Upgrading my lens, can't decide what to upgrade to.

Well hello all, I'm new here so please don't eat me. :D

In all seriousness though, I plan on saving roughly around $1000 - $1500 to buy a new lens (or a new set of lens).

What I'm looking for is a walk-around lens/lens combo for my Canon T1i. I shoot landscapes, city street life, portraits, and the occasional sports events. Currently, I have the Canon 18-55mm, 55-250mm, and 50mm 1.8. It's been serving me well for about 2-3years and I have decided it's time to upgrade. I do plan on selling the lenses to help pay for the upgrade though.

I've been planning accordingly and I have come to these combos:

1). Canon 17-55 f/2.8: I really do like the IQ and constant wide aperture at all focal lengths. What's scaring me into no purchasing the lens is the price tag, and I won't be able to upgrade to FF if I wanted to.

2). Canon 17-40mm f/4 L and Canon 70-200mm f/4 L: I like the 17-40mm range for my crop camera, and with the 70-200 I feel like I have a large amount of range covered. A problem with this combo is that it's extremely slow lenses. Both of the lenses are f/4, and I do shoot at night (I like late-night street photography.) Another problem is that I've heard that the 17-40mm isn't considered a good L lens. I've never had experience with it though, so I can't trash talk it. The Canon 70-200mm is really impressive. I had the chance to test this lens and I really like it. A lot. But, like I've stated before, the max aperture of f/4 scares me. And the fact that it does not have IQ also pushes me away from this lens.

3). Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6: Like the 17-55mm, the 15-85 has gotten a lot of praise for having great IQ and a useful crop range. It's been on my watch list for a very long time, but I really feel like I need a fast lens for my night photography shots. That the main reason why I've been avoiding this lens for a while now. Due to the fact that this lens is considered to be both a wide angle and medium zoom, I've decided that if I get this lens, I'd be placing the rest of the money towards a new body (7d most likely)

4) Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Canon 70-200mm f/4 L: I have, however, had the chance to play with the Tamron 17-50mm and I was really impressed at the IQ. Another this that I found attractive about this lens is that really low price tag when compared to Canon's 17-55mm. The real reason why I've been avoiding this lens is the amount of complaints it's received for having such poor Quality Control. The Sigma is worse that both the Tamron and the Canon, therefore ruling it out. Unless some one can prove me wrong.

Those are the 4 combos I've been really considering. I'd like everyone input on these choices. Tell me which ones you guys like and if you can, I'd like to listen to you suggestions about which combos work well for you guys.

Sounds like you've really done your research. I'm not sure if there's much I can add. When I was in your position, I took a chance on Tamron and came out OK. Others have not been so lucky, but that's what I would still recommend to you. Think of it this way: with the Tamron you have a chance of getting a bad lens and the hassle/expense of returning it. But with Canon you are 100% guaranteed to spend twice as much money. I'd rather take the chance. :)

Hi, and welcome to the forum. I recognize your question from when I was looking for an upgrade to the 18-55 (and I suppose many others have also been there). Basically I would say all four options you mentioned would be good choices - there is no absolute truth and it's mainly a matter of taste which way to go. My best advice would be to follow your own instinct - I get a feeling it's the 17-55/2.8 you really want, and if so that would be the way to go. If you are considering an FF body it could be wise to buy a used copy - then you could sell it again in a year or two with little or no loss. (I believe it's better to pay a lot for something you really want, than to pay much for something that isn't what you want.)

If you really want to upgrade in the telephoto range also, it may be difficult to get both the 17-55 and a 70-200 with that budget. Then your option no 4 would be my choice. The Tamron has a reputation of being optically excellent but lacks USM, IS and the solid feel of the Canon 17-55. The lens quality per dollar ratio is really high for the Tamron, but not as high as for the 70-200 f/4 USM though. This one is cheap(ish) but is a great lens in all aspects - a true bargain.

For what it's worth this is what I did: I felt I wanted more reach than 55 mm on a standard zoom and went with the 24-105. For a while I used the 18-55 when wider angels was needed, but then I added the 10-22. If the 15-85 had been around at the time I would probably have chosen that option over the 24-105 - it has a perfect focal length range for an APS-C standard zoom. (Personally, I'm not enough interested in f/2.8 zooms to sacrifice the advantages - focal length range, size, price - of slower zooms, many think differently.)

I'm sure you'll get lots of advice in different directions, then you will have to choose what advice to follow...

@Daniel

Well, Photography is a really expensive hobby. I'd like to know that I'm purchasing the right lenses because money is an issue for me. I'm only in Community College and I just started a part time job. I'll take what your telling me into consideration. Glad to know that you support the third-party manufacturers. hahaha. From previous forums, I've been told that purchasing a non-Canon product is a last minute resort, and isn't worth it in the end. :D

@ cls

I'm glad to be here. Haha. I use this site a lot to compare lenses using the ISO 12233 chart data.

Speaking of the Tamron, as you mention the lack of IS also bothered me, due to the fact that focusing on a subject in low light with a wide aperture is quite difficult, especially when manual focusing. As for the USM, I'm not entirely concerned about USM because I'm not into wildlife photography, and I don't mind the buzz I get from lenses when they are trying to focus.

I've been thinking about the Canon 70-200 for a long time as well. It's one of those lenses that a lot of photo-journalist have, but most have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM version which in my case is way out of my budget. The main reason why I need a zoom is because I am pursing a minor in photo-journalism, so I need a lens that can cover a long range.

Welcome to the forums, my vote would go for the 15-85, as a usable high IQ lens. Then I would save for the 70-200.
An alternative, would be to go with a couple of primes, the Sigma 30mm, your nifty fifty and the 70-200.
Good luck with it.

@ Steve

Thanks for your input :D

I do like prime lens as well, but I'm not looking into some primes at the moment. My nifty-fifty does wonders already. I did try the Sigma 30mm, but I didn't like it. It was too soft wide open and there was a lot of color fringing. (For my friends copy that was the case, I'm not sure if that's really necessarily true for all of the Sigma 30mms)

The problem with primes in my opinion is that if I had a bag full of primes, I'd have to constantly switch lens. I have this fear of changing lenses. I'd rather keep one on than putting multiple on different times. If that makes sense.

That does make sense.
The counter argument as you would know is primes help your creativity and your aerobic fitness as you use your legs to zoom in and out. Oh and the IQ is usually pretty special.
Here is a good thread to have a look through, if you want to see the beauty of primes.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/513
But in the long run the lenses you are considering are very special lenses with great IQ, I'm sure you'll make the decision that's right for you.

It's so nice to have the opportunity to spend someone else's money for a change.

15-85 is a nice lens for walk around usage. Only real drawback is the variable aperture for indoor usage. 17-55 f2.8 overcomes with a higher price tag. If you do decide to go with the 15-85, look for a used one. There are enough of them being sold by others to help fund the 17-55 f2.8 purchase.

17-40 L is a nice enough lens. I use it for landscape work as the IQ is better than my 24-105. Only real issue I have with it is there is no single AF microadjustment I can make for it that will work at all settings. There is an S-curve for back-to-front focusing that is dependant on distance to target. This curve shifts up or down slightly depending on aperture setting. It isn't enough to make the AF useless by any means, total range is 3 or 4 steps, it is just the standards that I want to maintain in my work are high enough that I discovered this early on and now use 10x liveview when I am being super critical about plane of focus.

With the photo-journalism aspect to your work, I'd suggest getting the 17-55 f2.8 for now as it will allow using lower ISO settings on T1i or 7D. Compared to the FF bodies there is a difference in workable ISO range and you will want the aperture to compensate. Even if you do go FF, and we know you will, it is a lens that will likely hold its value quite well.

I was in a similar situation about a year-year and a half ago and eventually went with the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 IS, which for me are a great kit. The IS isn't absolutely necessary on the tele, but I found it helps quite a lot (price tag vs shaky hands argument). I absolutely love the IQ on both lenses and haven't had any cause to complain...well...apart from carrying the weight for a whole day, it is a noticeable increase on the kit lens + cheapo zoom (I had the 70-300 non-L). The 17-55 does suffer a bit with night photography, your 50mm prime would probably be the best there, but even so it is definitely much better than the previous kit lens and if you use a tripod should allow for some great shots.

@ Steve

I would consider getting another prime for that reason. The whole expanding a photographer's creativity is a really good point. I'd probably go with the Canon 35mm f/2. I was thinking about getting the Canon 28mm f/1.8 but I found that the lens is really soft wide open. Is there any other primes you'd recommend?

@ jrw

Technically, I'm spending my parents money as well. But most of the money will come from me. Haha.

Thanks for suggesting I'd get the 17-55mm f/2.8. I honestly don't know why a lot of people choose this lens. I can't trash talk the lens due to the fact that I've never held on in my hands or used one. I'm considering renting the 17-55 f/2.8 just to see what all the fuss is about. I really do like the 17-40 f/4 though because if I ever felt the need to upgrade to FF i'd have a walkaround lens for the camera. I too am critical about focusing. Liveview really does help in the long run haha.

@ patham

I'll consider getting the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I wouldn't mind try to save a little bit more for IS. Carrying weight really isn't a problem haha, It's just something that photographers have to deal with. And what doesn't kill you makes you stronger right? haha just kidding. But if I was really concerned about weight, I wouldn't get a new lens. I probably get the Fujifilm x100 or the Leica M9.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synomis192

I really do like the 17-40 f/4 though because if I ever felt the need to upgrade to FF i'd have a walkaround lens for the camera.

---

Actually, the angle of view changes dramatically when a lens is used on full frame. The 17-40 becomes an ultrawide, giving about the same angle of view as the EF-S 10-22. Most people wouldn't consider that to be a "walkaround" lens, though you can definitely use it as one (I did) if you like very wide angles of view.

The benefits of the 17-40 include great build quality, excellent autofocus, good manual focus ring, high resale value ("L" brand), full-frame compatibility, and good image quality at f/8. The downsides include a narrow f-number (f/4), high cost, and poor image quality at f/4. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is cheaper, faster, longer, *and* significantly sharper at all f-numbers between f/2.8 and f/5.6.

@ Daniel

Hmm, the Tamron does have a really good IQ compared to the Canon 17-40 f/4. Maybe for now, I'll decided to get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200mm f/4. Thanks for you input. Is there any zoom lenses or primes that you'd recommend I get rather than the Canon 70-200mm f/4?

I bought the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 in November. Zero regrets. It's the best all around lens I've ever used. One of these years I plan to move up to ff and I won't be able to take this lens with me. But I doubt at that time I will get rid of my crop-sensor bodies, so this lens will still have a place in my camera bag. I determined to get the best glass for the body that I own now (which is the EF-S 17-55) and cross the FF bridge when (or if) I get there.

17-55 f2.8 can best be thought of as an 'L' lens for IQ, but not for weather/dust&nbsp;sealing. Don't have it myself, but some people I know do and swear by it, not at it. Have played a little bit with&nbsp;theirs and found it quite&nbsp;nice, but shoot mostly FF myself. Tamron 17-50 owner I know mixes swearing by it with at it.<br><br>17-40 would not fit my definition of ideal walk around lens due to short focal range, distortion on wide end, and the previously mentioned AF curve which others have found as well so I have just assumed it is the nature of the beast. My usage is for landscapes on a full-frame body with narrower apertures. On a crop body it would still create perspective distortion of close subjects making it a non-flattering portrait choice. With the sensitivity of some subjects to their facial features it could come down to how fast can you run.<br><br>On the 70-200 front, I'd recommend the IS versions as well. Have f4 and f2.8. Won't be selling f4 version as the weight and&nbsp;size&nbsp;difference is very noticeable and it is an excellent daytime hiking and sports&nbsp;lens. Bring out the big gun for low light conditions, portraits.<br>Recommend the IS as an f4 IS lens can capture shots of still subjects with longer exposures than an f2.8 non-IS lens. If your typical&nbsp;subject with this lens&nbsp;is moving then aperture is more important to reduce shutter time. Ultimately,&nbsp;your intended&nbsp;use of&nbsp;a lens&nbsp;will be the best guide to selection.

Hi Synomis,

I currently have a FF camera so I don't own some of the lenses anymore, but I have had the Tamron 17-50, the Canon 17-55, the 70-200 F4L(with and without IS). So I can give a little user feedback.

1) The Canon 17-55 IS USM. It's a great lens, great in what it does. IQ is excelent. Good build quality, but nothing too fancy. IS is a very nice feature. You can't go wrong with this lens, unless you're on a tight budget. I upgraded from the Tamron to this because I "needed" the IS and USM.

2) 17-40 and 70-200 F4. The 70-200 is simply an awesome lens. The 17-40 hasn't really convinced me yet. There are better performing lenses in this range(for APS-C) unless you need the build of the L-lens(weather-sealing for example).

3) The 15-85. Don't have or had this lens, but as you said that having a lens with a max aperture of F4 is scary...I doubt this will be a good option for you:o

3) The Tamron 17-50 and the 70-200. As I said, the 70-200 L-series are simply awesome. They do exactly what you'd expect from a seriously looking lens. I must say I upgraded from the non-IS to the IS and I like this one even more. The non-IS lens is great. If you're a regular tripod user you will do fine, but if you're lazy like me...having IS is a great feature. I must say that I turn it off when I'm shooting sports, which is where I use it most often:rolleyes:So it's a luxury thing;)
The Tamron is a great value lens. It not only offers great image-quality it does it for a great price. When I still had it my friend had a 24-70 f2.8L lens, but the Tamron performed better than his 3*more expensive lens. I upgraded to the Canon 17-55 later on, because I needed IS and USM. Now the USM was definitely quieter, but not really that much faster. Having IS was nice. I didn't notice a big change in build-quality. I think the Tamron lens is build just as well as the Canon 17-55. Plus you don't have to buy a lens hood separately:rolleyes: If you're not taking photos in churches or other places where you need to be "invisible" the sound of the AF mechanism isn't that bad.

My opinion: You can buy 1 great lens or 2 great lenses for the same price...take your pic:p As for the 70-200. F4 is plenty wide enough for daytime shooting and outdoor sports. I also use it for some indoor sports, but you'd have to push your ISO. Having IS on a tele-lens is an even bigger advantage then on a wide angle lens. I really like it for the times there's enough light for 1/100s portraits for example. Handholding a 200mm lens can be hard at those settings.

Good luck!

Jan

@ Jan

Thank you so much for your input. I guess I know what im choosing to upgrade to. I've decided to go for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L non IS. I know you said that having IS is a big benefit for. Tele-lens but I dont think I'll be using the Canon for night shots anyways, but if push comes to shove, i wouldnt mind bumping up my ISO. Thanks for helping me out Jan and for providing insight on all of my suggested lenses. If you dont mind me asking, is there a prime lens I should consider getting along side the Tammy and Canon combo im getting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synomis192

If you dont mind me asking, is there a prime lens I should consider getting along side the Tammy and Canon combo im getting?

---

Well you already have the 50 1.8, so are you looking for something wider or longer? Which fits your shooting style better?

As has been discussed in other threads, there is not much to choose from for good primes wider than 50mm unless you want to spend $$$ for one of the L's (like the 24 or 35). You could also consider the sigma 30 which I hear is pretty good. On the longer end the 85 1.8 typically gets very good reviews. I think this focal length would suit you as well if you like street photography. Then there is something like the 100 2.8 macro which would be good for longer portraits/street photography with the added benifit of macro. Or you could choose to upgrade the 50 and go with the 50 1.4 which is also a nice lens. So many options....

Stephen

Your lens choices are very sound and I would second Stephen's suggestion of the 85/1.8 a very fine portrait lens and ideal for street photography.

Here's a link to all my flickr photos tagged as being taken with the 85mm f/1.8, if you want an assorted collection to use as a reference.

@ NFLD Stephen

Hmmm I think I'd be aiming torwards a wide angle prime, for that I'd be considering the Canon 35 f/2. Does anyone here have that lens? I am considering that Canon 85mm f/1.4 but I'm worried that it would become a super-zoom on my T1i.

I'm not sure if you quite understand what a "1.6 crop factor" is. It means no matter which lens you mount, EF-s, EF or anyting else, you multiply the focal length by 1.6 to get a equivalant focal length in 35mm or full frame. 35mm is a normal lens on a 1.6 body, you would be looking at somthing like 15-22mm range for a wide angle.

John.

Synomis, if you're wondering about what focal length prime to get, the easiest way of how to decide would be to just put on a zoom lens and test the different focal lengths and see which one you need.

I myself have a 1.6 FOVCF body too and have had the 50mm f/1.8 and now have the 50 mm f/1.4. For me the difference in price between the two is easily justified. I feel the 1.4 has quite better IQ, naturally the out of focus blur is even better and it doesn't feel as plasticky and cheap as the 1.8. I've also found that the 50mm focal range on a crop body works great for me for head&shoulder or 2-3 person group portraits when moving back a bit. I think an 85mm lens might be a bit too long for portraits on a crop body, for me at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synomis192

@ Jan

Thank you so much for your input. I guess I know what im choosing to upgrade to. I've decided to go for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L non IS. I know you said that having IS is a big benefit for. Tele-lens but I dont think I'll be using the Canon for night shots anyways, but if push comes to shove, i wouldnt mind bumping up my ISO. Thanks for helping me out Jan and for providing insight on all of my suggested lenses. If you dont mind me asking, is there a prime lens I should consider getting along side the Tammy and Canon combo im getting?

---

No problem. It helps if you've walked the same path:p IS is definitely a nice feature, but when I didn't have IS yet I really didn't miss it all that much. Not having IS helps you think more about your shots, standing steadier, watching your settings more frequently. That's why I said IS is nice for lazy people like me. Of course it also has a technical advantages. I like IS when I'm shooting sunsets/sunrises for example. I can get away with shutterspeeds of 1/50th handheld at 200mm without a worry. However a tripod would work just as well or even better in these situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patham

Synomis, if you're wondering about what focal length prime to get, the easiest way of how to decide would be to just put on a zoom lens and test the different focal lengths and see which one you need.

---

As for the prime I think this is the best advice. A prime lens is very personal. If you look at your photos it's not that hard to see what focal length you prefer. If you like your 50mm 1.8 the upgrade to the 1.4 may be worth it. If you think you want a wider or longer lens go for either one.
My girlfriend has a 40D and only has one lens the 85mm f1.8. She's more happy with it than with the 18-55 kit lens. Better yet I would think I'd miss the wider angle, but she manages to get fantastic photos with her lens in situations I'd expect to need a wider lens. But it's very personal.

If you have Lightroom or any other program that has a library view you can easily select all your photos and see what focal length you use the most. I found out that I liked 50mm the most on my FF camera. Which is about equal as 30mm for your camera. But I don't do street photography so again this is very personal:o

@ FastGass

I understand that 35mm isn't tecnically wide for a FOVCF camera but its wider than my 50mm so I refer to it as a wIde prime. Sorry for that misunderstanding haha. If I really wanted a 35mm for my 1.6 crop camera, i'd selling my car to buy a Ziess 15mm. Haha but Im not going to do that. Waaay to costly haha.

@ patham

Thanks for the advice haha. Im actually going to Santa Monica this friday so I'll take a look at my pictures at the end of the day and see what's my most used focal length. Im looking forward to it haha.

@ Jan

Yeah I agree on your viewpoint about IS, it doesnt hurt to have it. I carry a tripod with me everytime I'm out shooting so I dont think its a problem haha. Personally I love use the 50mm and I've been considering upgrading to the f/1.4 but I think I'd benefit more getting the 35mm f/2 because when I go street shooting I like to get close to my subjects. Haha

Thanks for all the help you guys have given me. I really appreciate it.