UKC

I've been searching through threads on here plus looking elsewhere but as things move on, I thought I'd ask the question anew to see if there were any recent developments/changes of opinion.

A few years back I bought a Canon 500D, and started to dabble in photography. I'm lapsed and am only starting to get back into it (with an SLR at least). I've got a 50mm prime, a decent L 200mm telephoto and the standard all purpose, crappy kit lens (18-55) that came with the camera.

I'm looking for a replacement for the kit lens which will be versatile enough to keep on for most of the day, but also be good for mountain landscapes and so low light/night photography.

I thought I'd settled on the EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM until I read a bad review saying it wasn't worth the money, and at around £500 its probably at about the limit of what I can get away with paying right now.

Then I stumbled across a review of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Zoom Lens which seems to be a low-cost, standard upgrade to the kit lens (or at least the latest version) and gets good reviews.

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/18-55mm-stm.htm

But is the difference significantly better? And am I better off spending more on something that will give me better results and won't be outgrown so quickly?

In reply to yorkshireman:

The lens I bought to do the same job was the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which was really good on a canon crop body. Sharp, clear, fast.

In reply to yorkshireman:

I had the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 which you can pick up for about £300. Very sharp and well built. Worth a look.

In reply to yorkshireman:

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM .great lens.

In reply to yorkshireman:

you thought about the 17-40 f4 L? got mine off eBay for £360 in good condition, or the EF-s10-22 f35-4.5?

got both and have served me really well

In reply to yorkshireman:
You won't go wrong with any of the suggestions above, some very good lenses. Personally I dislike APS-C-specific lenses but that's only so as I have the capability to use my current glass when I (eventually) go full-frame. I'm sure the EF-S type ones mentioned above are good.

I have the 17-40 L series, it's great.

In reply to Murderous_Crow:

I used a 17-40 on a crop and then went full frame and, perhaps oddly, I use it less now. It was a bit short of reach for a mid range zoom on a crop in reality but a v nice lens. It works well if you don't mind having to switch lenses a fair amount and have something to fill the gap.

In reply to yorkshireman:

I've got a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens for sale at the moment, used but good condition - no scratches to lens, fitted and always used with UV filter. I'm looking for £120 plus postage at cost or pick up from Manchester - drop me an email if you're interested or want to know more. Cheers, Rob

In reply to yorkshireman:

What exactly do you find crappy about the kit lens?

I've got an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and would really recommend it - in particular the auto focus is incredibly fast and the sharpness is very good. I'll admit that I've not tried but the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 but I'd be very surprised if it produces significantly better images than the 18-55. Given the price difference I'd go with the 18-55.

In reply to robhorton:

Thanks everybody - loads of suggestions, so more confusion!



My kit lens is from about 5 or 6 years ago when the 500D was new - the one you have is the one referenced above which now gets good reviews. I'm a bit loathe to pay for something that's pretty much the same though, so would prefer to go for a different range to give myself more flexibility.

I want something wider, for landscapes - I've just taken a punt on the 10-18 Canon lens which like the new kit lens is cheap but gets decent reviews. I figure if I get into it, I can get something nicer.

Going to Iceland for a week on Saturday so wanted something to capture the scenery a bit better. I need to remind myself its not all about the camera though!

In reply to yorkshireman:

I was in the same position, I had the 18-55 kit on a 500d, there was a notable improvement when I bumped up to the sigma 17-50. I don't think the image quality will bump will be that notable on the stm version.

I now have a 16-35 f4 (incredible but out of your budget) on a full frame and i actually find at its widest end it is a bit dull for landscapes (everything is too small) and that the sweet spot is around 20mm-24mm, which is about 14-19 ish on a crop

In reply to Skyfall:
Use my 17-40 all the time along side my 70-200 L. Don't find any problem with a gap between 40 and 70 and certainly don't find I change lenses too frequently. I use it on a 7d btw.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

That was my point. I used it a lot on my crop 60D like your 7D but somehow use it less on my full frame 5D. On a crop it's a very nice range though there is a gap if you don't have a true mid range lens (zoom or prime).

In reply to yorkshireman:

Sigma 17-50 cost 250 from a Hong Kong based website.superb on my 60d

In reply to yorkshireman:

Probably a bit wider than you want but the tokina 11-16 f2.8 is awesome, I've used one for years now.