Poor man is poor. Looking at affordable zoom lens.

The 18-55 IS is an amazingly sharp lens for the price, and 18 mm is (IMO) about right for general purpose shooting. Much better than 50 mm.

The 28-135 isn't wide enough (again, a matter of opinion) and optically isn't as good as the 18-55 IS. As mentioned above the 28-105 is a good lens, definitely sharper than the 28-135, but not a really useful range on a crop camera.

When I got my 17-55 f/2.8 IS I kept my 18-55 IS because of its optical quality - it's sometimes handy to have a small package, and the 17-55 sure isn't small. I had a 28-135 and sold it - it overlapped with my other, better lenses.

-js

I'd like to get the Tamron 2.8 but it's just going to be too much money I think.

I'll look around for the 18-55 IS II kit lens for cheap. I'm hoping to get one for maybe $80.

I was wanting the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens before. I'm just looking at zooms now because it's going to be cheaper than fast primes.

number six wrote in post #13065445
As mentioned above the 28-105 is a good lens, definitely sharper than the 28-135, but not a really useful range on a crop camera.

Depends on what you shoot. I use a 24-105 on my crop and rarely go wider than about 40.

TridenTBoy wrote in post #13062953
...I would like it to be a faster lens but that's asking too much at my as low as it gets price range.

Just want to make sure that when you mentioned faster lens you did not actually mean faster focus and you were referring to a larger maximum aperture than 1.8.

Anyway, if I were you, I would think of picking up used 18-55 + 55-250 while keeping the 50 1.8. Later when you have more money to spare, you can either replace those within more expensive lenses or rather invest in a tripod and flash.

Look in the classifieds here, that Sigma pops up every now and then and there are often Tamron 17-50's for sale for around $300 or contact LaCeS Out regarding his 18-135.

Just do you homework on sellers when buying off these boards.

RobDickinson wrote in post #13062964
New or consider used?
Or look at sigmas 17-70 if you want more range and image stabalisation (at the cost of f2.8 constant)

You could also consider the non stabilized Sigma 17-70 too. The pseudo macro is pretty fun to have in an everyday lens and they run around $200-250 used

paperpants wrote in post #13066455
You could also consider the non stabilized Sigma 17-70 too. The pseudo macro is pretty fun to have in an everyday lens and they run around $200-250 used

Yes, the 17-70 does about 1/2 lifesize, but the 18-55 is also very good at about 1/3 lifesize. Most regular zooms only do about 1/4 to 1/5 lifesize.

18-55 IS version II...looking back to photos I've taken with that lens, I'm actually very impressed. It's affordable and performs just above average in good lighting.

Nowt wrong with the IS kit lens really, its opticaly pretty decent if poorly built (vs others)

Keep the 50mm 1.8, its far better in low light than anything else remotely close to the price, and buy the 18-55 kit lens used, you don't need IS at that FL. Many here will disagree but dollar for dollar its your cheapest and best option on a budget and unless you are really blowing up your photos the difference between what you will have and L glass is minimal.

Depends on what you shoot. I use a 24-105 on my crop and rarely go wider than about 40.

you're probably appealing to the 1% here. assuming the OP is normal i'd strongly recommend a lens that begins at 16-18mm .

ed

On OP's budget the only real option is an 18-55mm IS and a flash/tripod combo

Apart from the other options. .. ..

You either stick with the kit lens or get the Tamron f2.8. I'm not even sure how you guys use zooms anyway. They are cumbersome to deal with.

You just twist the other part of the barrel and the focal length changes, its not difficult..