Kits lens upgrade recommendations

[sambisu]

I recently bought a Canon T2i with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II and 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II kit lenses. I primarily purchased this as an upgrade from a point and shoot so that I could get better travel pictures. We do a lot of camping and backpacking and after coming back from Yellowstone last year and being very disappointed with the image quality from our point and shoot and getting constantly frustrated at not being able to capture low light scenes, I decided that the extra weight of a DSLR on backpacking trips would be worth while. I started practicing and read a few books focusing on landscape photography and realized along the way that I really enjoy composing and taking pictures.

I am realizing already that the kit lenses are not going to cut it for me. While they have been a substantial upgrade from the P&S, I am still not satisfied with the image quality (especially from the 18-55mm, which is what I have been using primarily). I am mostly interested in landscapes and general travel photos. I'd like to be able to take good low-light photos as well.

I can't afford to upgrade everything now, so I'd like some advice on what will give me the biggest bang for my buck.

Here's what I've had my eye on:

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

[HDNitehawk]

I would go for the 17-55mm ... F/2.8 sounds good.

Oh... Yellowstone... I am ready to go back


Hidden Baby on The Madison by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

[Kayaker72]

Sambisu,

First off, welcome to the forums.....

Rick's (HDNitehawk) advice will probably be echoed. Most consider the 17-55 f/2.8 to be the best general purpose lens for a crop sensor camera. I don't own the 17-55 but it's charts are impressive. It is a sharp lens, perhaps even slightly sharper than the lens I own, the 15-85. Going down to f/2.8 will allow for shallow DOF and help keep your shutter speed up in moderate light. So, the 17-55 has f/2.8 as it's primary advantage but the 15-85 has 2 mm wider and 30 mm longer going for it.

I went for the 15-85 partially on cost as it was ~$500 cheaper than the 17-55 when I bought it and I didn't know at the time how much I was going to end up spending on photography . But I also wanted the range and with my photographic style, I do use the range. I would dislike having to change out a lens to get 55-85. Especially since I shoot outdoors a lot and that involve me taking my pack off, etc. But I also use the 15-85 a lot for indoor photography. But I typically need a flash (external or pop-up on my 7D) in low light.

Both the 15-85 and the 17-55 are optically excellent with similarly good (but just below "L") build quality. I expect you would be happy with either, so I wouldn't stress out too much about your decision. If you primarily shoot people or in low light, I suspect the 17-55 may be better suited for your purposes. Outdoors, either should be a very good lens. If you want the range without changing your lens, then I do recommend the 15-85. I've really enjoyed mine.

A few other lenses to consider given your interests include the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC is liked by several forum members and the optical charts look good. Also, for landscapes, you may think ultrawide, something like the EFS 10-22 from Canon or Sigma's 8-16.

As for the 50 mm prime, to me, it would supplement a general purpose lens, not replace it.

BTW...love Yellowestone. I haven't been there in over 10 years. I am due to go back......

Good luck,
Brant

[Photog82]

Welcome to the forums. I have a couple of questions for you; you said that you like to backpack, hike, etc and want a lens that's good in low light conditions. What will you be taking photos of in low light conditions? IMO, when I hike, if I see a moose or any type of animal, low light to me is nearing dusk and no amount lens, even my 1.8 makes a big difference in the manner of usability- for me.

I would weigh in on how many low light settings you'll be shooting with and the reach that you want. If you're looking at the EF-S 17-55 2.8 you may want to consider the EF 24-70 2.8 as well since it has a longer reach (it isn't an EF-S lens so it will be be as wide on the 24 end but if that doesn't matter to you than that's fine).

The EF 70-300 non L lens is a great lens too but it's not made for low light conditions, but for me, that doesn't matter. It's just another consideration for you.

[EricPvpi]

I went through similar decisions when buying recently. I went for the 15-85 and I love the pictures I am getting, but at times indoors I wish I could have the 2.8 available. I use the whole range of my 15-85 so it is a tough call between the two. Like Kayaker, I didn't realize how much I was going to spend, but now I see myself wanting the 17-55mm f/2.8 for indoor and something like the 24-105mm f/4L for outdoor. I am sure I'll be asking for advice soon here.

If you are looking to just replace what you get from your 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, the 17-55mm f/2.8 should be good, especially if that is what you use primarily. If you are looking for something to cover both ranges you have to decide between the range and the low-light ability. The suggestions I see is to use Lightroom to look at what most of your pictures are at to see what range you will be happy with.

I keep thinking about a prime as well, but on a crop, I feel the 50 is too long and I am not sure I could do without the zoom trying to catch 3 kids in the house. Good luck, reading the forums here have been a big help for me (even though it seems to be increasing my costs).

Eric

[FastGass]

Don't think, just buy!

On a more serious note the 17-55mm f/2.8 is considered the best general perpose lens for 1.6. Highly recomend it.

John.

[Busted Knuckles]

I went through the same lens issues as you have described.

I purchased the 15-85 first and then the 17-55.

I find the 2.8 very useful. I just spend more time indoors and lowish to low light. I just got back from a vacation in which I was in a lot ... way to many... ancient churches and the 2.8 was very helpful. If I was outside more, then the reach of the 85 would have been helpful. I tend to forget that there is image stabilization and only occasionally drop below 125 for anything hand held.

Low light - on the wide side you are only 1/2 stop faster w/ the 2.8. Longer, there is the big difference. Shots around the campfire/camp aren't going to be much more available. Away from camp is where you are going to see the difference in the f-stop - and the length - if you had the longer lens. Both the 17-55 and 15-85 are very good and a big step up from the kit lens. I like the 15-85 but am thinking you would be frustrated w/ the smaller fstop away from camp as that is what you have already expressed. Weight between the two is not a deciding factor.

On the long side, I have the 70-200 2.8 II. The 70-200 is truly world class but is it is wickedly heavy. I have some stills and long distance vids that are just cool. Outdoors the f4 would save both weight and $$$.

Happy trails and clicks.

[sambisu]

Welcome to the forums. I have a couple of questions for you; you said that you like to backpack, hike, etc and want a lens that's good in low light conditions. What will you be taking photos of in low light conditions? IMO, when I hike, if I see a moose or any type of animal, low light to me is nearing dusk and no amount lens, even my 1.8 makes a big difference in the manner of usability- for me.

I would weigh in on how many low light settings you'll be shooting with and the reach that you want. If you're looking at the EF-S 17-55 2.8 you may want to consider the EF 24-70 2.8 as well since it has a longer reach (it isn't an EF-S lens so it will be be as wide on the 24 end but if that doesn't matter to you than that's fine).

The EF 70-300 non L lens is a great lens too but it's not made for low light conditions, but for me, that doesn't matter. It's just another consideration for you.

What I have in mind for low light is landscapes around dawn and dusk. These would likely be on a tripod though, so maybe the 2.8 isn't necessary. I wouldn't want a lens with 24mm as the wide range as I don't have an ultrawide lens yet so I need that 15 or 17 on the wide side for decent landscapes.

[Kayaker72]

What I have in mind for low light is landscapes around dawn and dusk. These would likely be on a tripod though, so maybe the 2.8 isn't necessary. I wouldn't want a lens with 24mm as the wide range as I don't have an ultrawide lens yet so I need that 15 or 17 on the wide side for decent landscapes.

Agreed on needing 15-17 mm for a "wide" option, the way I shoot. I could see pairing the 24-105 with an ultrawide lens like Canon's 10-22 or Sigmas8-16.

And IS is legit. For landscapes I can hand hold a 15 mm shot at 1/4 sec consistently, sometimes slower.

[ham]

If you go walking, you don't want to be changing lenses. Get the 15-85mm IMO. Spend the amount you save on a really light, quality tripod.

However, if you shoot a lot indoors the 17-55mm f/2.8 will be much more useful.

Personally, I bought the 15-85mm and have just bought the 35mm f/2 for indoors.