

Edited by 4hero on Thursday 15th May 23:32

[Ordinary Bloke]

My standard lens is now Tamron 28-75 f2.8, it's not Canon L series build quality but it's a great all-rounder. I recommend it 100%...

[RobDickinson]

On a 1.6 crop camera?

I have a canon 28-80 and its non too wide, 24 would be better but would rather loose some on the long end.

[Pierscoe1]

just found that Sigma also do this:

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG (£278)

vs

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC (£280)

the 24-70 has the additional benefit that a focus ring that doesn't rotate when auto-focusing (seems to be a common complaint of the 18-50).

choices choices.... sacrifice 6mm on the wide end for 20mm on the long end and a windowed AF guage??

[Ordinary Bloke]

Much as I love my excellent Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 HSM, I read that those two are not much good. Lack of sharpness, slow AF, vignetting etc. Do your own research on photo.net, Amazon UK & US etc...

It took a leap of faith to go Tamron, but I'm happy with it.

[Pierscoe1]

really!??!?!

as I say I've only just found the 24-70, but nearly every review of the 18-50 I've read has been glowing....

http://www.topicpoint.com/sigma_18-50mm/
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4118/lens-tes...
http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/sigma/35mm-zo...