Upgrading from kit lens

[Edd43]

In preparation for a summer trip to the Canadian Rockies, I have been considering some lens upgrade for my Canon t3i. I bought the t3i with two kit lens (18-55mm and 55mm-255mm). I have taken some decent photos with them, but I am looking to gain some quality and better features. I do a lot of landscape/travel photography and have found I probably do at least 90% of my shooting with the shorter zoom.

At this time I am considering just upgrading the short zoom, and have been reading a lot of reviews on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 - image stabilized versions of each. With each of these I can gain the following:

Better optics (although unsure of to what extent)
Internal focus without front element rotating
Faster lens

I am leaning toward the Tamron and have read some excellent reviews on it. The Canon optics may be a little superior, but the price of the Tamron at about 2/3 the cost of the Canon is a big factor.

Would appreciate any comments or recommendation from the experienced CIC community out there.

Thanks, Ed

[Manfred M]

Ed - Carefully said; have you noticed any quality "issues" from the kit lenses? I don't shoot Canon, but I do have the equivilent Nikon lenses and the quality is surprisingly good. I also shoot pro glass; so I understand where the performance differences are . The main advantage (to me) is the fast glass (f/2.8 maximum aperture) but then I do a lot of shooting wide open to give me that very narrow depth of field; not something one generally needs in landscape work. To me, the most important issue when buying a lens is to have a really good reason to do so; otherwise one may not be spending money wisely

In general, landscape shots are taken at smaller apertures (f/11) to ensure that everything in the scene is in sharp focus, so the faster glass may not be an advantage to you. Unless you are shooting with a polarizer or round grads; then the rotating front element would not be an issue. If you are using these, then I would get a lens with an non-rotating front element. I use these all the time in landscape shots.

Personally, I suspect investing in a decent tripod might be a better investment for a trip through the Rockies.

[dje]

Hi Ed

My views on this align closely with Manfred's.

In terms of optics, you may not notice much of a difference between the higher grade lenses and the kit lens. DPreview has a handy tool for comparing lens performance - see this link. It gives figures for sharpness, chromatic aberration, vignetting and geometric distortion. You'll find that the more expensive lenses have lower CA and distortion but these can be corrected in pp anyway. The sharpness of a lens is masked somewhat on most digital cameras due to the presence of an anti-aliasing filter. The beauty of the DPReview tool is that it gives an indication of the overall performance of the lens plus camera. If you look at the link above, you will get figures for the 18-55 kit lens and the Canon 17-55 f2.8 lens fitted to a Canon 7D (same sensor as the 600D/T3i). The sharpness is indicated by the lwph for mtf50 as a function of distance from the centre. The figures for these two lens aren't substantially different.

The other thing is that for smaller apertures such as f11 which are often used for landscapes, diffraction is a significant contributor to overall lens performance and this is largely independent of lens design.

I have the same camera as you but I don't have the kit lenses. I use a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 as my walk-around lens. It was important to me to have a lens with inner focus as I use a polarizer or grad ND's quite often.

In general, having a faster lens is not much of an advantage for landscape work because you are usually looking for large DOF.

Having said all that though, I wouldn't want to discourage you getting a better lens. It may not make a lot of difference to landscape work but if you are like me, you will, every so often, find situations where the extra speed is an advantage.

We visited the Rockies a couple of years ago - it's a great place for photography and I'm sure you will enjoy it.

Dave

[AB26]

Hi Ed,

The 18-55 and 55-255 kit lenses are not bad lenses. As far as quality is concerned I doubt that you will see the difference between a Tamron and the Canon kit lens. You will not be gaining much in “upgrading” the 18-55mm kit lens.

If you really wish to buy another lens I would suggest you look at a wide angle zoom like the Tamron 10-24mm. Rather expand your horizon in shooting options instead of simply replacing a kit lens.

As Manfred pointed out, investing in a good tripod is a priority if you really wish to get your images looking sharp.

[ajohnw]

I think I would be looking for something with more flexibility when replacing an 18-55mm. This lens is in the so called standard lens range.

Much depends on if you really want/need the extra aperture. I don't think it's terribly important for general landscape work or general use either really. Looking at Canon's lenses I think I would be tempted to look at the EF-S 18-135. These types of lenses tend to have their problems but curiously like the Nikon 18-105mm I have just bought it's fairly well behaved. The other 2 that go shorter and wider aren't.. Like the Nikon it has decent resolution throughout the range and a degree of chromatic distortion especially at the short end.

Personally where I would want the faster lens is at longer focal lengths where I feel it's of more use. That usually means 70 to something and even a full frame lens. It's odd really as some one some time ago must have decided that 70mm is a good place to start on full frame -it is, and APS users have to put up with the same.

The place I go to for lens tests is here

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/77...8135_3556stmis

3 1/2 stars is a very good rating for lenses of this type. It's also best to remember lenses aren't perfect and not to worry too much about figures. The ones I take most notice of is even resolution across the frame as I feel it's the most important and lenses vary a lot in this area.

John
-

[GrahamS]

Ed, the Canon 18-55 kit lens may give good results when used wisely, but it is built down to a price and as you have discovered, is no fun to use. It's build certainly does not match the t3i body. Your desire to "up-grade" is understandable and may have nothing to do with "image quality."

The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 is big and heavy and will not balance well in the hand when mounted to the t3i body. It also suffers from chronic chromatic aberration. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a better choice, although the auto-focus is somewhat noisy. The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM "C" is a superb lens and almost has a cult following, but chromatic aberration is again it's Achilles heel. I would suggest that you look at the Canon EF-S 15-85mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS USM. This lens has state of the art optics and out performs the 17-55 f2.8. I have the Sigma as well as the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and the Canon 15-85 and have compared them all side by side. The 15-85 is my choice of walkabout lens.

[DanK]

Ed,

There are some common threads in the replies, and I agree with many of them. You haven't said how you display your images. Do you post them online? Print small, say, no larger than 8 x 10? Print larger? I ask because most people don't print, and if you are displaying on line, you are using a low-resolution display that will show even less of the impact of a better lens than would a large print.

I certainly see the attraction of upgrading nonetheless. If I were in your shoes, the biggest reason I would have for upgrading is the rotating front element, which is a huge PITA for landscape work (assuming you sometimes use a polarizing filter).

As for what to get, I have a few suggestions:

-- decide first whether you need a faster lens. For landscapes, as several people noted, that is rarely important, but for some travel photography, it is.
--If you don't need a faster lens, I second Graham's suggestion that you consider the EF-S 15-85. The extra 2 mm at the short end is actually noticeable and is handy for landscape work. In general, larger zoom factors tend to come with more optical compromises, and most of the highest-quality zooms are roughly 3x. The 15-85 has a zoom factor of almost 6x, but it is optically very good nonetheless. It was my standard outdoor walkaround for a number of years, when I was shooting with a crop sensor.
--If you need faster: I wouldn't worry about buying other than Canon. Both Tamron and Sigma make some superb lenses. However, not ALL of their lenses are very good, so read reviews and postings. In the case of the Tamron 17-50, reviews say that the older version (cheaper, without image stabilization) is actually sharper. If you google, or search on any photo site, you will find dozens of comparisons of the Tamron and Sigma lenses in that range. One of my standard lenses for years was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (not useful for you--too long on the short end), the larger cousin of the older 17-50, and it was a very good lens. The AF wasn't the best, but it was fine.

Dan

[William W]

. . . at least 90% of my shooting with the shorter zoom . . . at this time I am considering just upgrading the short zoom . . . I can gain the following:

Better optics (although unsure of to what extent)
Internal focus without front element rotating
Faster lens

Also look at:
EF 17 to 40 F/4 L USM;
EF 16 to 35 F/2.8L USM (second hand);
EF 16 to 35 F/2.8 L MkII USM.

You imply (but do not state) that Image Stabilization (or equivalent) is a requirement - if that is so, then I would buy the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM rather than the Tamron VR 'equivalent'.

I found the Canon 17 to 55/2.8 IS an exceptional lens and any CA problems that I experienced could be fixed in PP.

I have used all the above lenses and several versions of the EF-S 18 to 55F/3.5~5.6 'kit lens': except I have not used the Sigma 17 to 50/2.8 and I have a general bias against Sigma Lenses, anyway.

I have not used the EF-S 15-85mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS USM, but it has good reviews, but does fit your criterion of being a faster lens.

WW

[arith]

It's all good advice; I've got the Tamron and it won't focus but you don't need auto focus. It is good at the edges and has high resolution with low CA, giving an illusion of sharp. At 35mm CA is non existent and that cannot be corrected by a program without softening. So if your going to do high contrast the Tamron is worth considering.

[Geoff F]

Exactly what size range do you really need, Ed?

Last year I replaced a faulty Canon L 24-105 with the Tamron 24-70 IS which I have found to be an excellent lens. It is F2.8 but I rarely work faster than F8. For me, 24 mm is ample at the wide end and I do more landscape in the 50-70 mm range.

But not cheap; although half the price of Canon alternatives.

[JR1]

Too many replies to read all so ignore any duplicate I post

Please, do not dismiss the standard lens, the one that you call a kit lens, the only reason they are cheap is they are produced in mass numbers keeping costs down, I swear by my 18-105 Nikkor and it never leaves one of my D7000s.

I prefer Sigma and they almost always beat Tamron in quality and open reviews.

google them all and add "review" check "DP review" for the best

I have just ordered the 8-16mm as it just overshadows anything Tamron do.

[davidedric]

When I bought my T3i a couple of years ago, I paired it with the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8/4, and I have been very happy with the results.

Dave

[Geoff F]

I prefer Sigma and they almost always beat Tamron in quality and open reviews.

google them all and add "review" check "DP review" for the best

That is also the way I used to feel about the budget lens market.

But Tamron has recently started producing some high quality, but fairly expensive, lenses that are comparable or better than the direct competition. I have been surprised by some of these lenses.

[Edd43]

Thanks for all the comments. I am interested in the suggestion that several made in favor of the Canon 15-85 lens. I am going to look at that more. I understand the comments with respect to not needing such a fast lens for landscape work, but I found on my trip to Alaska last year that I had a little trouble getting fast enough shutter speed in low evening light, hand held, to capture a sharp photo of a whale breeching. However, for most of my landscape shots I try to use a tripod and agree the faster lens is not nearly so important.

The need for a lens that focuses without rotating the front element would still be very helpful as I do make significant use of a polarizing filter. If the canon 15-85 lens meets this criteria (and doesn't break the bank), I might have to consider it. I have noticed that this lens is sometimes available used, or reconditioned, and I might consider that.
Ed

[ajohnw]

There is another alternative. The 24-105mm. I found that over 90% of the time that is what was fitted to my aps camera. It gives roughly 35 to 160mm. Ideal for all sorts of things really. You have your current lens if there is a need to go wider or at some point you could buy a wide angle zoom to fill the gap. The Sigma 24-105mm version is significantly cheaper than Canon's. As is often the case when the 2 marks are compared the Canon tends to be more even across the frame but that doesn't really matter when using full format lenses on aps. The central resolution of the Sigma going on reviews is pretty spectacular.

John
-

[NigelD]

I went to the Rockies a few years ago and went with a 40D and 17-55 which was excellent in the range it gives but I was frustrated by lack of length in certain circumstances. My current 24-105 is a much better bet.
Scott Kelby I understand, went for the 28-300 so he had a lens for everything but that's a heavy piece of glass to carry.

It does depend on what you're going to be taking though.

[William W]

. . . I am interested in the suggestion that several made in favor of the Canon 15-85 lens. I am going to look at that more. I understand the comments with respect to not needing such a fast lens for landscape work, but I found on my trip to Alaska last year that I had a little trouble getting fast enough shutter speed in low evening light, hand held, to capture a sharp photo of a whale breeching. . .The need for a lens that focuses without rotating the front element would still be very helpful as I do make significant use of a polarizing filter.

If I were you I would think through how important “front rotating” vs. “fast lens speed” is an important factor to you.

I expect that the 15 to 85 will be an improvement on the 18 to 55 apropos general image quality – but, after this last commentary of yours, I really do wonder if it will be money well spent for you.

I think that you should re-think how really inconvenient is it to rotate the polarizer after attaining focus IF YOU - - - “for most of my landscape shots I try to use a tripod”

On the other hand - - - “trouble getting fast enough shutter speed in low evening light, hand held, to capture a sharp photo of a whale breeching” . . . is NOT a “Landscape Shot” but rather an ACTION SHOT.

Maybe you should re-consider what tangible, real world, VALUE FOR MONEY benefits you’ll get from going from your 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 to (almost a duplicate) 15 to 85 F/3.5~5.6?

Yet (if an F/2.8 17 to 55 zoom is out of the budget range) an inexpensive FAST PRIME lens might be the answer. You do NOT have any fast lenses in your kit, at all.

Also, note that Image Stabilization has almost no advantage for most Action Shooting scenarios like your whale breeching: as the Shutter Speed needs to be fast enough to freeze the whale, which in turn is usually fast enough to arrest camera movement.

WW

[rpcrowe]

Ed mentioned: "I do a lot of landscape/travel photography and have found I probably do at least 90% of my shooting with the shorter zoom."

I would think that the operative factors in his statement are:

"lot of"... not exclusively landcape
and
"/travel photography"... not exclusively landscape

While the "kit" lenses from various manufacturers can and do provide very good I.Q. when shot around f/8 to f/11, especially when tripod mounted, these lenses, IMO, fall quite short as general purpose travel photography lenses...

Shooting at the maximum focal length with either of these lenses (as well as with most extended range zooms) provides a maximum aperture of f/5.6 which would be pitifully slow for much of my travel photography. I frequently use my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens wide open at f/2.8. The two full stops difference will allow a faster shutter speed, will provide a more narrow DOF (for selective focus) and the quality of the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens provides very acceptable IQ when shot wide open...

Additionally, the f/2.8 aperture is quite handy when balancing flash with available light...

PLUS... the non-rotating front element is a definite advantage when using a CPL. Additionally, you have a one to two stop light loss with that filter, If starting with a lens that is quite slow to begin with, the exposure time can become long enough the cause problems like the trees and foliage captured as fuzzy-graphs because the wind has moved them during the very long exposure...

I am not saying that the "kit" lenses are "bad" just that they do not have the versatility of faster (more expensive) glass; especially in the area of travel photography...

Nigel mentioned, "Scott Kelby I understand, went for the 28-300 so he had a lens for everything but that's a heavy piece of glass to carry."

I certainly would not choose the 28-300L lens for anything... I could carry two lenses PLUS a second camera at not much more weight than the 28-300L alone. That would give me more versatility than the 28-300L lens alone...

ADDITIONALLY: Although I have all the respect in the world for Scott as a Photoshop and photo editing guru, I really don't think that he quite holds his own as a top-notch photographer; if compared against other photographers of equivalent fame. Please don't come back at me by saying "He's better than you are!" I don't need to be a top-ranked football player to be able to contrast the capabilities of one player to those of another!

[NigelD]

I agree about the weight Richard, as I said. It's not a lens for the faint hearted.

[cauger61]

Ed mentioned: "I do a lot of landscape/travel photography and have found I probably do at least 90% of my shooting with the shorter zoom."

I would think that the operative factors in his statement are:

"lot of"... not exclusively landcape
and
"/travel photography"... not exclusively landscape

While the "kit" lenses from various manufacturers can and do provide very good I.Q. when shot around f/8 to f/11, especially when tripod mounted, these lenses, IMO, fall quite short as general purpose travel photography lenses...

Shooting at the maximum focal length with either of these lenses (as well as with most extended range zooms) provides a maximum aperture of f/5.6 which would be pitifully slow for much of my travel photography. I frequently use my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens wide open at f/2.8. The two full stops difference will allow a faster shutter speed, will provide a more narrow DOF (for selective focus) and the quality of the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens provides very acceptable IQ when shot wide open...

Additionally, the f/2.8 aperture is quite handy when balancing flash with available light...

PLUS... the non-rotating front element is a definite advantage when using a CPL. Additionally, you have a one to two stop light loss with that filter, If starting with a lens that is quite slow to begin with, the exposure time can become long enough the cause problems like the trees and foliage captured as fuzzy-graphs because the wind has moved them during the very long exposure...

I am not saying that the "kit" lenses are "bad" just that they do not have the versatility of faster (more expensive) glass; especially in the area of travel photography...

Nigel mentioned, "Scott Kelby I understand, went for the 28-300 so he had a lens for everything but that's a heavy piece of glass to carry."

I certainly would not choose the 28-300L lens for anything... I could carry two lenses PLUS a second camera at not much more weight than the 28-300L alone. That would give me more versatility than the 28-300L lens alone...

ADDITIONALLY: Although I have all the respect in the world for Scott as a Photoshop and photo editing guru, I really don't think that he quite holds his own as a top-notch photographer; if compared against other photographers of equivalent fame. Please don't come back at me by saying "He's better than you are!" I don't need to be a top-ranked football player to be able to contrast the capabilities of one player to those of another!

I have a query here -- with regard to telephoto-zoom lens of medium range, I find that there are three lenses for Nikon mount: 70-300 with f4.5-5.6 (Nikor lens), 70-300 f4 from Tamron and 70-200 with f2.8 from Nikon. I would like to know, which one will be good for bird photography?