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

[Synomis192]

@ 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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[Synomis192]

@ 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?

[Black_Dog]

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.

[jrw]

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.

[Sheiky]

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

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 oftenSo 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 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 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

[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?

[NFLD Stephen]

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

[Steve U]

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.

[DavidEccleston]

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.