Looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 18-55mm

[Desslok]

So I got the Rebel XSI kit some 8 months ago, and while the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens has served me well, I think I'm ready to get something nicer, something without barrel disortion and with a bit more meat behind it - basicly a good, every day, walk-around lens thats not an entry level unit. Staying with the Canon name is nice but not completely nessassary. Image Stablizing, on the other hand, does rank highly on the features I want.


I had my eye on on the Canon 17-85mm IS USM - the IS is attractive and the price is right (if I can seal this deal at or under 500 bones, I'm golden), but the reports of vignetting is a turn off. Is it as bad as "they" say?


In short, anyone have some favorite wide-angle to mild telephoto lenses that wont break the bank? Something simiar to the EF-S 18-55mm, but better?

[L33t]

17-85 IS is in same price range as 17-40 L


I had 17-85 and it really sucked, bad image quality. I would buy 17-40, you get good sharp images with fine colors and weather sealing!

[Charlie_M]

I too had the 17-85 IS and was not impressed. Traded up to the 17-55 IS and haven't looked back. I did think about the 17-40 but the IS won me over in the end (Bryan's review played a big part in my decision too).

[Desslok]

Oooh, I do like that lens - pity about giving up the IS, tho. I have become so spoiled by that keen little feature.

[Madison]

It *may* break the bank (depending on our budget and where you buy it because prices vary) but as a replacement for the 18-55 the 17-55 2.8 IS is stellar.


Not only is it tack sharp (it delivers L glass quality, it really does) it also has a 2.8 aperture with nice bokeh (across the entire 17-55, which served me well in low light situations when I still had a crop body).


It may seem like 'the same' but between the lenses the 17-55 is a WORLD of difference. I was blown away by the quality and only wish Canon would make one for a full frame body with the same quality and range. I miss that lens.

[Jayson]

I also was just looking at this issue recently. I read some of Bryan's reviews and before you jump to purchasing the 17-55 2.8, check out his reviews. I saw a Tamron lens that I believe was 17-50 f2.8 that looked pretty good. Sure it isn't Canon, but from what he said, it appears to be pretty sharp also. Plus it is about $350. I haven't owned or purchased any of these lenses, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

[Daniel Browning]

The EF 17-40 has good build quality, but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is longer, faster, cheaper, and has higher image quality.


The "IS" version of the 18-55 would give you image stabilization for a small price.


The 17-85 IS has longer range, but the aperture and image quality are not much better than the 18-55 IS, despite costing much more.


The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is obviously the highest quality combination with IS, but it costs an arm and a leg.


In short, you have to pick any two of the following:

• Cheap
• Excellent image quality
• Image stabilization
  

If you pick "Cheap and Excellent image quality", you get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but no IS.


If you pick "Cheap and image stabilization", you get the 18-55 IS or 17-85 IS, but no excellent image quality.


If you pick "Excellent image quality and image stabilization", you get the 17-55, but it's not cheap.

[TimT]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I use it a lot. It's a very fast lens without a huge amount of zoom so for a lot of situations you don't need the IS. I use it for indoor candid shots and I've never had a problem with getting it to lock onto focus.

[Tom Carman]

I had the same predicament. I bought the EFS-17-55 IS USM (2.8) and i love it.


I was actually debating between the 24-70Land the above. The 17-55 is my day to day lens and the glass is L quality. The only downside is , of course incompatability if ever you consider going FF. I started with a XSI back in August and i just purchased a 50D.


The 17-55 perform very well.


Canon get you on this one though as you have to purchase a hood ($40.00 in Canada!)


Hood is standard on the 24-70.


<span style="font-size: x-small; color: #ffffcc; font-family: Arial;"]S


<span style="font-size: x-small; color: #ffffcc; font-family: Arial;"]M

[Desslok]

So it sounds like the Tamron 17-50 is the way to go. I'll have to do some more reading, and perhaps check out some samples on Flick or something - but that seems like the frontrunner at the moment.





*goes and drools over the 1,000 dollar lens*