Which Lens Should I Upgrade My Canon Kit Lens To?
The Three Lenses that are presented by Camera Labs as alternatives for the Canon 18-55mm Kit Lens are:
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
One more that you might like to consider if you have the budget and are looking for another great walk around L-series Canon lens is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens. It’s not as wide angle as the others above but gives extra zoom length and is on a par with the 17-40mm in terms of quality (in fact they make a nice pair).
30 Responses to “Which Lens Should I Upgrade My Canon Kit Lens To?” - Add Yours
August 27th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Thanks for posting this. Very informative for us DSLR newbies.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:43 am
While all of these may useful steps up from the kit lens, considering third-party lens manufacturers such as Sigma and Tamron may be good choices for some photographers. I bought Tamron’s 17-50mm f/2.8 lens instead of buying a kit for my 20D, and I haven’t regretted it. For less than half the price of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, I got a solid build, an included lens hood, and very very sharp images, at the cost of no USM (though it’s still fast), no IS (but it’s still a fast lens), and 5mm on the long end (a fairly negligible difference). In my opinion, this is a great alternative for photographers who are on a limited budget but still want some good, fast glass in a good walkaround range.
While Sigma’s quality control is notoriously inconsistant, lenses like their 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 may also be worthwhile, at least if you can test the lens in person before buying.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Thought I’d throw in my 0.002¢ here…..
I just ‘cross-graded’ my Canon EF-S 18-75mm with the IS to the new Tamron 18-250mm ($470 on Amazon)
Only a few days in, but so far its proving to be great at pretty much all lengths. Slightly wider aperture, and a way better zoom range makes up for lack of IS, which I rarely used anyway…..
Sample shots at http://flickr.com/photos/islandlizard/
(Be gentle, I’m not a real photographer like all you people!)
August 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
What about Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 or Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4.5? Any comment on those? I’ve heard that the first one produces razor sharp image comparable to the 17-40 L.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I’ve got a Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM, and it’s great! The F/2.8 is really useful in low-light conditions (especially combined with the IS), but also paves the way for some very nice portrait photography.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I’d go for a non Canon lens too. My two main lenses are Sigma and work perfectly fine, and they’re a bit cheaper too!
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I went for the 17-40mm at first, but when I realized that I loved the wider-end of that lens I jumped on the Canon 10-22mm – personally I think the 17-40 would be a good combination with the 24-105 _if_ you have a FF camera where you can actually get use out of the 17mm wide end.
If you’re like me though with a 1.6x APS-C crop sensor I’d _strongly_ recommend the 10-22 and 24-105 combo instead (more money than just one replacement, but you get a large zoom range from a very fun 10mm all the way to an image-stabilized medium zoom at 105, with only 2mm of zoom lost in the middle).
August 27th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
I also got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 after reading its very favourable reviews. I love the speed f/2.8 and the optics give my friend’s 17-40 a run for its money.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
My local camera shop was recommending the
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
It’s not that wide, but with the IS, and a price tag of around $379.00 on Amazon, it’s not a bad lens
August 27th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I replaced my Canon kit lens with the Sigma 17-70mm twelve months ago. It produces great results throughout the range and is much better quality than the Canon kit lens.
The Sigma is a great walkabout lens also, it rarely comes off my camera.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I also think the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is a key lens to get as it introduces new DSLR owners to the wonderful world of primes. At less than $100 USD, it’s almost a no-brainer
Also, the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L is a great lens, albeit a bit awkward of a focal range on a crop body.
Tamron’s 17-50 2.8 is said to be a good lens as well
August 28th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I purchased a Sigma DG 20-40 f2.8 on Ebay for $240.00 (Including an HMC UV filter) and I also use the Sigma DG 70-300 macro. Both are sharp and considerably less expensive than the Canon alternatives. The 20-40 is a bit large (82mm filter size) but an outstanding lens.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:44 am
I would second the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM recommendation. A very clean lens, great results, reasonable cost.
My absolute favorite is the 24-70 F2.8L, though – a brilliant fast, bright and high contrast lens. Unparalleled. Pricey, heavy, but the pictures are worth it.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:08 am
I am seriously considering purchasing a Canon EOS 40D because of the live preview capabilities. I would probably purchase the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens as the quality main lens, supplemented by a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as a good wide angle. If the funds are available and I need more zoom, I think I would choose the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM as a good lightweight zoom. If I later upgrade to full frame, only the EF-S 10-22mm lens need be sold.
I’ve included links to http://www.fredmiranda.com website, which has a very useful lens review section.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I got the EF-S 17-85 IS. I am thinking about the Sigma 18-200 OS.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:10 am
How about one of these for nikon users too!!!
August 28th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I bought the 400D body and then, the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 and it’s really great. It’s got about the same quality as the 17-85, but it’s a pity it’s got no IS (called OS in sigma lenses)
August 29th, 2007 at 1:35 am
18-75 “IS” a waste of money, muche better Tamron 17-50 and cheaper, the others are another category specially serie “L”
August 29th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I would suggest the Canon EF 50MM F/1.8 II Its being offered on Amazon.com for $76. And it is a bargain. Photos come very very sharp and clear. Nice Bokeh for the price. Expect the buld and material to be of that from the Kit lens, but the image quality outweights the build quality.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I replaced mine with used Sigma 24-60MM F2.8 DX. Which is not bad.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:57 am
One of the best-presented, easy-to-understand videos I’ve had the pleasure of watching. Great job! I only wish something like this was available when I got my Canon Digital Rebel (that’s right: before the XT and XTi) 3 years ago.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
For those who prefer Nikons, there’s a great post on strobist.blogspot.com. Several folks have added their Canon recommendations, too.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I’d second (third?) the recommendation of the EF50mm f1.8, it was the only lens I had for a year. It taught me a lot about framing, the aperture of f1.8 made many of my pictures look better because of the blurred background, and its useful in low light without flash.
The key thing is that it makes you move and interact with your subject, to get the framing right ‘you’ have to physically move rather than rely on the zoom to do the work for you. A great lens to learn with.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
For less then half of the price (399 euro vs 950 euro) I went for the sigma 18-55/2.8 and it is great, one of the recen magazines compared these lens to the canon and guess what, it even came out better. I think in the range 18-55 you are well off without IS (I use a canon 20D which I purchased this year refurbished and it is a great team . My latest addition Canon 70-200/f4 IS makes it absolute complete for a non professional.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:47 am
had my canon rebel xti 2 months and bought the ef 50 mm f1.8 autofocus lens mk1 now i,m looking for another lens and very interested to try sigma or cheaper alternative ive a budget of £150 any suggestions plz
October 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Bought a Sigma 28-70mm &70-300mm AF 4 my XT they are great lenes but seem 2 have issues comunicating w/Xt taught me to shoot w/ MF
March 5th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I upgraded to a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8 – 4.5 just couple of month ago and it proved to be good. In addition, I am also using a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 which gives me really sharp images. My first choice for the 2nd upgrade was Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L but it was way beyond my budget at the moment so I settled for the Tamron equivalent.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I have an XSI and replaced the kit lens with Tokina 12-24mm,f4 and Canon 24-105mm L f4 and I use Tamron 17-50for mostly indoors.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Definitely the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM.
I’ve just switched from the cheap 18-125 SIGMA with was great on my EOS10D, but really poor on my 40D (too many pixels in the sensor means you have to buy better lenses).
Now my pics are bright, crisps, and the bokeh is really nice.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a great lens!…use that and an editing program like “Aperture” from Apple…amazing tack-sharp, magazine-like pictures! P.S.: I have Lightroom too, but I haven’t dabbled with it yet.
Leave a Reply