# Advice on replacement/upgrade for my kit 18-55 Ef-s kit lens



## Rocguy (Apr 3, 2013)

Hoping to get some advice from some of you more experienced people. I have a T4i that came with the kit 18-55 basic lens. I recently got the 50mm 1.8 and have fallen in love with it. To my novice eyes the image quality is noticeably better than what I was getting with the kit lens. 

So my question to you all is what lens could I get as an upgrade to the kit lens I got that would be better in terms of image quality? But would give me the same, or similar, focal range that the 18-55 is giving me? Without going to the L lenses? Or am I asking for too much?  I'm not necessarily only looking for Ef-s lenses. If I'm going to invest in lenses I'm almost inclined to only buy EF. Just in case I one day take the plunge into the FF world... But any recommendations would be great.

Thanks for any help and let me know if my questions need any clarification.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 3, 2013)

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS

or 

EF-S 15-85 IS (dont confuse this with the not so good 17-85)

the first gives much wider aperture availability and constant f2.8 which is very nice

the later is variable aperture and much slower but gives a wider wide end and much greater zoom range

they are similar prices 
depending on which strengths you prefer either will be excellent

if you shoot alot of low light i would go with the first option if not so much and the greater zoom range is appealing go with the second


----------



## unfocused (Apr 3, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
> 
> or
> 
> ...



Agreed. Both will give you significantly better quality. If you are in the U.S. the EF-S 15-85 is much cheaper. It is on my 7D about 80% of the time. If traveling, I take only this lens and my 70-300 "L" and can cover just about anything. 

Others may disagree, but in my opinion, in the wide range, there aren't practical EF alternatives. (Both of these lenses are good enough that if you later move to full-frame they should have decent resell value. )


----------



## ahab1372 (Apr 3, 2013)

unfocused said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
> ...


+1, I also use the 15-85 and 70-300L 

Both 17-55 and 15-85 a great lenses for a crop camera, L lenses in this range won't give you better IQ on your camera.
Worry about FF later - who knows what FF lenses will be available by the time you upgrade?

I know people who are happy with the 24-105mm f/4L on a crop camera, but most of them chose to complement it with an EF-S wide angle lens, because 24 is not really wide on a crop camera. With 17 or even 15mm, I don't miss the ultra-wide EF-S lenses (yet)


----------



## DArora (Apr 3, 2013)

+1 for 15-85 or 17-55 f/2.8

If you are low on budget, you can try Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro as well. It might not be as sharp as Canon 15-85 but then again it is $300 cheaper, a stop faster and has Macro capabilities.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 3, 2013)

unfocused said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS
> ...


Let me give another vote on the 15-85 lens, I had one together with my 60D and for all I could tell it's optically as good as my 24-105 that I have now. Never mind buying EF now, IF you move to FF then you sell of the 15-85 together with your current body and get the 24-105 as kit lens. That should server you well.


----------



## M.ST (Apr 3, 2013)

I can only recommend this two lenses (and the EF 24-70 2.8 II big grin):

EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
+ 2.8 at all focal lenght (but I like it only from 3.5 up, at f/2.8 a little bit soft)
+ at f/4 better than the EF 24-70 2.8 II L (at f/2.8, f/11 and up to f/22 the EF 24-70 2.8 II L is better)
+ better build quality than the EF-S 15-85 IS
+ 77 mm filters like most L lenses
+ L-glasses in a non L lens
+ better colors than the EF-S 15-85 IS
+ sharper in the edges and less visible CA´s than the EF-S 15-85 IS
+ full-time mechanical manual focusing after pressing the shutter button half down
+ distance send to E-TTL
= only 7 blades
- hits from the AF only around 85 % (EF-S 15-85 IS is better)
- at f/11 the EF-S 15-85 IS is a little bit and at f/16 the EF-S 15-85 IS is better
- only 3 stop IS
- long and heavy
- build quality can´t reach the L lenses
- not parfocal (I love parfocal lenses)
- like the EF 24-70 2.8 II L not so good if you use the lens at a narrow distance
- some lenses have a dust problem behind the front glass after using it for a while

EF-S 15-85 IS
+ AF better than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS (hits around 97 %)
+ 4 stop IS
+ very sharp
+ full-time mechanical manual focusing after pressing the shutter button half down
+ smaller and less weight than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
+ focal range is that what a lot of people want
+ build in tripod function for the IS
= only 7 blades
- focus ring feels cheap compared to the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
- not parfocal (I love parfocal lenses)
- like the EF 24-70 2.8 II L not so good if you use the lens at a narrow distance

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is better than the EF 24-105 L, EF 17-40 L and EF 16-35 II L on APS-C. The EF 16-35 II L is a little bit sharper in the middle. 

If you don´t need f/2.8 or f/4.0 at all focal lenght, want the best AF hit rate and want save money then get the EF-S 15-85 IS.

If you want the best colors and L quality glasses in a non L lens than get the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS.

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is the only EF-S lens that you can put with an extension tube EF 12 on a FF camera. But you don´t really want it. You don´t have AF and have a dramatic distorsion.

The EF 24-70 2.8 II L works fine on APS-C if you don´t need the focal lenght under 24 mm. But you have no IS, pay a lot of money and don´t have the right weight balance.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 3, 2013)

personally i dont think 7 blades is a negative

7 blades give nicer starbursts at narrow apertures than 8 or 9

the 16-35 f2.8L II has 7 blades
the new 22mm f2 EF-M also has 7 blades
I like both lenses alot

with regard for bokeh quality
7 blades is ALOT better than 6 which is still a ton better than 5
8 is not really noticably different than 7
9 is a bit better than 8


----------



## jhanken (Apr 3, 2013)

I say check out the new 18-135 STM lens, it is much, much better than the old 18-135 and compares favorably tot the 15-85:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=763&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=809&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It is available at a decent price of $481 at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/894152-REG/Canon_6097b002_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS_STM.html


----------



## wayno (Apr 3, 2013)

DArora said:


> +1 for 15-85 or 17-55 f/2.8
> 
> If you are low on budget, you can try Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro as well. It might not be as sharp as Canon 15-85 but then again it is $300 cheaper, a stop faster and has Macro capabilities.



I used to own this lens. Agreed. Good fit for a kit replacement too.


----------



## Burrster (Apr 3, 2013)

wayno said:


> DArora said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for 15-85 or 17-55 f/2.8
> ...



I owned the first version of the siggy, and the second OS HSM version, andboth were a great upgrade/ bang for buck over the kit lens. I've heard good things about the 17 -55 F2.8 but have not used one myself.

I vote the Siggy as best value.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Apr 3, 2013)

Since you onnly mention image quality as a reason for upgrading, and as you are delighted with the nifty fifty, here is some contravertial advice: DON'T UPGRADE.

There are are a few reasons to upgrade the kit 18-55 lens:

-you might want a faster, or constant, or even a faster constant aperture, say if you do portraiture or video.

-you might want better construction, say a filter ring / hood mount that doesn't rorate

- you might want faster focusing, quieter focusing, full time manual over-ride.

These are all fair enough reasons to upgrade, edpecially if you have a particular interest such as landscape where polarisers grads and hoods are used, or sports where speed is of the essence.

But here's the rub: ever since the first 18-55is ( first shipped with the 450d) the image quality has been very good, and these lenses represent excellent value.

You would need to spend quite serious money to get anything even slightly better.

I would suggest using your 'upgrade' money to expand your range, maybe a telezoom or another fast aperture prime lens ( a short trle like the 100mm f2.0?)

If you want a faster aperture then I find the digma 18-50 f2.8 dc macro a very good lens, the newer 17-50 f2,8 os version is reputed to be even better.


----------



## Zv (Apr 3, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Since you onnly mention image quality as a reason for upgrading, and as you are delighted with the nifty fifty, here is some contravertial advice: DON'T UPGRADE.
> 
> There are are a few reasons to upgrade the kit 18-55 lens:
> 
> ...



+1 if you can't get the job done with the kit lens and 50mm combo you're not trying hard enough. I had that lens for over a year and I got loads of great shots from it before I even considered upgrading. For me the limiting factors were no full time manual, poor build and not constant aperture (that was a biggie). 

Also now I am starting to realize there is not much going on in that focal range. If like me you use it almost all the time at 18mm you're better off buying the 10-22mm. You already have the other end covered with the 50mm. My combo these days is one wide angle zoom and one tele prime. Not much looks good in between. Though that is just my opinion.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 3, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Since you onnly mention image quality as a reason for upgrading, and as you are delighted with the nifty fifty, here is some contravertial advice: DON'T UPGRADE.
> 
> There are are a few reasons to upgrade the kit 18-55 lens:
> 
> ...


Hmm, I think this is a very thought through post and obviously based on more knowledge and experience than what I can come up with. But I would still go back to argue for the 15-85, it's a completely different animal than the 18-55, at least the old one that I got with my old 400D. I tried it against my 15-85 on my 60D that I got later and it was just two completely different worlds. That said, I have not tried the kit lens you're talking about here. 15-85 is very versatile and the T4i has the same sensor as my old 60D that together produced some really nice pictures even for a fairly unskilled guy like myself.


----------



## Gjako (Apr 3, 2013)

Two years ago, I found myself in the same situation as you, I had the kit lens and the Nifty Fifty, but I wanted a better walk around lens, the battle was between the 17-55 and the 15-85. After seriously thinking about pros and cons, I bought the 15-85, and to be honest the IQ and colors were way much better than the 18-55, plus 15mm in APS-C is quite wide (specially for traveling) and it is nice to have the 85 when you need the extra reach, the only con for me was the low light performance, but in those cases I used the nifty fifty.
The main problem is that if you are planning to jump to full frame, you will have to sell your EF-S lenses (as I did).

My two cents


----------



## Kengur (Apr 3, 2013)

My 50 1.8 made me buy into 28 1.8. In turn 28 1.8 made me buy into 135 2.0. In turn 135 2.0 made me buy into 6D 

You are on slippery road, my friend!


----------



## billnelson75 (Apr 3, 2013)

I'll throw out one more suggestion, the L 17-40 f4. I have used it on a crop and a full frame sensor, and I think it is great for both, and it isn't at the typical L-glass price point. It gives you a little less reach than your kit lens, but you already have a 50mm lens if you want more reach, and I think it is a nice improvement in IQ and build quality over the kit lens. Plus its a nice wide angle lens if you ever do go FF. I also have the 24-105, and I much prefer having the 17-40 on my t3i over the 24-105.

Right now you can get a 17-40 refurbished directly from Canon for under $600, which is a great deal for L glass. That is how I have bought several of my lenses, and I couldn't be happier.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 3, 2013)

+1 for EF-S 15-85mm & EF-S 17-55mm 
But if you want to start your FF lens collection, you may also want to look at Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC or Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 3, 2013)

Rocguy said:


> Hoping to get some advice from some of you more experienced people. I have a T4i that came with the kit 18-55 basic lens. I recently got the 50mm 1.8 and have fallen in love with it. To my novice eyes the image quality is noticeably better than what I was getting with the kit lens.
> 
> So my question to you all is what lens could I get as an upgrade to the kit lens I got that would be better in terms of image quality? But would give me the same, or similar, focal range that the 18-55 is giving me? Without going to the L lenses? Or am I asking for too much?  I'm not necessarily only looking for Ef-s lenses. If I'm going to invest in lenses I'm almost inclined to only buy EF. Just in case I one day take the plunge into the FF world... But any recommendations would be great.
> 
> Thanks for any help and let me know if my questions need any clarification.



I recommend the new Sigma Contemporary 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM.

Great glass, fast aperture, great build, and a reasonable price.


----------



## hgraf (Apr 3, 2013)

Rocguy said:


> Hoping to get some advice from some of you more experienced people. I have a T4i that came with the kit 18-55 basic lens. I recently got the 50mm 1.8 and have fallen in love with it. To my novice eyes the image quality is noticeably better than what I was getting with the kit lens.
> 
> So my question to you all is what lens could I get as an upgrade to the kit lens I got that would be better in terms of image quality? But would give me the same, or similar, focal range that the 18-55 is giving me? Without going to the L lenses? Or am I asking for too much?  I'm not necessarily only looking for Ef-s lenses. If I'm going to invest in lenses I'm almost inclined to only buy EF. Just in case I one day take the plunge into the FF world... But any recommendations would be great.
> 
> Thanks for any help and let me know if my questions need any clarification.



Asking this question here is going to open the floodgates of expensive options. 

I'm sure many will recommend the 17-55 f/2.8IS, or the 15-85mm, both good choices (for different reasons).

I might get crucified here by suggesting this, but here goes: consider the 18-135mm IS STM (not the older IS). I might have a really good copy, but my 18-135mm STM is sharp, very sharp. I've compared it to many other lenses and it is surprising how good it is wide open. Stop it down a small amount and it's even sharper. That said, it isn't a very fast lens (f/3.5-5.6), so you will be using the higher ISOs on your T4i in some situations.

The benefit to the 18-135 IS STM is it's a "kit lens", so there are TONS out there, and you can get them on the barely used market for a bargain. It's got AMAZING reach, and is a wonderful travel lens. Zooming into 135mm gives you a pretty good limited depth of field. 

TTYL


----------



## hgraf (Apr 3, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a faster aperture then I find the digma 18-50 f2.8 dc macro a very good lens, the newer 17-50 f2,8 os version is reputed to be even better.
> ...



Re: the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, I recently picked that one up to give me an extra stop in low light. It's very well built, and for a non USM lens it's pretty quick. It's image quality isn't the greatest, but I'd say it's "good enough" for many. I didn't get it for the "macro" feature, but it does focus pretty damn close. Only real complaint is the focus markings don't quite match up with the actual focus, i.e. if I set it to 10m on the ring and then shoot something at 10m it's not in focus. Also the lens isn't parfocal so I can't see how the focus ring could ever be used? 

That all said, I'm happy with it for now.

Re: the Canon 18-55IS. I have to agree with you. Alot of people rave about how good it is for the money, but I think I just had a really bad copy. There was nothing to rave about with that lens. It consistently produced soft images, with quite a bit of CA. Compared to the 18-135mm IS (non STM) that I replaced it with, it was like night and day. And the non STM 18-135mm wasn't that great a lens either. 

Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 3, 2013)

hgraf said:


> Re: the Canon 18-55IS. I have to agree with you. Alot of people rave about how good it is for the money, but I think I just had a really bad copy. There was nothing to rave about with that lens. It consistently produced soft images, with quite a bit of CA. Compared to the 18-135mm IS (non STM) that I replaced it with, it was like night and day. And the non STM 18-135mm wasn't that great a lens either.
> 
> Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?



There are variations with lenses and bodies. Does your body have AFMA? If not, it might have been the tolerance stackup between the lens and the body.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 3, 2013)

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS *or  * 24-70 f2.8 II(THE BEST in zoom)


----------



## hgraf (Apr 3, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> There are variations with lenses and bodies. Does your body have AFMA? If not, it might have been the tolerance stackup between the lens and the body.



No AFMA for me, but it wasn't a focus issue, it was a general softness (you could see the focus peak in the image, but that point was soft too), and lots of CA (enough that is was hard to get rid of in a nice way in post).

I still took thousands of pics with that lens, and with a little more post work got good results. I think I just had a particularly bad copy.

TTYL


----------



## AJ (Apr 3, 2013)

Best lens: Canon 17-55/2.8 IS.

Best lens for the money: Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC

I own both of these lenses and they are both excellent.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 3, 2013)

Or a 10-22 + 24-105 2 lens combo. Then have the 50 for low light.


----------



## albron00 (Apr 3, 2013)

_*Canon EF-S 17–55mm f/2.8 IS*_


----------



## brad-man (Apr 4, 2013)

For a single lens solution, my vote goes for the EF-S 15-85 IS. The previous posters have already explained why very eloquently...


http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_269486_-1


----------



## HoneyBadger (Apr 4, 2013)

I would highly suggest asking yourself "Will I ever go full frame?" If so, then 700-1000 dollars (the price of the 15-85 and 17-55 respectively) is a lot to spend considering it won't work on a full body. All lens should be considered a long-term investment that will go from camera to camera.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 4, 2013)

hgraf said:


> Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?



Take a look at the tests done at lensrentals, where they test umpteen copies of the same lens; there's considerable variation from copy to copy across brands. In many cases it won't be obvious and may not even be noticeable, but sometimes it is. The second copy of the 70-300L I bought was clearly better than the first, while both 70-200 f/2.8 IIs I bought suffered from soft lower-right corners, albeit to different degrees (with the second one I probably wouldn't have noticed had I not looked for it, but I did... and am currently without a copy of that particular lens). Judging by the comments we see here, the 24-105 seems particularly prone to variation (I seem to have been lucky with mine). If my other lenses are not as good as they should be, it's to a degree I'm not noticing. 

Bodies vary too, in all sorts of ways - for instance, my first Pentax K-5 was part of a production batch with stained sensors, my first 5DII and Olympus OM-D had dirt on their sensors, while the AF on my very first dslr, a Nikon D3100, broke after four months (am I particularly unlucky?). I understand that on some bodies the sensor isn't aligned quite properly; and so on. None of this is risk-free!


----------



## aroo (Apr 4, 2013)

The 18-55 you have is quite good. But the 15-85 is noticeably a step up, and the difference between 15 and 18mm is tremendous. So if you want a wider angle, that might be the lens for you.

But instead of replacing your lens in the standard zoom range, you might opt to spend some time learning a bit more about software for editing colors, sharpness, using masks, and merging/stitching images together.

What you really need is a tele: 55-250


----------



## Hannes (Apr 4, 2013)

The tamron 17-50s are good options for the money. They aren't as good as the canon alternative but they cost considerably less which means you can afford other nice lenses. If you want the best for a canon crop body the 17-55 is undoubtedly that but will cost like an L lens.

I'm very happy with a 24-105 on my crop body but then I personally find the tele end lacking much more than the wide end and 24 is wide enough for me, if it isn't I can usually stitch.


----------



## rizenphoenix (Apr 5, 2013)

If you like to shoot wide a lot I would suggest one of these two lenses. 

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for an EF-s solution at about $500US new or $350US used. 

-or-

Canon 17-40 L f4 for an EF solution at about $700US new or $600US used.



If you are not shooting wide(ie 17-28mm) Then I would suggest one of these two lenses.

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 for an EF solution at about $500US new or $350US used. 

-or-

Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS for about $800 used(never pay retail for this lens, buy it from someone splitting up a kit)


All of the above have very nice IQ. The two L lenses are two of the most affordable L's and do have much better build quality then the Tamrons.


----------

