Canon kit lens replacement

[VanillaEps]

I'm having a hard time finding an affordable kit lens replacement for my XSi. Through my research, I've narrowed the candidates to three:

• Sigma 17-70 2.8
• Tamron 17-50 2.8
• Canon 17-55 2.8

Unfortunately, through reading countless reviews, none of these lenses come out a clear winner. Although, at this point, the Tamron is slightly ahead. Anyone have feedback on the aforementioned lenses? Can anyone suggest any other lenses in the price range (less than $1k)?

I currently own the 18-55mm Kit lens, the Canon 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and the Nifty Fifty Canon 50mm 1.8

[dlambert]

No personal experience, but a friend of mine uses the Tamron 17-50 on his 40D and swears by it.

[VanillaEps]

Originally Posted by dlambert

No personal experience, but a friend of mine uses the Tamron 17-50 on his 40D and swears by it.

That's the type of feedback I'm looking for.

Thanks!

[RichardTaylor]

I own the Tamron 17-50 2.8, however it doesn't see much use, and while it a good lens in reasonable light it has a lot of trouble auto focussing in low light like indoor concerts (next to useless).

For some user feedback on a lot of lenses see here.

FM Reviews -

[AndyNJ]

I have that Sigma lens and I like it...don't love it. It's better than the kit lens that came with my T1i and it feels nice and solid and has a metal mount. So that's good.

There is a lot of lens creep when it's pointed down, but it comes with a lock so at least there's that. The OS doesn't seem to be quite as good as the IS on my kit lens, but the focus is a little faster. That being said, the photos, especially when shooting wide open, are a little soft.

I guess that didn't help much. I don't regret buying it, but I think you may be better off with the Canon lens.

[inkista]

What is it about the 18-55 you don't like? It's a helluva price leap to be going from the 18-55 to an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, especially if you think you're going to hit full frame in the near future. Are you sure you don't just need a wider fast prime, like the 35/2, 28/1.8, or Sigma 30/1.4?

There's also the EF 17-40 f/4L USM, if you're planning on using the lens mostly for landscapes and outdoor shots.

[vsa]

Originally Posted by inkista

What is it about the 18-55 you don't like?

I'd think about this too.

If you don't desire the most shallowest depth of field possible then why not go wider? If you're not going for full frame the 10-22 is a nice option.

[Thunder_o_b]

We have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 both in the IS and non IS. If I had it to do over again I would not have bought either of them. The non IS front element about fell off after the first year (I opened it up and fixed it), it is soft at the 17mm end and very soft at f2.8, the IS is worse. Now, I admit I have mostly prime lenses. I will not buy from Tamron again. I have one Sigma zoom (120-400mm) am more or less impressed with it, but in the end wish I had bought the Canon 400 prime.

Look into the IQ and speed of primes before you commit to zooms.

[wraff]

Hi there,

I'm facing a similar question ...
I would like (much) better optical quality than the standard kit zoom on my Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i.
(Plus, for the next few years I don't plan to go full format)

Now as I do >80% child-photography (many indoor = limiting light and many as portrait) plus some videos, I'm considering :
a) Canon EFS 15-85 f/3.5-5.6
b) Sigma 24-70 f/2,8 EX DG HSM
c) Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM


Do you think the Canon 15-85 has an equivalent optical quality than the Sigma 24-70 (obviously speaking only of the 24-70 f>3.5 common part), or does the Sigma outperform the Canon 15-85 in image quality at f/5.6 in the 24-70mm range ?

On the Canon 15-55 f/2.8 option I'm less convinced as my top choice since going a bit further than 55mm would be nice for portaits, although the critiques affirm really good optical quality to this lens ...

If I go for the Canon 15-85, which looks great due to the wide focal range, I might have to add a Sigma 30/1.8 or Canon 35/2 for the indoor limiting light pics, ie I 'll end up spending a bit more money (ie squeezing the budget to its very limits). But at least I'd know in advance which lens to mount (in door - fixed prime, outdoor - zoom) and don't loose great opportunities fpr pics with the time it takes to change lenses.

Thank's in advance !

[karen_s]

I am kinda with Inkista. Four years ago or so I upgraded from the XTi's kit lens (probably not quite the quality of the newer kits) to the Canon 17-55 2.8. I shoot with the crop body 50d and will use it till it dies, but I am considering adding a full frame down the road (for low light performance and wider view for landscape) and this lens will not work. I do wish I had known more about EF and EF-S lenses back then.

That said, I do like the lens and do not regret the purchase. I noticed improvement in color and in sharpness over the kit. It also seems to focus faster in low light and the 2.8 has come to be quite useful. I also LOVE the constant aperture and am quite content with the built quality. It is not a perfect lens as at times I have gotten a bit of chromatic aberration and it can be a smidge soft at it's max aperture, but you can get that with most any lens and I've learned to work around them. Overall, I am quite happy with it.

And for wraff ...

I don't use my 17-55 much for portraits. I do use it for indoor lifestyle kinda shots and it works pretty well (they tend to be a wider view), but I usually pick the longer focal lengths for face shots, like my 60mm 2.8 or my friends 85mm 1.8, or even the 70-200. But, I am not a portrait photographer so just take that for what it's worth.