Purchasing a third lens--recommendations?

I am in the process of adding a third lens to my collection. I consider myself of an amateur/enthusiast skill-level; I know what most of the control settings do and I shoot RAW. The equipment I currently have:

Canon Digital Rebel XS body
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS
Tamron 75-700mm LD

I primarily take wildlife, nature/landscape and night sky (stars, moon, etc) pictures. I am very pleased with the image quality I get from the 18-55mm; I went to Yellowstone last summer and got some stunning wide-angle pictures of the upper and lower falls. I am going to Shenandoah National Park this summer, which should offer some similar wide vistas and lots of wildlife.

The 75-300mm doesn't take very nice pictures. Everything I take is not crisp; even in ideal lighting on a tripod I end up with a "soft focused" picture. Regardless of the lighting every single picture is either over-exposed or under-exposed, even when my light meter says my exposure is correct.

I'm think I'm looking for a general purpose lens, but at the same time I'm not sure. I am not willing to consider non-Canon lenses at the moment because of my experience with Tamron. I considering the Canon 28-135mm IS USM for general purpose, but a lot of reviews say its not quite wide enough on a APS-C sensor camera. I am also considering the EF 50mm II prime, but it also seems like too much zoom with an APS-C sensor.

I am seeking advice/suggestions on the above two lenses, or anything else anyone thinks is essential to a lens collection. Any advice is welcome. My budget maxes out at $450, which means I'm keeping this to the EF and EF-S lines, no L's for me yet.

Your happy with the 18-55, so no need to change there. You're not happy with the 75-300 so that's where I'd be looking to change. Nothing wrong with 3rd party lenses (including Tamron). Options would be the Canon 55-250 IS, one of the 70-200 flavor of zooms, the new Tamron 70-300. With your budget and selling the Tamron you could most likely afford the 70-200 f4 L.

Sell your Tamron 75-300 and get the Canon 70-300 IS.

crn3371 wrote in post #12185219
With your budget and selling the Tamron you could most likely afford the 70-200 f4 L.

Are you referring to the non-IS 70-200 f4 L thats ~$700 on B&H? And how much would that Tamron bring in if I were to sell it? I also see that you happen to own the 70-200; do you have any pictures taken with it online anywhere that I could see?

Your tamron is probably not going to bring much, but you can probably move it on craigslist for $100. I agree the 70-200 F4L is a great camera, I had it before buying the IS version. If that proves to be too expensive, look at the canon 55-250IS. Its a companion lens to your 18-55IS. Similar quality, and a good bargain.

$255 EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
$549EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
$699 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The 55-250 looks like a bargain. Consider getting it AND the "nifty fifty":
$135 EF 50mm f/1.8

imsellingmyfoot wrote in post #12184870
I am not willing to consider non-Canon lenses at the moment because of my experience with Tamron.

If you were to try Canon's 75-300mm you'd probably be only considering Sigma I've picked up a Tamron 70-300mm VC USD and it is an excellent lens, but given the prices for 55-250mm (I see used copies @ $150! here from time to time) I recommend you get one of those and use the remaining money for a prime or a UWA lens.

Suggestion for an ultra-wide angle lens? I just remember the really expensive ones popping up in my searches.

Ef-s 10-22 is the first-party choice. It's optically excellent. There's a lot of options from third parties though. Tokina 11-16 comes to mind. Sigma has a few options depending on your price range.

For your telephoto needs there's basically three lenses worth considering in your price range -- the 70-200F4L, 55-250IS, and Tamron 70-300 VC. Which one makes sense will probably come down most to whether you'll have a tripod with you or not.

The L has the best image quality, build quality, and a constant F4 aperture. Of course, it conspicuously lacks IS. It can often be found used for ~600, but prices are rising.
The 55-250 only works on crop bodies, is very lacking in build (AF is reasonable with it though, MF not so much), but has above average IQ and is very inexpensive (~250$ new, sub 200$ used)
The Tamron has the longest reach, 2nd best IQ, best IS, and costs ~400$.

The Canons can often be found used (the Tamron is very new so not so much), but only have a 1 year warranty compared to the Tamron's 6 year.

imsellingmyfoot wrote in post #12186759
Suggestion for an ultra-wide angle lens? I just remember the really expensive ones popping up in my searches.

given the price ranges we're dealing with I'd say Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is the best option. I've seen them for mid-$300ish on the "Sell" forum here.

Going back to the suggestion of the 70-200mm f4... If I were to buy this one (I really like what I'm reading about it), would not having IS be an issue? I spent a week in Yellowstone with no sunshine at all, and I can't even begin to count how many shots I missed (or had turn out blurry) because there wasn't enough light for my Tamron without IS. I don't want to end up with the 70-200mm and run into the same problem. We had steel gray cloud cover every day; in your opinion will the non IS 70-200mm run into the same problems?

Probably:

If you're bringing a tripod, then that negates a lot of the benefit of IS (assuming you have time to set it up for every shot), and at that point the L would probably make the most since with the highest IQ at 200mm. Of course, it's outside your 400-450$ budget, but you could probably rent it.

To be honest, depending on the wildlife 200mm will almost certainly be too short. 250 or 300 isn't even that long. You could consider renting the Sigma 150-500 OS or Canon 100-400L IS just for the trip.

Edit: actually, I've been thinking on this, and realistically your best option is the Tamron 70-300 VC. It's sharper than the L at the shorter focal lengths (~sub 135mm), about 15% behind at 200mm, and obviously has it beat past that as it goes to 300mm. It has excellent VC which should help with your low-light problems, and is rightly in budget at 400$.

I played with the zoom tool on the Tamron website and think 200mm would be ok, obviously not ideal. Plus I'm on a crop body and can always get a 1.4 teleconverter in the future. I know whatever I get will always be "just too short." If I really wanted to get close I'm looking at 400mm+ and I won't be there for a long time. And if the 70-200mm takes better quality images, wouldn't I be able to crop some if I really wanted to get closer?

I don't see myself carrying a tripod; how much benefit would a monopod be in my situation?

monopods allow you to go a few stops slower on shutter speed, how much is dependent on the length of the lens and your technique. Shooting to crop, especially on an xs is not ideal but you can only go as far as your budget will allow you to go. Another option might be to look for a used prime. I picked up a tokina 400 5.6 for a couple hundred last year. Not the sharpest lens ever, but its probably as sharp as a shorter zoom with a teleconverter

My advie: dont skimp on price. Save your nickels & dimes and get a real good lens. 70-200 in any f/# is a good choice. Dump the Tamron. You will be glad you did.

Wide? 10-22 is a good lens (love mine), but it does have fairly limited applications - but when you need it, you need it.