Choosing first serious lens

I currently have a Canon EOS 1000D with the standard dual zoom lens kit. I use the standard zoom 18 - 55 EFS 1:3.5-5.6 II and in another thread, someone commented that this is a particularly bad lens. My problem seems to be that none of my shots ever come out sharp. Even when using a tripod, studio lenses and a small aperture. I'm considering two options for product shots primarily:

1. A 50mm prime lens like this one:

Canon Lens 50mm EF f/1.4 USM
http://www.digitalcame​rawarehouse.com.au/pro​d4292.htm

I'm in Australia, prices in AUD.

This seems to me the minimum spend, I like that it has a large aperture. I'm not entirely sure if the 50mm is the 35mm film equivalent or not. Anyone know?

2. A standard zoom - basically a better quality version of what I currently use.

Not sure with this option how much I need to spend to get decent, but it seems I may need to spend about 2x as much to get similar quality to the prime lens, and I still get an aperture no larger than 2.8. However, the bonus is gaining a benefit all the time.

Looking at these:
http://www.digitalcame​rawarehouse.com.au/cat​egory697_1.htm

My questions:

How much do I need to spend on a standard zoom to get similar quality to the prime lens? (Link shown so people can see Aussie dollar options I'm looking at.)

The most difficult part of this choice is having no idea how good these lenses are!

I see there is a Sigma that looks good:
http://www.digitalcame​rawarehouse.com.au/pro​d9844.htm

Not a great deal more than the prime lens.

For me it's a question of spending around $400 - 500 now (probably on a prime), spending just a little more on a good standard zoom if there is one that is really good, but if I need to spend closer to $1k then it's a purchase that will have to wait.

Decisions, decisions.

You are focused on your budget which is good, but the most important thing is - what do you spend most of your time shooting? This is the best method of determining your lens choice. Once you figure that out, then worry about price.

The 18-55 is not a bad lens. It's a cheap, toyish lens, which lends to people not even giving them a chance. As far as sharpness, they are fine. They aren't as sharp as some, but sharpness is far from everything in a lens. How close can you focus? How bad is the CA if it exists? Barrel distortion? Pincushion? These are some other important things to consider. The 18-55 is an all around average lens that does a little of everything Ok, but not spectacularly. It's perfect for someone that doesn't particularly care or know too much about cameras to pop on and use. That's what it was made for. I stuck with mine for almost a year before I over to anything else. I always keep my kit lenses to sell with the camera, but I find myself using it from time to time. Check out the Flickr group for this lens and you'll see sharpness isn't an issue.

My opinion is that if you can't get a sharp shot with a tripod and focusing manually with live view or whatever, you have another problem going on. The lens may be defective. Either way, let us know what you get!

I have the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS for use on my 7D, it should have the red ring on this lens as its every bit as good as the L series.

Also check out these guys, I've bought plenty from them with no issues.

http://www.eglobaldigi​talcameras.com.au …nses-interchangeable.html
http://www.eglobaldigi​talcameras.com.au …m-f2.8-is-usm-lenses.html

I wouldn't concern myself with the aperture so much for product shots. You're (most likely) using lights, and you probably need the depth of field more, anyway. I use a Tamron 17-50 for my product shots, and as a general lens. The prime may be limiting as a general purpose lens.

I vote for one of the zooms.

Whoever told you that the standard zoom 18 - 55 EFS 1:3.5-5.6 II "is a particularly bad lens" is just plain full of crap. Just look at the Lens Sample Photo Archive section for that lens.

https://photography-on-the.net …986&highlight=c​anon+18-55

I have both the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon EF-S 15-85 that you have the link to. Look at the reviews you will find the 15-85 rated better, both are good lenses but the 15-85 just plain shines. I bought the 17-70 first then got an opportunity to try the 15-85. If you choose one of those two go for the 15-85 it is an outstanding Lens. I love mine.

I also have to wonder about the comments toward the 18-55 kit, it is a good lens, yes there are better but it is NOT a bad lens. I got a lot of good shots using it before I upgraded.

Yeah, I had the old version of the Sigma 17-70 and it was a sharp lens. I bought it after the new 17-70 came out, so I only paid just over $200.00 for it. I ended up selling it though for my Canon 18-135. I wanted the extra range. The 17-70 is cool because you can focus on something that's basically right on the front element.

The Sigma 17-70 is a sharp lens. It has a few flaws at 17 - 20mm, but for the rest of the range, at least for my copy, it was well worth what I paid for it.

Etude wrote in post #16744146
I use the standard zoom 18 - 55 EFS 1:3.5-5.6 II and in another thread, someone commented that this is a particularly bad lens. My problem seems to be that none of my shots ever come out sharp. Even when using a tripod, studio lenses and a small aperture.

Check to make sure you have the IS turned OFF when using a tripod. When mounted on a rigid platform like a tripod, the IS will actively try to stabilize its own movement causing a kind of feedback loop and make an image blurrier.

Most lens, even the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, will not be incredibly sharp wide open.

For product shots, lighting is the key. The 18-55 II will be barely discernible from a 17-55 when stepped down to F8 on a tripod. There's no point spending out on a F1.4 lens to shoot at F8. Why don't you post an example of what your camera/lens is producing to see if you have other issues going on.
Please don't buy another lens until you figure out what's stopping yours from performing, maybe your money could be better spent elsewhere. People on here mean well, but they LOVE to spend other guys money

I don't know if you consider the 50 1.8 as a serious lens, if not, then my first serious lens was a 70-200 f4 is.