General Purpose Lens for D-Rebel XT (EOS-350D)

[Sheiky]

And it seems like the 17-55 f/2.8 is very popular here, but I'm afraid I might not be able to afford one

I had that same problem at first when I searched for a good replacement of my kit-lens [:P] As I was in a tight budget myself I bought the Tamron 17-50 and I was very pleased with the results that I got from it. I also had the Canon 17-55 later on, but only because I missed USM (and full-time manual overrule) on the Tamron and the only thing I shot was sports so...

The Tamron 17-50 does seem to be a good substitute, though.

I think so yes. For your budget it is a very good choice. I really like the constant aperture over the variable aperture of the canon 15-85. The f2.8 gives you more to play with and to be honest f2.8 really pushes your photos into a new dimension. Image-qualitywise the Tamron does a real good job, also read Bryans review of it. I was very pleased with that lens.


The only big downside vs the canons is the IS system that the Tamron lacks, but since you're used of shooting without IS I doubt this will be a major issue. But I could be wrong.


Also this way you keep to save some money which you could take apart for saving for a 70-200 f4L for your tele-needs later on. This is exactly the lenscombination I started with and I enjoyed every single bit of it.

Is the 17-55 preferred for its wide aperture, or is there something else I'm missing? Jan, is there a reason you wouldn't want to shoot with a 15-85? And how much would you personally miss the loss in focal length from a 15-85 to a 17-50?

It's known for it's wide constant aperture yes and therefor can make your picture much more interesting.


The main reason I why I wouldn't want a 15-85 is the variable and small aperture. I really don't like it, it gives me less control. And there are a lot of times I'd rather set my aperture at f2.8 than at f5.6 wide open. A lot of times f5.6 just doesn't do it for me and I need to increase my ISO or decrease my shutterspeed for either one and I just don't like that.


About missing focal length. The 15-17 difference I wouldn't miss. 17mm is wide enough for the normal use of a wide-angle. So unless you live in the grand-canyon or something, 17 will do just fine [:P] 50-85mm is a very noticable difference and you'll find yourself wanting to zoom further than 50mm sometimes, but to be honest I would rather buy a tele-zoomlens for those occasions because often 85mm won't work either []


I got to go swimming now, didn't notice time went by so fast[:O]good luck with your decision, it's a hard one [] If you have the opportunity to try some of these lenses....it is worth it.


Jan

[barba]

If your budget is really limited, I would pick up the 18-55IS used (it is cheap/plentiful used and is much better optically). Save your money until you can afford a lens that will serve you for the long run, like the 17-55IS.

[neuroanatomist]

If your budget is really limited, I would pick up the 18-55IS used (it is cheap/plentiful used and is much better optically)

Frank mentioned a budget of up to $1000. I think 'upgrading' from the non-IS to the IS version of the 18-55mm kit lens is rather like getting a Canadian quarter in change, and having the cashier switch it for an American quarter. Just being able to use it in a vending machine doesn't make it an 'upgrade'. [:P]


Jokes aside, I really don't think it's ever worth 'buying' an 18-55mm kit lens as anything other than part of a kit. With the XSi, the kit lens currently adds $75 (today's Amazon pricing). On FM and CL, the usual asking price is $90-110. So, you're getting a used lens, and the person you're buying it from is making a profit. That's not too bad, relatively speaking. But, unlike quality Canon lenses, the 18-55mm is very cheaply built, meaning it doesn't hold up well to even moderate mistreatment. I'll bet many noobie users turn the focus ring without setting it to MF - that can misalign the focus gears, and a mis-focusing lens sure won't be optically better.

[nimblybimbly85]

I have both the 17-55 f2.8 and the 15-85 lenses. The constant 2.8f is nice if you are taking portraits or working in low light and your subject is close. however, i personally like to shoot photos with a long depth of field, so i rarely use a low f anyways. What you want is a good general purpose lens for no more than $1000; the 15-85mm is that lens.


If you always want a nice blurred background (which i honestly don't care that much about) and will be doing a lot of portrait work, than get the 17-55 f2.8. It has better glass andbuild as well. Otherwise, save some money and get the 15-85; it is much better than your kit lens and the extra reach comes in handy a lot.