Alternative to 18-55 kit lens...

[slicendice]

Hi
I'm hopefully soon going to be purchasing a 20d, but having seen some of the results from the 18-55 kit lens, I'm not too keen on getting it.
However, 18-55 is a very useful zoom range so I was wondering if anyone had any recommendation for an alternative lens with a similar range? I'm not really able to afford or justify "L" glass at this stage so something a little cheaper is required (17-40L looks very nice....but £££££!)
I know the Tamron 28-75 is a cracking lens that takes very sharp pics, but 28mm at the wide end isn't that wide, especially on a 1.6 factor camera...and as I enjoy taking landscape pics, I'm wondering if it would be wide enough?

Comments/opinions most welcome...! :D

Thanks very much...

[Alexandre Gabriel]

bhphoto's prices:

Canon 17-40 f/4 L - $670
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=279582&is=GREY

Canon 17-85 EF-s f/4-5.6 IS USM - $600
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=351548&is=USA

Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM - $350
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12084&is=GREY

Hope this helps.

[slicendice]

Thanks for that Alexandre
Sadly here in the UK, things are somewhat more expensive! Jessops has the 17-40L for £580 (thats about $1093!!) - I know there are cheaper stores over here, but nothing we have can compete with the likes of B&H

Unless anyone knows of any super-cheap UK lens shops??

[adam351]

I am in the same boat as you but with the slight (financial) advantage of being in the US. I even have a post on this forum about the subject.
Have you checked the lens reviews on the FredMiranda website?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

It is a help in finding user opinions on the various lenses. The one I am most interested in is the Tokina 24-200 AT-X. Though it is a mega zoom in terms of range it doesn't appear to give up much for quality, but I still haven't used one or managed to find good comparisons to other lenses.

I am hoping some more suggestions turn up as I thing the IS 17-85 is also nigh on perfect range for a first lens but the price tag is a little high and the IS a little unnecessory..

Adam

[antaine]

Sliceindice, try www.7dayshop.com - I think they had the 17-40 for about £470 ?? or you could try urgalaxy on ebay who guarantee no uk duty (don't know how they do it!)

[ggibbs1971]

A good alternative is the Sigma 18-125. B+H has it for $270. I had mine for a few months. It was great outdoors, but it hunted for the AF indoors. It seems most of my shots have been indoors. I sold the lens and got the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for low light, I am the volunteer photographer at my church. I am now looking for the "kit" lens as a cheap outdoors wide angle.

Geoff

[johnbs]

A good alternative is the Sigma 18-125. B+H has it for $270. I had mine for a few months. It was great outdoors, but it hunted for the AF indoors.
Geoff

Then you would love the SIgma 18-50/2.8 which is sharper than the 18-125 and works fine in less light.

John

[Lucky Forward]

I am also considering buying either the 17-40L or the 17-85.

I'm new to digital, having just bought my 20D last week. I currently own the 28-105 (3.5-4.5) I used with my Elan IIe, as well as a 100-300. It's only taken me a week to realize how much I miss using the wide end of the 28-105 that I've lost due to the 1.6X factor. I mostly shoot landscapes and family events, where it's great to be able to zoom from a group shot to a portrait shot on the fly.

A lot of people praise the 17-85 as a great "walk around" lens, and it looks like it would give me the versatility that the 28-105 did, plus it has IS.

But the 17-40L would be my first L lens, and I would be eager to see the results of doing my "serious" landscape shooting with L glass (and a tripod, of course).

So are the optics of the 17-40L that much better to outweigh the versatility and IS of the 17-85? And how much of an upgrade in image quality can I really expect to see for either of these over my current 28-105?

[weemannie]

I am also considering buying either the 17-40L or the 17-85.


But the 17-40L would be my first L lens, and I would be eager to see the results of doing my "serious" landscape shooting with L glass (and a tripod, of course).



It WOULD be a big mistake to buy an 'L' lens :D :D :D

I bought one used (100-300L) and ended up buying another two!!
The first shot I looked at on my PC absolutely knocked my socks off. It was so good that my wife approved the purchase of the 100-400L and the 24-70L!

You have been warned:lol:

[tsinvest]

I know (not from experience, rather from other posts) that the L lenses are really good, however I have the kit lens 18-55mm on my Rebel XT 350D and must say I am very impressed and happy with the quality of the photos I am getting. Why not try it first and if you really don't like it you can probably sell it on ebay for $75 and buy something else.

Good luck, Tom S.:D

[Juan Zas]

I am in a similar tesiture, and after a lot of searching in the Web, I think I am going for the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro. Everybody says it´s a very good objective, with an image quality & sharpness comparable to the Canon EF 24-70 L, but at near 1/4 the of the price !! (OK, it isn´t USM, the only drawback, but look for the price, $350 against $1200).
I have already an EF 70-200 f/4 L, so to complete the range (my next one it will be probably a wide angle 10-22 for around $550).
The other solution, the new 24-105 f/4 it´s going to be very expensive, and overlaps my 70-200; so, seriously, I shall prefer to adquire the two lenses mencioned above and still I save money, $1250 against $350+$550 !!

[Ray.Petri]

Although not my everyday lens, I find the kit lens (18-55mm) better than the adverse comments posted on this forum from time to time.

Perhaps I have a good one?

I use it when its wide end is needed and have no problems with it - and I seek sharpness like the Knights of St John (or whoever they were) sought the holy grail.

Minor problems such as sharpness and colour - if any - can be tweaked in Photoshop. Confession - I am a compulsive tweaker - whether an image needs it or not. Do we have an on-line shrink?

For what it will fetch second-hand, you might as well keep it.

[willie189]

I simply love my Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 lens. I use it with my Canon 350D can't say enough good things about it. I got good results with the 18-55, but this lens is a step up for sure.

Here is a link to a couple of shots I have taken with it.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=113432


http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=108907

I think for the money the Tamron is a good alternative to the L glass.

Willie

[m3elmo]

consider the sigma 18-50. Almost same focal length as the kit lens, constant 2.8 and good optics.

[LightRules]

The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 fits the bill. Optically equal to the 17-40L, faster, smaller/lighter, more range, and costs less. If you're sticking to 1.6x, it's tough to beat.