18-55 died, what should it be replaced with

[dharmit]

Hi,

My 18-55 kit lens stopped auto focusing yesterday just before my sons first birthday (it was very frustrating but I continued the show by using my Canon S5IS as a replacement because my 50mm prime and 55-250 would not give me the wide angle required for a birthday party). I will be taking it to the shop for getting it checked and repaired as it is still under warranty (I think)

My question is, what is another good lens that should replace 18-55 if need be?

I have a few in mind

1. 15-85 IS
2. 17-85 IS
3. 17-55 f2.8 IS (This one is a bit costly but these lenses are purchased only once, right?)

Does anyone know how each of these lenses perform and how do they compare based on sharpness of the picture etc.?

[andrewdt]

I am also busy eyeing the 17-55 2.8 IS and comparing to the 24-70L as it is so close in price. It is pretty pricey for a non L lens but all the reviews I have been looking at really sing its praises and equate it to the L (it has L glass). Also looked at what you have mentioned, and I just think if I am going to spend money, the other two would be wasted compared to the 17-55.

Am I trying to convince you or myself here?

[Penary]

I have already decided to buy the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM for my Christmas gift to myself.

[dcclark]

If you're looking to do more indoor/people oriented stuff, that nice fast 17-55 f/2.8 might be awfully nice. Money invested in lenses is money well spent!

[gturner]

that 18-55 F2.8 is basically an L lens, but it is an EF-S mount so will not fit on a full frame body. It is also twice the price of anything else you are considering.

the 24mm is not wide enough on the 450D and you will miss that 18mm

For the same budget, look at
17-40mm L F4 (I went for this and love it combined with the 50mm F1.8 and 70-200 L F4)

The 15-85mm may be the best general walk around option available.

L glass (qulaity and AF speeds) can become an addiction. They also hold value!

[inkista]

The 17-85 is the oldest and worst and cheapest of the three, and has been replaced by the 15-85. Nobody knows what the 15-85 is like, yet, as it isn't readily available, but on paper it looks like it's going to be an improvement over the 17-85.

The 17-55 is the fastest and most expensive of the three, and is widely regarded as the EF-S equivalent of an L lens, at least as far as sharpness is concerned. It's also f/2.8, which makes it available light capable.

All three lenses are EF-S and cannot be used on full-frame cameras like the 5DMkII. All three lenses are IS USM, which means stabilized with a silent autofocus motor.

However.

There are a ton of walkaround lenses in the Canon lineup. If you're willing to pony up the dough for a 17-55 IS, there are also a few L walkaround zooms to consider, particularly if you tend to shoot at the long end of the zoom more than the wide end, and you're considering upgrading to a full frame in the relatively near future. These would include:

EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM

Ls are bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but the exotic glass in them tends not only to give good sharpness, but also better contrast and CA control. It is, however, a subtle improvement and is often not worth the price jump for most folks.

[sybren]

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is a very good choice. I love that lens to bits!

[inkista]

Just for kicks, the-digital-picture.com lets you side-by-side the 15-85 and the 17-55. Mousing over the arrow will switch between the two lenses. Looks like his copy of the 15-85 is rivalling the 17-55. photozone.de did say they had QA issues with theirs. And someone put some great samples up on fredmiranda. If you're not planning on shooting moving subject matter, the 15-85 is looking like a very good option, especially for travel.

[dharmit]

Hi,

This is great, I got really good responses.

The 17-85 is the oldest and worst and cheapest of the three, and has been replaced by the 15-85. Nobody knows what the 15-85 is like, yet, as it isn't readily available, but on paper it looks like it's going to be an improvement over the 17-85

Inkista can you please extend this thought a bit more and provide more evidence.

One response by inkista really captured my attention about EF lenses so I did some research in price for EF lenses in Australia. All prices are in Australian Dollar.

EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM - $1977
EF 17-40 f/4L USM - $977
EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM - $1757
EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM - $1396

If I want to use these lenses with my 450D and later on if I am using a full frame sensor, I think best option at this time would be EF 17-40 f/4L USM so I will not miss my 18mm range and my 50mm f1.4 prime will complement this lens and extend its range. May be in future I can think of a telephoto lens to complement the EF range.

Is my thinking right? or I should be thinking about EF-S lenses?

[gturner]

I made this same call 3 weeks back and went with the 17-40L lens. I could be happier! It is the best value you can get. Focus is super fast, it is solidly built and it will not lose value over time if you look after it

Here is a shot with it taken hand held from the drivers seat whilst stopped at roadworks.





You have the 55-250 which covers everything else and the 50mm for low light and other portrait work