Kits lens upgrade recommendations

[sambisu]

I'd love to have the 10-22 and 24-105 combo, but I can't really spend that much on lenses right now. I'm thinking the 15-85 is probably going to be a better choice for my needs. Maybe on the heavy side to take backpacking, but hopefully the improved image quality over the kit lens will make it worth while.

[thekingb]

Maybe on the heavy side to take backpacking, but hopefully the improved image quality over the kit lens will make it worth while.

Look into the R-Strap from Black Rapid. I can hike all day with the 70-300L with it. It's a game changer.

[Busted Knuckles]

landscapes and tripods pretty much push the recommendation to the 15-85. Only if you were doing 50mm 2.8 hand held would the faster lens be valuable to you.

Smaller filter size = less expensive filters and for the sake of everything photographic, get good filters. I was tempted w/ an inexpensive CPL - it was total trash and thats what I did with it, I threw it in the trash-complete waste of money.

[IndianaPhotog]

I would like to put in my two cents on what lens to choose. I must agree with most of the other posts that recommend the Canon EF-S17-55 2.8, I personally own this lens and find it to be an L lens with a cloaking device on. Image quality is in line with if not some situations exceeding my L lenses I awn also. The only thing that worries me at time about the 17-55 is the build and weather resistance. Build it okay, and this lens does tent to get dust inside it. Mine never has but I have seen some terrible cases of this. I noticed that you camp and hike quite a bit. This makes me think of an L lens for you. My favorite is the 24-70 2.8 monster. But I think the 24-105 f/4 is more versatile. The 24-10 f/4 is my everyday lens. It is brilliant and can stand on its own. One a crop body you will lose some of the wideness of this lens. Just think forward, if you ever upgrade to a full frame (which is only a matter of time for many) than you will be ready. Also the 24-10 f/4 has IS that the 24-70 does not and is several hundred cheaper. I have not been unhappy with my 24-105 lens. I did at times wish she was a bit faster 2.8 would be the best but I use ISO 2000-2500 a lot with little to minimal noise and am very happy. I hope that this helps you. I would stay away from the 50mm until you get a full frame body. I see you are from Bettendorf, I lived there for about 5 years. The QCA is nice, I would kill for a Boozie Burger right now. And I miss shooting some of the cool bridges in the area at all times of the year.

[sambisu]

I would like to put in my two cents on what lens to choose. I must agree with most of the other posts that recommend the Canon EF-S17-55 2.8, I personally own this lens and find it to be an L lens with a cloaking device on. Image quality is in line with if not some situations exceeding my L lenses I awn also. The only thing that worries me at time about the 17-55 is the build and weather resistance. Build it okay, and this lens does tent to get dust inside it. Mine never has but I have seen some terrible cases of this. I noticed that you camp and hike quite a bit. This makes me think of an L lens for you. My favorite is the 24-70 2.8 monster. But I think the 24-105 f/4 is more versatile. The 24-10 f/4 is my everyday lens. It is brilliant and can stand on its own. One a crop body you will lose some of the wideness of this lens. Just think forward, if you ever upgrade to a full frame (which is only a matter of time for many) than you will be ready. Also the 24-10 f/4 has IS that the 24-70 does not and is several hundred cheaper. I have not been unhappy with my 24-105 lens. I did at times wish she was a bit faster 2.8 would be the best but I use ISO 2000-2500 a lot with little to minimal noise and am very happy. I hope that this helps you. I would stay away from the 50mm until you get a full frame body. I see you are from Bettendorf, I lived there for about 5 years. The QCA is nice, I would kill for a Boozie Burger right now. And I miss shooting some of the cool bridges in the area at all times of the year.

As much as I'd like an L lens (especially for the weather sealing), it doesn't seem like the focal ranges will fit very well into my uses unless I also bought something like the 10-22mm to fill in on the wide side. The size and weight of many of the L lenses is also a possible issue as I will be taking this equipment backpacking. I have no intentions of going to a FF any time in the near future. Again, I want to stay as light as possible.

I am definitely concerned about the dust intrusion issues with the 17-55 f/2.8. If it wasn't for that, I'm pretty sure that is the lens I would be buying right now. But that issue is kind of keeping me on the fence. I may just end up taking my chances on that though. You'd think with this being such a well known issue, Canon would have done something to address it by now. In terms of my original decision of the 17-55 f/2.8 versus the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, I'd really like to have that constant 2.8 vs the 3.5-5.6. And since I have the 55-250 f/4-5.6 already, I have the 55-85 range covered. And as much as I'd like to have that extra 2mm on the wide end, I think I can do without.

I actually just went down to Le Claire Park the other morning to take pictures of Centennial Bridge. You will have to fill me in on the Boozie Burger though...I'm not familiar with that. I'm not from here originally though. Been in the QCA for about 4 years now.

[francongphotography]

Well, I have a different opinion from others.
I went through the same thing 6 months ago, and started with just my kit lens.
First lens I bought was the 17-40mm f/4 L, (I love landscape, walking/hiking around) and yes, if you're taking pics at dawn/sunset, you'll need tripod and doing those slow exposure for seascapes, you definitely need a tripod! At that time, budget was a problem for me so I didn't buy the 17-55mm, and I didn't get the 15-85mm, because I'm planning to upgrade to FF in a couple years, so those were kinda the reasons why I decided on the 17-40mm.

On the long side, I later bought the 70-200mm f/4 L IS, because it's light-weight and easy to carry around, and with stunning IQ even compare to the f/2.8 version I. And I'm nowhere near a professional, and I mainly use it for landscape and in good light, so I'm really happy with my selection of lenses.

Hope my experience helps.

FYI, both lenses create amazing results, the 17-40mm might be an old lens, but it's a good lens for its price, and both are weather sealed for long hikes or humid weathers!