Should I upgrade my kit lens?
Well, I've got some money for a new lens.... But that's where my troubles start.
My original intent was to get a telephoto, the Canon 70-300mm IS. Now, I'm not overly sure whether that's what I want or whether I want to upgrade my kit lens, the Canon 18-55mm IS. I really don't think I can do both. I have around $500 to spend, although I can probably shell out some more. I shoot a rather varied subject matter, but mainly landscape. I want to get into bird photography, but feel like it would be wise to wait until I can get a really nice lens. Macro is also important to have on a lens. Ultimately, IS really should be in my new lens because I usually don't use a tripod and will shoot low light. If I were to replace the kit lens, my hopes would be for a lens like the Canon 17-85mm or the Canon 15-85mm (it's a bit of a stretch price wise). I am open to suggestions :thumb It's between upgrading the kit, or getting something longer.
My original intent was to get a telephoto, the Canon 70-300mm IS. Now, I'm not overly sure whether that's what I want or whether I want to upgrade my kit lens, the Canon 18-55mm IS. I really don't think I can do both. I have around $500 to spend, although I can probably shell out some more. I shoot a rather varied subject matter, but mainly landscape. I want to get into bird photography, but feel like it would be wise to wait until I can get a really nice lens. Macro is also important to have on a lens. Ultimately, IS really should be in my new lens because I usually don't use a tripod and will shoot low light. If I were to replace the kit lens, my hopes would be for a lens like the Canon 17-85mm or the Canon 15-85mm (it's a bit of a stretch price wise). I am open to suggestions :thumb It's between upgrading the kit, or getting something longer.
0
Comments
For low light, you don't necessarily need IS; you need either IS or a faster lens. The lenses you mention are mostly f/3.5-5.6 or worse. A cheap, fast prime like the EF 50mm f/1.8 (around $100) would give you exposures in 1/4 the time of your kit lens. Of course, the downside is that a 50mm prime, by definition, can only do 50mm -- it can't zoom.
"Macro" is a much-abused word. A zoom lens that claims to be "macro" usually does not provide true life-size 1:1 macro; sometimes they're as low as 1:4 (one-quarter size). If you want a macro lens for taking close-ups of small flowers, insects, and other items of similar size, then I think you want a true 1:1 macro lens. Canon, Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma all offer true macro lenses of about 100mm focal length (Tamron is 90mm, and Sigma 105mm). The Tokina is the least expensive but also has the slowest AF; the Tamron is well-regarded and doesn't cost too much more; Canon's recently-discontinued non-IS 100mm macro lens can still be found new for around $500 or so.
For bird photography in the wild, 300mm may be a little short even on a crop-frame camera, and the 70-300mm's slow f/5.6 aperture at the long end may be problematic for birds in motion unless they're in direct sunlight.
As for upgrading the kit lens, my question would be what it is about it that does not satisfy you. That lens really isn't bad at all for what it is, and you can't argue with the price. The main reasons I can think of for upgrading it are either that you want a wider zoom range or that the slow f/5.6 aperture is too limiting in terms of low-light performance or the ability to make nice OOF backgrounds. If a wider zoom range is the issue, then the 15-85mm may be a good choice. For a faster lens, though, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is well-regarded, but not cheap.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
As for lenses, that 18-55 is a good range for landscapes, just get a polarizer if you don't have one.
From your posts I'm kinda confused in what direction you want to head in. If you want some versatility, look into covering your ranges with quality zooms with f2.8. Example in full frame would be 24-70 and 70-200 (not sure what the ef-s equiv lineup is like). Then get you a macro prime (one of the ones suggested above). However, that would surely blow your budget by a couple grand.
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
buying the 17-85 or the 15-85 will not get you any sharper pics, just a slightly different focal range, is this worth spending more money?
Don't spend just because you want to replace the kit lens! Buy something that will make a real difference, e.g. an f2.8 larger aperture zoom or longer reach like the 55-250IS or 70-200 telephoto lens.
As for interests, I don't want a specialized lens like a macro lens for everyday not macro use, therefore I don't want a macro lens right yet. For me, Macro is the ability to focus pretty close. My kit will do ten inches, which is nice but not all that sharp.
I know I can't head into real bird photography unless I am doing friendly birds. A telephoto would be for varied use, but I want it high quality. One that I may still consider is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.
Ultimately, my kit works well for me, but I am just not satisfied with its IQ or its speed. So, in essence, I wouldn't be happy with any of the lenses I listed. I am the kind of guy who wants the pro quality lenses but cannot afford them.
I do like wide angle though. And... If I replace my kit, what I get has to be able to go at least 18mm wide.
Ya... I'm not completely sure what I want either. But... What you listed is pretty much what I want, plus a WA lens.
Already got a tripod that works fine for me
Ultimately, what my head keeps telling me to get is something like the Sigma 10-20mm or the Sigma 70-200mm. If I got the 10-20mm, I would be lacking the range on the telephoto side though. I need to get longer than 55mm on some occasions. If I got the 70-200mm, I would be happy except for the weight and my kit lens would still bug me a little.
If you were trying to create a budget set of lenses for landscape and family use, what would you do?
18-55 IS • 15 2.8 Fisheye • 24-70 2.8L • 50 1.8 II • 70-200 2.8L IS • 100 2.8L Macro IS • Kenko 1.4X & 2X
580EX II • 270EX
but hey, 55-250 IS may be cheap in built quality but IQ is stellar. take my word for it.
18-55 IS • 15 2.8 Fisheye • 24-70 2.8L • 50 1.8 II • 70-200 2.8L IS • 100 2.8L Macro IS • Kenko 1.4X & 2X
580EX II • 270EX
I decided to keep my kit lens, I just don't like it sometimes when the lighting outside is bad anyways. It's not the lens' fault. I just went out and did some long exposures of my neighbors barn while they weren't there, I was completely and totally happy with the results. Most of the time, I am satisfied with the results. I suspect I will get a telephoto. The biggest benefit to getting the 55-250mm is that I can get other goodies with the leftover money. It is also ultra-portable. I don't think I can consider the 70-200mm f/4 l. I will find myself with blurry photos when the light starts to dim. I also have to purchase a separate $100+ tripod ring, which I consider a ripoff.
I'm really kind of choosing between the 55-250mm IS and the 70-300mm IS, unless there are other opinions.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If you're willing to save up long enough, you can pick up a 70-200/4 IS used for $900-1000; it is an awesome lens and definitely worth the $$$. The IS does make a big difference in lower light without a tripod.
Whenever you get ready to upgrade your 18-55, take a look at the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70--both come in stabilized versions. If you're willing to splurge--check out the 24-105/4 IS.
HTH,
Heather
My pics
"He who cannot dance will say: "The drum is bad!" --African proverb.
You may also consider picking up a Sigma Bigma Non-OS (50-500mm) zoom lens used. In the next few months, I'm sure the used market will be a bit full of them as people upgrade to the new OS (optically Stabailized) version.
EFS 17-55 f/2.8 & 10-22 // Sigma 30mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4
Sigma Bigma OS // Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8
EFS 17-55 f/2.8 & 10-22 // Sigma 30mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4
Sigma Bigma OS // Canon 70-200 IS f/2.8
Aha, very true!