Advice on Replacing EF-S 18-135mm Kit lens

I have a 60D which came with the Ef-S 18-135mm kit lens. I've been thinking about replacing it with something to go along with my 100-400L which is mainly used for wildlife. I very seldom shoot landscapes so the wide end isn't extremely important to me. I am looking for a general walk-a-round which will be good for family and portraits. I have been thinking about the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L. I have also seen a lot of recommendations for the EF-S 15-85 and the EF-S 17-55. I have also looked at the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8.

I would appreciate any advice or input on which lens would be the best upgrade.

How much do you use the 18mm end of your 18-135? Either of the EF-s lenses are excellent, but you might miss the wide end if you get the L or the Tamron.

Although I think the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, I think it would leave a big hole in your range. If the wide angle isn't too concerning for you then there is no reason not to go with the 24-105. You get good range, f/4 and IS. Even better is there are a ton a new or close to new kit 24-105's being sold that you could get for a great price.

TheBigDog wrote in post #14763576
Although I think the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, I think it would leave a big hole in your range. If the wide angle isn't too concerning for you then there is no reason not to go with the 24-105. You get good range, f/4 and IS. Even better is there are a ton a new or close to new kit 24-105's being sold that you could get for a great price.

Agreed. The massive gap in your FL range is the first thing I would worry about, but that's just me and probably not a concern for your style of shooting or what you need.
I'd choose the 15-85 first and then the 24-70 in that order if it were me

Is the 24-70L out of your price range? It's hard to beat the 2.8

So, out of curiousity, have you tried your 18-135 for portraits and stuff at say, 85 to 135mm ? Not meaning to be insulting, but do you know how to arrange yourself, and the subject, and the background ? What are you trying to accomplish that the 18-135 does not do for you ? thinner DOF ? sharpness ? bokeh ? blurring of the background ?

I only ask this because I've seen others ask before- because they think that they need to spend a lot on a lens to achieve blurring of the background, making a subject pop out, etc - when in reality- their equipment can easily handle it. They just lacked the know-how- how to use their lens that they already owned- to make the shots. Nothing wrong- and they didn't need to spend thousands to do it.
While I don't think moving to a 24-105L is going to be a bad move- it's still f/4- only marginally faster than the kit lens you are replacing. The DOF will be a little thinner- but it's still f/4. (http://www.dofmaster.c​om will help you see how much or little difference ) Will it work- slightly better than the kit lens ( the 24-105L is a kit lens for higher end cameras anyways ) that came with your 60D. Sharper ? Maybe or maybe not. And sharpness can be adjusted to an extent in post or by stopping the lens down a bit. Besides, my spouse does not like seeing too much sharpness in photos - you know how age bothers some... The 15-85 is a sharper lens- but it's still variable aperture, and the DOF won't be significantly different from the kit lenses for portraits, etc.

It's hard to beat the 18-135 as far as usefulness and versatility. the 15-85 is a real decent lens - from what I hear. The 24-105 is pretty decent- but opinions on it vary.. They'd all make a decent walk around lens - except the 24-105 might be a little long - maybe.. Reality is that for what you are talking about- I highly doubt that you will see much difference. PS: Out of those 3, I have never used the 15-85. Wish I had one- but I kind of like my 18-135 on the 7D for walkaround purposes. The 24-105 is on the 5D3 most of the time, only replaced with the 70-200..

And when you get a chance- with that wonderful 100-400L- go take some portraits with that- headshots and stuff- outside where you have plenty of room.. Seriously! It should surprise you.

Thanks for the input...

jbatphoto wrote in post #14764256
Is the 24-70L out of your price range? It's hard to beat the 2.8

I was trying to keep it in the $1000-$1200 range.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14766516
So, out of curiousity, have you tried your 18-135 for portraits and stuff at say, 85 to 135mm ? Not meaning to be insulting, but do you know how to arrange yourself, and the subject, and the background ? What are you trying to accomplish that the 18-135 does not do for you ? thinner DOF ? sharpness ? bokeh ? blurring of the background ?

No insults taken... Always willing to listen to constructive / informative information that I can learn from. I don't really have any complaints about the 18-135, but was looking for something with good build quality and better low light performance. A lot of my shots are taken around sunset and in shaded areas. With the yongnuo flash not having HSS it's tough to catch active Grand-Kids limited to 1/250... Not sure if the Canon 430 or 580 flash having HSS would be much of an improvement with this or not.

Finding a single lens that will give you not only a large range in FOV, and low light capabilities will be very difficult.

The 24-105 L is geared toward the FF user as a general walk around lens but struggles with it come to low light.

A better approach, in my humble opinion, would be a multiple lens selection; start with any of the 17-5(x) f/2.8 lenses and then either compliment with a dedicated prime, Sigma 30 f/1.4 is very well received on crop cameras, or the newly released Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.

Had the 50-150 been released I would have gone that route vs the 70-200 as the former was developed with the crop sensor user in mind.