Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I am really noticing the limitation on my 18-55 kit lense that came with the canon rebel and was looking to upgrade since it would dramatically increase my picture quality.

What i am looking for is an all around general lens that I can keep on my camera a preety much photograph whatever. I am limited on funds so at the moment I can only purchase one lens. This lens will probably be used for a few good years before I can purchase another.

Mainly though what i am looking for is a lense that has some more zoom capabilities than the kit lense and one in which I can also photograph in low light situations. I tend to use my camera when I go out on hikes and out to town- so I tend to be in the area from day to night. I am just looking for an all around lens that could do pretty much anything general and will provide me with stellar picture quality.

The one thing that is holding me back to buy a lens is my budget- I only have 600 dollars to spend and unfortunately I will be unable to spend anymore as i must save up the rest for tuition. I just need something to be able to use with my camera that I will be happy with for a good few years. Photography is a side hobby to me so i am not looking to collect lenses and flashes etc at the moment. But I know lenses are a better investment over the body.

Now with that said i was looking around for some good general lenses and came across these few

-canon 17-55
-canon 15-85
-canon 24-105
-canon 24-70

Which one of these would be the best fit for my needs and my budget. I was looking around for suggestions but I keep getting mixed reviews about a few of them.

Thanks

I'm pretty sure 3/4 of those lenses are out of your $600 budget, even used. So you may need a new list.

I was looking at some of the prices and they are around 900 dollars used. Is there anything comparable to these lenses that I could get for within the budget I have

Don't know about 15-85, but the rest of those are way over $600

What I'd suggest is to get Tamron 17-50 F2.8, it will greatly increase the amount of flexibility and "creativity"

Another choice is 17-85 USM IS, awesome lens, but lacks a bit in distortion and CA department, I've had it for a long time before getting 17-40L which is another choice at around $700 used

If you do end up getting 17-40L, i'd also get the 50mm 1.8 - $100
Alternatively there are Sigmas and whatnot

I was looking at the 17-40mm but it would lack the range i am looking for in a lens. I want to upgrade to a lens with a greater range and one that is pretty sturdy in build quality.

Now which lenses then (i know all of the above are out of my budget) can I get for the money i am willing to spend.

I'd recommend the 28-135 IS USM + 50mm f1.8
The 28-135 is fairly inexpensive, but is quite good quality and gives a good zoom range. This plus the image stability and 'macro' modes gives a very versatile yet compact and flexible platform to build from. I was amazed at how much sharper it was than my kit lenses. This is also a EF "full frame" lens, meaning that you can use it on either a crop factor body OR a full frame body unlike the EF-s lenses which you can't use on a full-frame camera. B&H photo has this for about ~$400 USD. A full comparison pricing with shipping and duties calculated can be found at:
http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00048/ ... price.html

You should also pick up the 50mm f1.8 as its only ~$100 and is a staple for shallow DOF shots and low light conditions.


Another option is the: 28-200mm which gives you much larger zoom range, and the non-IS version is similar in price to the 28-135, but I find that the photo quality isn't the same.
http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00049/ ... price.html

Well after loooking around quite a bit and realizing that the above were not in my budget- i came across the 17-85 which I could get for about 350 used. What are your takes on this lens

I've already put my take on it in my post, but having shot with it for a while I can tell you one thing. It's a great lens, you're getting a lot for the money. Too bad you're also getting a lot of distortion at both ends and quite a bit of chromatic aberrations. That being said, it's a great walkaround and travel lens, but if you're thinking of upgrading now, maybe you're on the slippery path to image quality...thus you'll want to get rid of it pretty soon (it's not one that sells quickly). 28-135 is the same lens pretty much, but with a different focal range (EF vs EF-S) you won't be able to use 17-85 if you ever decide to buy a 5D

As noted the lens in your price range are the 17-85, 28-135 and 17-50 Tamron.

17-85 too much distortion for my test - that why I sold mine
28-135 variable aperture and not that wide
17-50 contant aperture but limited range

You can also look at the sigma 17-70 - good range and IQ but not a constant aperture.
There is also the Tamron 28-75 2.8 - not that wide but good all around and constant aperture - plus it will work on full frame.

Bump that.

Buy a better lens once you have the money. If you buy a substitute lens now you will end up selling it later on. Probably for a fraction of what you paid for it too.

I would suggest looking at this website for sample pictures and reviews on Canon compatible lenses:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

I had the 17-85 at one point, and wasn't in love with it for some of the reasons Potatoeye pointed out. I tend to also like faster lenses- but that ends up costing if you are looking at zooms (unless you go for the 50 1..

With your budget, you might consider supplementing your kit lens with something with a bit more reach- but instead of a zoom, go with a high quality prime lens. The Canon 100mm f2.8 macro (original not the IS) might be in your price range and might give you the range you are looking with. It isn't a zoom lens- but it is very versatile lens, good quality, reasonably priced- and reasonably fast (as fast if not faster than any zoom that you would be looking at).

If you don't already have a tripod, I would also put that on the priority list (with a cable release)- that solves low light issues other than for moving subjects in low light- and you will see your kit lens at its best.

If you have your heart set on a zoom, I would hold tight for the 24-70 or 24-105 and just save.

Good luck!

-Jason

What kind of "dramatic" improvement do you think you'd get?

I think you're going to be disappointed with whatever you'd get, mostly because the 18-55 kit lens isn't horrible. It's biggest weaknesses are low-light and CA (the CA is actually better or as good as than some of the so-called better lenses).

Simply getting a good low light prime like a EF35/2 or Sigma 30/1.4 would likely be the best bang for the buck.

Also, getting a better zoom range _and_ better low light is simply not going to happen, at least not at a price you can afford. Zeiss makes a 16.5-110/T2.6 zoom that cost in the 5 digits Heavy little bugger too.

For now you definitely should get the Canon 50 1.8 -- it should be in every Canon user's bag.

i've tried out a few lenses, and the one that ends up being on my camera 90% of the time is 24-105. it's a great all-purpose lens, works for wide angle, some zoom, low light (thanks to IS). i had it for 3 years now (bought it used, 1 year old) and it never failed me yet. and i shoot out in the weather, it's a tough lens.
some people swear by 24-70, maybe you should try both see which one you like better.
yes it's out of the $600 range, but it is worth it. i went through 5 different lenses before settling on this one. trust me, it's MUCH better to invest $900-$1000 in a used 24-70 or 24-105 right now than to spend $500 on one lens, then $200 on another and so on - you'll end up spending way more in the long run. my 2 cents.

For the 24-105 I am a tiny bit worried about the focusing distance because I don't have a full frame body. So it would be around a 30 some mm at its furthest zoomed out position. On a crop frame how is the zoom range on the 24-105 and 24-70.

I was leaning towards these two lenses mentioned above. Seeing as many people suggest that I spend a good amount of money on a good money so I can be happy with it for a good number of years.

I swear by my 24-70L too. Its on my 5DMk2 95% of the time but I just picked up a 50mm f1.4 to play with.

Either that or the 1.4. On a limited budget, you don't get a better bang for your buck than either of those 2 lenses. Great quality and you stand to push your learning by playing with one of those lenses. It opens the door to not only the world of primes so that you can see if you like it, but it's a very inexpensive way to get a realllly fast lens to get that awesome shallow depth of field.

If you decide you don't like it, those lenses are also very easy to resell.

I have a 24-70 though I mostly shoot with primes these days.

I now use a full frame body- but I used it a lot on a cropped body (the 20d). I actually found the range perfect for the 20d. It is a great lens, very versatile and sharp, I appreciated the speed- but it is a bit on the heavy side. It felt more balanced when I used a grip on the camera body.

I would think about your long term plans- if you think you might pick up some fast primes at some point (for those times when you want narrow dof), and can live with f4, you might wish to look at the 24-105.

Of the two i noticed that the 24-105 also has IS too. This lens would also have more of a zoom capability than the other; which was one important reason for me to upgrade. The one last thing i like about this lens is the fact that is weights a lot less than the other so it wouldn't seem too heavy on my rebel.

I would like to have a lens with IS just because i dont use a tripod and would love to be able to handhold long exposures without having the image blur due to my shaky hands.

But the 24-70 is able to handle low light conditions well. So i am really torn between the two.

Why is it that a lot of you "swear" by your 24-70's

What do you mean by long exposure? IS will not help with an exposure longer than 1 second.

I like the 24-70 because its a great general purpose lens, great low light and fits my needs. For anything longer then I throw on the 70-200. For wider I have access to a 16-35L. I found the 24-70 on my 20D was not wide enough but okay otherwise.

What about the range of the 20-74 vs the 20-105.

that was my main reasoning for going with 24-105. i like the range, and even on my f/2.8 or wider lenses i almost never shoot with apertures wider than f/4-5.6, plus IS helps in low light.

There are no perfect lenses- each lens has some compromises.
I think it is more a question of figuring out what compromises you will be willing to live with. I was willing to give up the range as I have a 70-200 and wanted the extra stop- others wouldn't.

BTW, on not using a tripod, you won't see the sharpness of your lenses unless you steady the camera- either with a tripod or in some other manner.

Indeed, IS is not a substitute for not having a tripod. What's the rule of thumb? That IS buys you approximately 2-3 stops?

I do have a tripod which i use on occasion- but for the majority of my photography- its done handheld.

The solution to your problems is the 18-55 IS lens. The kit lens that comes with newer Rebels. It has incredible sharpness throughout the range at various apertures. It suffers in contrast a bit, but that's very easily fixed in any photo program. Best of all, it's around $120 on craigslist.

Seriously, it's all that you need. Plus, you could sell your existing one for like $50, so it's a very cheap, great upgrade.

If you absolutely need fast aperture, get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as already suggested here, but I'd seriously think about the newer version of your lens, first.

Read more here: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-c ... rt--review and here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

I wouldn't call it incredible having used one for a while as well as Sigma 18-50, it's very basic and results are the same, Tamron will get you way ahead

well, the sharpness is only incredible if you haven't used L lenses... sure 18-55IS is great for its price, but if you want great image quality, sharpness, and durability/weather resistance, go with L lens. also if you ever plan to upgrade to full frame later on, you'll have to get rid of your EF-S lenses. i took my 24-105 to waterfalls, was shooting in rain, snow, heat, it's still spot on, not a spec inside (i know a guy who actually got soaked in the rain with his 24-70, and it still works like new)
i also had a 18-55 kit lens on my 20D (i've upgraded to 5D2 since), and after a few hardcore outdoorsy shoots there was some kind of screeching noise inside when zooming, like sand got in there, not sure.
it's either high quality or very low price, can't have both, that's the bottom line imho.

The 24 -105l is one of the best general purpose carry around lenses but a good 2nd hand copy will end up costing you around $900. Other then that keep your kit lens as it is not too bad at wide angle and at around 35mm and purchase a Canon 50mm f1.4 or if you are into sports you might like the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

That's completely untrue.

I don't want to start a flame war here on what lens is sharper and whatnot, but the 18-55 IS is among the sharpest general purpose zoom lenses on the market, regardless of manufacturer. In fact, it's sharper than the 24-105 L on APS-C sensors. Just take a look at the MTF charts done by photozone for both:

18-55:
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews ... is/mtf.gif
24-105:
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews ... is/mtf.gif

I'm by no means saying that the 24-105 is an inferior lens, I have one myself on my 5D, but I also own an XSi with the 18-55 IS, and I have to say that as far as sharpness alone, the 18-55 IS is a steal for the money. Sure, I don't get constant F4, weather sealing, amazing full metal construction, or that creamy smooth bokeh along with L colour. But, the 18-55 IS costs one tenth the price.

The OP asked for lens recommendations below $600 and I offered two very good choices, IMHO. The Canon kit with IS and the Tamron 2.8 if speed is essential. He has an XT for pete sakes, do you really think it matters that much that his upgrade path to full frame is going to be hindered by a $120 cheapo kit zoom? And what if the OP never get a full-frame camera? Does the OP need to suffer from limited wide-angle on their crop camera? Remember that 24-105 = 38.4-168 on the XT.

Bottom line, it's a great lens for the money, and if the OP ever decides to upgrade to full frame, just sell the XT and kit, or even better, keep them for a portable backup.