# Recommend an upgrade from EF-S kit lens for 77D



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 5, 2017)

I like to use Rebel-class bodies as travel cameras. When I upgraded to the 77D I thought the extra resolution warranted some testing to determine the best lens to keep on the 77D most of the time. I like the term "walk around lens."

First I got out my ancient 18-55 kit lens and took some test shots of a resolution target. It lack of sharpness was shocking and the contrast was crappy.

Then I tried my EF-S 18-135 which was my main lens used on my T5i. It was better, but still a large step down in image quality from the L lenses I use for serious work. I didn't feel it was worthy of the new sensor.

Next I mounted up the 17-40 F/4 L. The optical quality was good, but the zoom range is pretty short for the size of the lens. Not really worth carrying around.

I tried my 24-105 F/4 L IS and it worked pretty well, but it's awfully large on the little 77D Rebel body. Not a fun walking around lens.

I've had the EF-S 17-50 F/2.8 in the past. After I got the loose zoom assembly fixed, it was quite sharp, but still big and heavy for this role. I also had the Sigma equivalent but wasn't impressed enough to keep it at the time. They were both pretty well suited to the 7D, but too big for the 77D.

So who has discovered the perfect walking around lens for the latest Rebel class bodies? They have tons of resolution, but that's only useful if you have a sharp lens.

So far, my favorite is the 24mm F/2.8 pancake lens. That's a sharp little bugger, even if it isn't stabilized.

I'm wondering if it's worth trying out the EF-S 15-85 or the EF-S 17-85. I believe I had the latter several years ago and sold it due to poor sharpness.

Am I missing any other options for a really good Rebel walk around lens? Tamron? Sigma?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

Depends on what you value. Canon has left a gaping hole with EF-S standard zooms that have you stuck between the size/cost of the UWA EF lenses, kit plasticky STM variable max aperture EF-S zooms, or a handful of decent but imperfect EF-S USM standard zooms that seem long in the tooth or lacking speed. 

If it's pure IQ in a walkaround zoom, size and cost notwithstanding: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or possibly the recent two 16-35L lenses. I'd skip the 17-40L in this application unless the 16-35 f/4L IS is just too big for you, as the 16-35 f/4L IS categorically poops all over the 17-40 unless it lives at f/8-f/11 on a tripod.

If it's best IQ in a lens that is not large / heavy / unbalanced on crop, I've heard _decent _things about the EF-S 15-85 IS USM lens, but not great things. It's still a ~ 6x zoom multiplier variable max aperture zoom, but at least it has USM, IS, and critically gets you down to 15mm (24mm FF equiv., something I deem a must on a standard zoom).

For a prime on crop, I think the call is much easier. Consider pitching that pancake -- it's sharp and small and that's it. But a 35 f/2 IS USM (or the 24/28 2.8 IS non-L lenses if you prefer) is quick, has IS, has ring USM, is mechanically override-able with a much better manual focus ring, and has a hood that you actually _enjoy _putting on and off, has a fairly standard filter diameter for CPL use, distance scale, etc. In short, this is where a nice full-featured EF option on the wide end becomes a lovely crop option on the standard end. 

But holy hell, does Canon need something reliably 'better than kit' in crop here. A simple enough EF-S 17-55 f/4 USM would do wonders. Just a basic, sharp, constant aperture instrument that doesn't take two days to focus. Sell it for $499. But I'm guessing Canon wants you to long for an $$$ EF zoom / climb up to FF and may never release a ring USM EF-S lens again.

- A


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 5, 2017)

Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art and 50-100 F1.8 Art are the 2 lenses that I would give a really long look.
both are very sharp wide open. Festive season sale is just around the corner now. with up to 20% total discount these 2 lenses may be what you are looking for.

p.s. 18-35 Art is (apparently) a parfocal lens. may come handy for videos.



drmikeinpdx said:


> Am I missing any other options for a really good Rebel walk around lens? Tamron? Sigma?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2017)

I feel the 15-85 is a excellent all around lens, I recently bought a used one for $350. I just purchased a Signa 18-35, but its bigger and heavier and not as versatile, its more of a special purpose lens. The 16-35mm f/4 is great, but even less of a walk around lens than the 17-55.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford: I do have the 35mm F/2 IS and have used it a couple of times on the 77D. I do like the image quality, but it's a fairly big prime lens for the small body. On the plus side, it is quite lightweight and looks cool to my eyes. My copy front focuses slightly on the 77D, which of course has no MFA option, so using it wide open can make focus accuracy an issue. I guess I could use live view if I had the time. Manual focus through the viewfinder is not an option, in my experience.

SecureGSM: Thanks for the tip. I will include those two Sigma lenses in my research. Have you heard anything good or bad about their autofocus accuracy on a Rebel class body? At F/1.8 accuracy is pretty important.

Mt. Spokane: Thanks for the report on the 15-85. I will check that out further.

Additional suggestions are welcome!


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 5, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> SecureGSM: Thanks for the tip. I will include those two Sigma lenses in my research. Have you heard anything good or bad about their autofocus accuracy on a Rebel class body? At F/1.8 accuracy is pretty important.



Buy new, and return if there are any issues. Front/Back focusing are not issues, if you purchase the dock. Inconsistent focus is.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 5, 2017)

I have owned 18-35 and used it with Canon 650D body. once properly calibrated to your camera, the lens is reasonably AF consistent (9 out of 10) wide open. 10 out of 10 in live view mode. great lens for video.
50-100 lens, in my experience at least (2 lenses calibrated to 70D and 80D bodies) is AF consistent. good lens.

note #1: none of these lenses are stabilised
note #2: each of these lenses does require accurate USB dock calibration at 4 distances to calibration target and at 4 focal lengths. 16 points in total. It is extremely important to ensure that lens auto focusing precisely at MFD and at infinity. It takes 3+ hours per each lens to calibrate properly. In my experience none of Sigma Art or Sports lenses were spot on at MFD or Infinity out of the box. 




drmikeinpdx said:


> SecureGSM: Thanks for the tip. I will include those two Sigma lenses in my research. Have you heard anything good or bad about their auto focus accuracy on a Rebel class body? At F/1.8 accuracy is pretty important...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2017)

I've heard of people having issues with autofocus consistency on the 18-135. I purchased one used a few days ago, and my SL2 died as I was testing the lens, so rather than wait, I decided to check AF with my 5D MK IV. First, I upgraded the lens firmware via the dock, then started comparing focus at 35mm at about 2.5 ft. DPAF was very good but not perfect, Manual focus was very difficult because the focus ring has a tiny amount of play, and does not have enough rotational resolution. If I used Canon Utilities where I could control focus in tiny steps electronically, I found that a change of 3 steps closer than DPAF gave came up with better contrast. PDAF resulted in a badly blurred image, about +18 was needed. I dialed it into the dock and updated the lens, and PDAF focus was then fine at 35mm and 2.5 ft. Then I stopped. I noticed a 1:1 correlation between the camera AFMA and dock setting worked.

I did not see any abnormal AF consistency so far.

Still, if you are size and weight sensitive, its not a small lens, f/1.8 means a lot of glass.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've heard of people having issues with autofocus consistency on the 18-135. I purchased one used a few days ago, and my SL2 died as I was testing the lens, so rather than wait, I decided to check AF with my 5D MK IV. First, I upgraded the lens firmware via the dock, then started comparing focus at 35mm at about 2.5 ft. DPAF was very good but not perfect, Manual focus was very difficult because the focus ring has a tiny amount of play, and does not have enough rotational resolution. If I used Canon Utilities where I could control focus in tiny steps electronically, I found that a change of 3 steps closer than DPAF gave came up with better contrast. PDAF resulted in a badly blurred image, about +18 was needed. I dialed it into the dock and updated the lens, and PDAF focus was then fine at 35mm and 2.5 ft. Then I stopped. I noticed a 1:1 correlation between the camera AFMA and dock setting worked.
> 
> I did not see any abnormal AF consistency so far.
> 
> Still, if you are size and weight sensitive, its not a small lens, f/1.8 means a lot of glass.



Presume that's a typo? I've heard of the Sigma 18-35 mounting on EF, but not the EF-S 18-135 lenses!

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 6, 2017)

drmikeinpdx, I suppose you've summed up the EF-S zoom dilemma quite well in your first post. 

So you'll have to live with the decision of IQ versus size with zooms or switch to primes. 
The 35/2.0 IS was mentioned by ahsanford and as you think it's too big for a prime 

the only other way to go is with the pancakes. That was my choice with a small travel setup.

I have a 100D/SL1. I combine it with the 24 and 40 mm pancakes and for more reach I add a 85/1.8.
This 3 lens combo fits quite well in one small bag.
Downsides are you'll have to change lenses a lot, the f/2.8 of the pancakes is so-so (but better than the zooms). And the STM AF of the pancakes is a compromise, too. 
But it's small, relatively cheap and the IQ is great for that price.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard of people having issues with autofocus consistency on the 18-35. I purchased one used a few days ago, and my SL2 died as I was testing the lens, so rather than wait, I decided to check AF with my 5D MK IV. First, I upgraded the lens firmware via the dock, then started comparing focus at 35mm at about 2.5 ft. DPAF was very good but not perfect, Manual focus was very difficult because the focus ring has a tiny amount of play, and does not have enough rotational resolution. If I used Canon Utilities where I could control focus in tiny steps electronically, I found that a change of 3 steps closer than DPAF gave came up with better contrast. PDAF resulted in a badly blurred image, about +18 was needed. I dialed it into the dock and updated the lens, and PDAF focus was then fine at 35mm and 2.5 ft. Then I stopped. I noticed a 1:1 correlation between the camera AFMA and dock setting worked.
> ...



Yes, my fingers don't work so well, and I missed seeing it. I've updated it. I use a gaming keyboard so I get better tactile feedback, but sometimes I hit multiple keys and strange things pop up. In this case, a RED 18-135.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 6, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> ...the only other way to go is with the pancakes. That was my choice with a small travel setup.
> 
> I have a 100D/SL1. I combine it with the 24 and 40 mm pancakes and for more reach I add a 85/1.8.
> This 3 lens combo fits quite well in one small bag.
> ...



Maximilian, that's pretty close to what I've done on a couple of trips. My basic lens that stays on the camera is the 24 pancake. Then I add either the 40 pancake or the nifty fifty and a telephoto in a messenger style bag. 

For a telephoto lens, I love the EF 85mm F/1.8 (used at F/2.5) partly because it looks good and handles well on the Rebel class body. My main objection so far is that I get a lot of motion blur with it. I could use my Tamron stabilized 85, but it's a lot bigger. I probably just need to grudgingly increase the ISO enough to allow a reasonable shutter speed for my camera-holding abilities.

Speaking of telephotos, on my last trip I brought the 24 pancake and the popular plasticky EF-S 50-250 IS. My copy of that zoom is surprisingly sharp and the IS works well too. I typically use it in bright daylight, so the small aperture hasn't been a problem so far. This two lens combo fits well in my motorcycle tank bag. I close the flippy screen to protect the LCD panel and don't even use a camera case.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 6, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I feel the 15-85 is a excellent all around lens, I recently bought a used one for $350.



Mt. Spokane, have you done any testing yet with your copy of the 15-85? I've been reading some reviews and people say that while it's pretty sharp, it has a lot of distortion and significant chromatic aberration. I'd be interested to know how standard software like Lightroom works to remove those from RAW images.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 6, 2017)

G1XIII 

It's not a lens for your 77D, but if the new G1X continues the tradition of a really good zoom coupled with the 77D's sensor it's going to be some (big) pocketable camera.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 6, 2017)

If you want to keep it small and light, the "18-55mm F3.5-5.6 STM" is a bargain. Focus is much faster than the pancakes and the image stabilizer is great. Stopping down 1 stop, the image is sharp from corner to corner. It may not look so perfect on an APS-C 24 megapixel camera, but no zoom lens achieves this feat when pixel peeping.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 7, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If you want to keep it small and light, the "18-55mm F3.5-5.6 STM" is a bargain. Focus is much faster than the pancakes and the image stabilizer is great. Stopping down 1 stop, the image is sharp from corner to corner. It may not look so perfect on an APS-C 24 megapixel camera, but no zoom lens achieves this feat when pixel peeping.



My 18-55 is a really old, non-STM version that is quite unsharp even at F/8. It has been carried around a lot on various kinds of trips so maybe it's just getting old. I recall thinking that my copy worked pretty well back when it was mounted on an 8 Megapixel body so that tells you how old it is.

I like that physical size/weight and zoom range, so I should probably get my hands on a new copy and try it out.

Does anyone else like the current EF-S 18-55 STM lens?


----------



## BillB (Oct 8, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to keep it small and light, the "18-55mm F3.5-5.6 STM" is a bargain. Focus is much faster than the pancakes and the image stabilizer is great. Stopping down 1 stop, the image is sharp from corner to corner. It may not look so perfect on an APS-C 24 megapixel camera, but no zoom lens achieves this feat when pixel peeping.
> ...



Check the photozone review of the lens. They like it a lot


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 8, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> ...
> Does anyone else like the current EF-S 18-55 STM lens?


I own the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM from the kit I bought with the 100D. 
I like it for it's versatility but the IQ is average. It definetly falls behind the pancakes.
But I'll take it with me from time to time when fast zooming is more important than IQ.

Please note that there is a new 18-55mm 1:4-5,6 IS STM as well.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 9, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Does anyone else like the current EF-S 18-55 STM lens?



I got one recently paired with a refurb 80D. Amazingly the price was the same with or without the lens, so why not get it. I keep it for my kids, but I did test it out and I was relatively pleased with it. Not a replacement for my 17-55 or 24-105, but the quality really isn't that bad at all.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Oct 9, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I feel the 15-85 is a excellent all around lens, I recently bought a used one for $350.


+1
My copy has been excellent - no extensive testing, but it easily equals my 24-105L for crop body duty. Only annoyance is zoom creep which I suppose could be fixed but I haven't bothered. I haven't had any issues in light rain, but it isn't weather sealed.

Someone suggested the Sigma 50-100 Art... not a 'walk around' lens in my opinion. Great lens, but heavy/massive/too long FL for 'walk around' duty IMHO.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

old-pr-pix said:


> Someone suggested the Sigma 50-100 Art... not a 'walk around' lens in my opinion. Great lens, but heavy/massive/too long FL for 'walk around' duty IMHO.



+1, that thing is about as heavy as a 70-200 2.8!

I personally see 'walkaround' and think something in the range of a standard zoom on FF, say 24-70, 24-105, 24-120, etc. It could be a little longer, it could be a little shorter, it could even be a prime -- but it should be a general purpose FL, and it shouldn't weight a ton for a day of carry around the neck/shoulder.

For me, that's either of my 28 or 35 non-L IS primes or my 24-70 f/4L IS -- unprepared for what is coming or what I might see, those three lenses let me capture the most. If I'm in cities or in a lot of interiors all day (foreign city tourism immediately comes to mind), I'll often stretch my rules a bit and carry the 16-35 f/4L IS as a walkaround lens.

- A


----------



## snegri45 (Oct 9, 2017)

I have been using Digital Rebels since the original 6.3 megapixel version which came with the original 18-55 mm kit lens, and I found the lens to be OK. Over the following 14 years I have upgraded my Rebels and also my kit lens(es). My walk-around kit is 10-18, 18-55, 55-250, and the 50/1.8 on an SL2. All the lenses are the IS/STM versions, (except of course the 50), and they are small, light, and inexpensive. I am amazed at the quality Canon has been able to cram into these small wonders. And this is coming from someone who also shoots with a 5Dsr, 10 white lenses, and 5 additional L lenses.

Ansel Adams, who of course is best known for his large format images, also shot extensively with his Hasselblads. Reportedly, when asked what was the best camera format, he answered "The one you have with you." And I strongly buy into that philosophy. I checked weights some time back, and if memory serves me correctly my whole kit weighs about the same as the 100-400mm lens (which is the FF equivalent of the 55-250mm). To weigh me down a bit further I also carry two Speedlites and a controller.

With this kit I can cover almost anything and if need be, at a professional level. Would it be QUITE as good as my 5D III and a handful of L glass? No. But unless the two images are next to each other you would be hard pressed to say "This is an unsatisfactory image, shot with an inferior kit lens." I would suggest to the OP that he should try the current 18-55 and do some pixel peeping. Then he can decide if the lens gives the quality he feels he needs. I always think it is better to have a quite good picture rather than missing a perfect photo because you went home early with an aching back caused by too heavy a camera bag!

Further to the less-is-more approach I have acquired an M5 and some lenses. With its long zoom I give up 20% on long end as well as a 1/3 of a stop, but these are sacrifices I am willing to make. For the M system I would like some more primes, a 30/32/35mm f/1.8/2.0, a 50/55mm f/1.8/2.0, and ideally an 85mm f/2.0/2.4/2.8. At that point the M system would become my walking-around system due to it being smaller and lighter again than the SL system.

Chris


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 11, 2017)

I'd put forward the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Macro OS. It's sharper across the frame than the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is at f/2.8 and f/4 (at f/5.6 they're dead even in the centre, and the Sigma is _slightly_ ahead in the far corners) and it has less vignetting and the transmission is a little more accurate to what the f-stop indicates (the Canon is half a stop slower than the f-stop indicates; the Sigma is a third of a stop slower than its f-stop).
It does have slightly more distortion at the wide end, but it has less at the long end. The 'macro' the lens claims is only halfway to macro, and the lens is fairly soft when you're focused that close. But it's better than not having the option at all, I guess. It's about 2/3rds the size, nearly half the weight, and roughly (depends on country) half the price. For an upgrade to the Canon kit lens, specifically for a 'walkaround' lens, it's really hard to make a case for anything above the Sigma 17-70.

Most important in my experience with them, it doesn't have the inconsistent focus of the Sigma 18-35mm. It's not as sharp as that lens is, either, but sharpness means nothing if your image is plain ol' out of focus. Sigma's 'Art' lenses are optically great, but the focus is all over the place with every copy I've ever used, of any of them. (And speaking to other pros and users, it seems to be the standard experience with them.)

If you really need the most light at the long end, Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is definitely the best choice for a travel/all-rounder zoom on an APS-C body; the Sigma 17-70, despite the more truthful transmission, is still slower at that end of the zoom range. You're getting half a stop less light than you think you are, but half a stop down from f/2.8 is still pretty good. It's also a bit large and quite expensive for an EF-S lens, but it's tough and it'll keep more value if you ever resell it.

If you want lots of light but don't care about the long end of the zoom range, the Sigma 18-35 sure is tempting, if you think you can live with the slightly dubious focusing. Nobody can dispute that it'll get the most light to your sensor, and 18-35 isn't actually too bad a range for general travel and day shooting. I just could never get past the inconsistent focusing (AFMA doesn't help as it's not a consistent front or back focus issue, but both at random; the Sigma dock can only lightly mitigate the issue, too) and the size and weight definitely does make it a little travel un-friendly.

If you do want that longer end of the zoom range and you can live with it being that one stop slower, then the Sigma 17-70 is the way to go; it wins on size by far and it only loses in sharpness to other larger, more limited, more expensive, Sigmas.


Alternatively, there are a few primes worth looking at. If you like that EF-S 24mm, you could take a look at its bigger cousins, the 24mm f/2.8 IS, the 28mm f/2.8 IS, and 35mm f/2 IS, as wlel as the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC. They're bigger than the pancake 24, obviously, but still small enough to be balanced on a smaller APS-C body. They're equally as sharp as the EF-S 24, better corrected than it, obviously a little more solidly-built, and they all have IS; obviously those 35mms also gives you an extra stop. (And unlike all the above zooms and the EF-S 24mm pancake, these four primes' transmission actually matches their f-stop, so you're getting all the light you expect.) The Tamron has the added bonus of being fully weather sealed, though that comes at the cost of a little more size and weight. Any prime in the 24-35mm range will work well as an all-purpose travel lens.

Of course, you could also simply add the 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens to the 24mm. Then you've got a standard view (38mm equivalent; close enough to the true standard of 43mm) and a mild telephoto in a pair that takes less space than any other one prime.


It's really hard to recommend things like the Sigma 50-100 as others have done, let alone some of the full Canon L lenses that have been brought up. They're just miserable to travel with, let alone the balance on the smaller body and the reality that they don't actually get you any better image quality or even much better functionality. Go for one of the big Ls if you really want the absolute most rock-solid build quality and full weather sealing and you're willing to accept the price you pay in size and weight for that; if all you're after is better optical quality, the Ls are a huge red herring.
If you want significantly better optical quality than the above small APS-C zooms and primes give _and_ you want to keep to a lower size then it's time to pick up a mirrorless Sony, Panasonic, or Fuji camera.


----------



## AJ (Oct 12, 2017)

I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC) which is every bit as sharp as Canon 17-55/2.8 (which I also own) but much smaller and lighter.

I have heard okay things about the Canon 15-85 which has the ideal focal lengths for a walkabout lens. Maybe Canon will give this thing an update one of these days.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> But holy hell, does Canon need something reliably 'better than kit' in crop here. A simple enough EF-S 17-55 f/4 USM would do wonders. Just a basic, sharp, constant aperture instrument that doesn't take two days to focus. Sell it for $499. But I'm guessing Canon wants you to long for an $$$ EF zoom / climb up to FF and may never release a ring USM EF-S lens again.
> 
> - A



They outsourced their better than kit crop to Sigma and Tamron. And following on that, you should consider the Tamron 35 1.8 VC. Nice little lens that is practically macro. Super light, and sharp. And, by the way, not just for crop.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 14, 2017)

Thanks for all the advice! I've made a list of the lenses I'm interested in

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II, 200 grams, $109 white box/amazon

Canon EF-S 15-85 IS USM, 575 grams, $799 new

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Macro OS, with dock, 535 grams $499 new

Given the cheapness and lightness of the Canon EF-S 18-55, I may just order one now and take a chance that the image quality will be an improvement over my ancient copy of the same lens. 

Update: I decided to order the white box Canon kit lens for $109 USD from Amazon. If it isn't sharp enough for my needs, I have photographer friends who can use it.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 21, 2017)

OK, I received my white box copy of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II and did some quick testing with a black and white resolution target.

The new copy is slightly sharper and more contrasty than my decade-old copy, but not by much. Like the older version, stopping down one stop gives a small increase in sharpness, but further stopping down does not help. It just isn't very sharp at any aperture or focal length. 

This kit lens doesn't even come close to matching the resolution of the current 24 megapixel APS-C sensors. The only good thing is that you don't have to worry about autofocus accuracy! LOL

My 24 and 40mm pancake lenses are looking better and better. 

I will keep it around and use it on my old T5i when I'm going somewhere that puts the lens at risk.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 22, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> OK, I received my white box copy of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II and did some quick testing with a black and white resolution target.
> 
> The new copy is slightly sharper and more contrasty than my decade-old copy, but not by much. Like the older version, stopping down one stop gives a small increase in sharpness, but further stopping down does not help. It just isn't very sharp at any aperture or focal length.
> 
> ...



After consulting the great the-digital-picture.com - website I have seen that your lens should be better at the wide end compared to the current EF-S 4.0 18-55 while the current lens wins at the tele end. @55mm it uses maybe 10 out of 24 MPix which is good but not stellar.

But: I am too impressed how good the shorty fourty works with my 200D / SL2, it is much better (fine detail, contrast) than the EF-S 4.0 18-55 which I bought with the body. But I really like the EF-S 60mm macro lens which has f/2.8 + very good IQ at 24Mpix straight from max aperture. It is still compact and light and ... has a distance scale which I like much better than these swampy STM focus rings and more the lack of distance information (maybe in viewfinder during focusing?). Not to forget the 1:1 macro capability.

Waiting for the f/4.0 20-60 IS with 1:3 max reproduction and good stills + video AF as the standard zoom at 600 EUR with stellar IQ in all departments. But maybe I have to learn how to print one on my 3D printer because no one will produce one - just kidding.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 27, 2017)

I like the shorty 40 too! Today I did some nice scenic work with it on the 77D. 

Right now my favorite 77D kit includes the 24 and 40 pancakes as well as the plasticky EF-S 50-250 IS. It's quite sharp for a cheap zoom, quite light, much sharper than the 18-55 kit lens for some reason, and the stabilization seems to work well. 

I need to figure out a good bag to carry this combination. I should have something around here that would be appropriate.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 28, 2017)

EF-S 15-85 is a great one-lens solution for most situations. For ultra-light, I use the 24 and 40 mm pancake lenses despite my real hatred of using the focus-by-wire when I need manual focus. The pancake lenses have the best ratio of image quality to cost of any lens out there. The 40 rivals my Sigma 35 f/1.4 if both are at f/4 to f/11.


----------

