I have a T3i and want to upgrade from my kit lens to one of the following 2 lenses
Printable View
I have a T3i and want to upgrade from my kit lens to one of the following 2 lenses
Having gone with the 24-105mm option, I'd suggest going another route. 15-85mm is a nice lens, or perhaps consider the Canon 17-55mm f2/8 or the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non VC version).
On the 24-105mm, 24mm isn't wide enough, and I don't find the lens to be super sharp.
With the 15-85mm, you'll get more range on both ends compared to your kit lens (assuming it's the 18-55mm), and it's quite sharp. It's probably quite a bit lighter too.
The Canon 17-55mm is generally regarded as the best general purpose zoom for a crop body. With a constant f/2.8 aperture, you can shoot with thin DOF, or in lower light. It's in the same sort of price range as the 24-105mm.
The Tamron 17-50mm is supposed to be quite a nice lens, plus with a constant f/2.8 aperture, you can shoot with thin DOF, or in lower light. The VC version (Tamron's name for IS) is significantly softer, so you'd be giving up image stabilization if you did this. The reason to consider this vs. the Canon 17-55mm is that it's less than half the price.
Welcome Tack Sharp,
I would go with the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM of the two choices you listed. I have the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, but on a APS-C 1.6 crop Canon, such as the T3i, 24mm is the equivalent of 38.4mm on a FF body. Personally I have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM because I needed the constant f/2.8 for what I do. If you are not using it in low light without a flash the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a very good choice. Since you have a T3i, a fairly new body and are looking to upgrade from the kit lens, I am making the assumption you are not looking at FF anytime soon. If you were thinking of say a 5D II purchase soon, then the the 24-105 would merit more consideration. If you have not done so yet, I would recommend you read Bryan's excellent reviews on both EF-S lenses.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Fair warning though: good Canon glass is like Lays Potato Chips -- one is never enough.
Welcome to the addiction,
Chris
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/8420.20110827_2D00_IMG_5F00_0035.jpg[/img]
50D/EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM 1/125-f/2.8-ISO 200
<span class="field-item-description"]<span style="color: #000000;"]Here is a photo of my son at his first NFL game last Saturday. This printed out incredibly sharp. The first seat is approximately in the same plane as him, but I could easily crop that out. What I really like is the way other the seats blur in the background pulling you attention to him. Keep in mind this is just a "memory" photo run through LR3 to convert from RAW for printing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
Welcome to the forum.
I see a lot of people saying that the 24-105 is not that sharp. My first two cameras were the XT and XTi with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non VC version). When I upgraded to the 24-105 I could see a big improvement in IQ including sharpness. I did however have an issue with it not going wide enough. I now have two 24-105s but I no longer shoot a 1.6x camera. Both of mine are full frame or 1.3x.
With that said, if I still had a 1.6x camera I would go with the canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. I have no experience with the 15-85 but from what I have seen it looks like a good choice as well.
Mark
+1 15-85
+2 15-85
Welcome!
You want a general purpose lens, and if you really mean that, you
+1 on Neuro
Well, I just sold my 24 to 105 because I haven
I can
Thanks Chris, I appreciate your feed back. I actually went and tested the EF-S 17-55 this morning... It was a great lens. Much sharper than my standard kit lens and it worked great in the store in low light. With concerns to the crop body factor, yes the lower end 17mm was better than the 24 that the EF 24-105 offers but am I going to be disappointed turning down the opportunity of buying an L lens? I mean, you even said it... I
The 28-135mm kit is not to the same level as the 15-85mm or 17-55mm f/2.8. The larger the focal length range the worst the IQ. Just because it
Tack Sharp posted while I was typing. So read it with the second last post by Tack Sharp in mind.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack Sharp
If you go with the 24-105 you may find it not wide enough as was said numerous times above. When I was making this decision with my XTi I looked back at many of my shots and found I rarely went lower than 24mm on my Tamron 17-50. The decision to go with the 24-105 was the right decision for me especially since I have now gone full frame. If you do not think you will ever go FF then I would go with the canon 17-55.
Mark
The optics/glass on the 15-85 and 17-55 is on par with "L" lenses. The primary differences are in build and a red ring. But the build quality of the 15-85 and 17-55 is still very good to excellent.
Btw. I own the 15-85 and highly recommend it. But i agree with others. I
As Brant (Kayaker72) says, the 17-55mm and 15-85mm are delivering L-series optical quality on APS-C. The build of L lenses is better, no question - tougher and some, including the 24-105mm, are weather-sealed (but then, that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack Sharp
It really is hard to stop at one. In full disclosure, I have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM and the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM yields the best results on my 50D. On my 5D II it is a different story, (not that you can put EF-S lenses on it) the latter two shine. I have never been as happy in particular with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM on my 50D as I have with my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens. As both John (Fast Glass) and John (neuro) point out the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is very high quality, even if not *quite* L glass. As far as IQ, which is your main concern, the EF-S choices are going to make you happier. I think your main deciding factor is what you want/need more, more reach (EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM) or twice the light across the entire focal range (EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ). For me, my kids activities put me in the position of needing to be able to shoot in lower light without a flash, so I tend to favor the f/2.8 zooms. In my opinion if you choose the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM you will be very pleased. When I mix images form different cameras in an album there is no noticeable IQ difference. Even I need to think about which camera/lens combination I was using -- which is what I think we are all looking for.
Then you will want more....before you know it you have a set. [:D]
Again thank you all for your input. I managed to test the EFS 15-85 and the EF 24-105 together yesterday... I desperately wanted the L lens to be great, but alas the EFS 15-85 was considerably sharper. Although in the future I probably will upgrade, I do agree with neuroanatomist (and my wife) in getting the right lens for the right body. I am going to go for the EFS 15-85. Much appreciate all your support and responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack Sharp
The 24-105mm L is great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
As John and Brant correctly point out, it is not the best option for your T3i. It is like having the world's best hammer when you need a screwdriver, a great hammer is not going to loosen a tight screw without causing unwanted damage. (I know this is a stretched-for analogy, but you see what I mean.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Exactly! [;)]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack Sharp
In addition, you put careful thought into your decision. You sought some (hopefully) good advice and then tried each of your choices on your camera and then you made the best choice based on results. And as anyone here will attest to, if your wife is on-board the next lens is closer than you may now think. [:P]
Enjoy the EF-S 15-85mm, although I have not used one, most people who do are very happy with it.
Chris