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

[Synomis192]

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

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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[Synomis192]

@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.

[cls]

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...

[Synomis192]

@ 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.

[Steve U]

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.

[Synomis192]

@ Steve

Thanks for your input

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.

[Steve U]

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.

[jrw]

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.

[patham]

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.