Kit Upgrade Options

Hey, new member here. I've been reading several posts and have done countless hours of research and am stuck in deciding my next lens purchase. I'm hoping that the large amount of knowledge on this forum will be able to help me. I currently have low-grade gear and while I know I have room to grow as a photographer (who doesn't?), I see issues with my current lens. I'm using a Rebel T3i (600D) with:

Canon 18-55 IS II f3.5-5.6 (non-STM)
Super Takumar 55 f1.8
S-M-C Takumar 135 f3.5

The Super Takumar 55 1.8 is easily my sharpest lens, and by a large margin. Stopped down to f3.5 and it's sharp throughout the frame. I don't mind manual focusing (using Magic Lantern with focus peak and 10x zoom), but it does slow me down quite a bit and prevents me from taking any short of action shot. The kit lens is quite dreadful for what I (try) to use it for, normal perspective landscape shots. Even shooting at f8-f11, the corners are quite soft. I recently borrowed a Canon 17-40 f4 L and it was a good amount sharper than the kit lens. However, my Super Takumar 55 easily beats it at every aperture throughout its zoom range. The S-M-C Takumar 135 f3.5 is a lot like the kit lens. It's usable, but you really need to stop down to f5.6 or f8 for it to be decently sharp. At that focal length and at those apertures, it can be hard to achieve the needed 1/200 second shutter speed to prevent hand shake. More disappointing, however, is its minimum focal distance, which seems to be around 5-6 feet. As such, it's hard to fill the frame with the subject, which is what I'd be using the lens for.

So, what am I looking for? I typically shoot with my 55 Tak and really enjoy it, although it is soft before f3.5. When I use the kit lens, I usually shoot it in the 18-24 mm range. I enjoy that range for landscape, but really like subject separation and high-bokeh types of shots. I pretty much only do nature shots of either landscapes or interesting subjects (like fall leaves, berries, flowers, etc.). I'm looking to spend about $1000 and can go a bit above if needed.

Here's what I'm thinking in terms of potential combos:

1. Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (for landscape 18-24 range and it's extremely sharp for crop)
Samyang 85 f1.4 (sharper, but MF) or Canon 85 f1.8 (for subject separation types of shots)

2. Canon 24 f2.8 STM (for landscape...I'd only be shooting this at f5.6 and above)
Canon 70-200 f4 IS L (for subject separation, great sharpness. Bonus is that I could use this for some wildlife shots)

3. Canon 24 f2.8 STM (again, only would use this at f5.6, but it's a great value for this focal length)
Canon 100 f2.8 IS Macro L (for subject separation and macro, which is a plus)

Other lens that I've seen that are good:
Canon 100 f2.8 Macro
Samyang 135 f2 (looks sharper, but slightly harder to use than Canon's due to MF)
Canon 60 Macro (it's a little too close to the 55 Tak in terms of focal length and I do have extension tubes for the Tak)

I'm open to manual focus only lens, like Samyangs. I do enjoy USM focus, but it's really not required. Obviously, it comes down to what I shoot, but I really want the best lens I can get in terms of sharpness, bokeh (for > 50 mm), and color rendition within my range. I'll make adjustments as needed to my shooting style to make it work.

Notice that I didn't include Canon's 17-55 f2.8 IS or Sigma's 17-50 f2.8 OS lens as I really would only use them for the 17-24 mm range, which makes the Canon a bad value and the Sigma is really too soft in the corners for good landscape shots.

What are your thoughts? Am I overthinking this? I once considered the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 a no-brainer, but realized that I probably wouldn't use it at f1.8-f3.5, so it's not as easy of a decision. I do think that combo #1 is probably the sharpest combo, but I'm intrigued by both the Canon 70-200 f4 IS L and the Canon f2.8 IS Macro L for the zoom range and the macro capabilities. Obviously the Canon 100 f2.8 Macro is a good lens too, but no IS at 100 (160 view on crop) is a little harder to use if I'm not taking strictly macro shots with a tripod. Plus there's not a huge price difference between the two, so the L is preferred in my opinion.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I've been thinking about this for a little over a month and have read/watched too many Youtube reviews to count. I'm really at a standstill right now.

Thanks in advance and sorry for the long post!

If you wouldn't be using the 18-35 below f3.5 then I'm think the 18-35 might be over kill for your needs (and I LOVE the 18-35)

Have you thought instead of trying out a canon 10-22 or sigma 10-20 for your landscape shooting?

Both are cheaper then the sigma 18-35 which will free up more money.

With that said, don't over think this. There is no perfect lens combo so you'll drive yourself crazy trying to find one.

If it was me, I would go with option #1. But that's because I like my 18-35, 50, and 85 combo. I do use the 18-35 at f2 all the time though and don't use it for a lot of landscapes (I use a tokina 11-16 for wide shots and the 18-35 or even 50-150 when I want to compress things a bit more)

Get you YOU think you need. Done the road you might find a hole in your line up. When that happened find something to fill it with, or find a work around. Just don't over think it wltill you go crazy

The 18-35/1.8 is probably the best thing going for crop users, however it eats up a lot of your budget and it seems like you are trying to do a lot based on your options list. The new STM lenses are a sizable upgrade over their predecessors. I would get:
10-18 STM
18-55 STM
55-250 STM

Sell all three lenses you have now and then maybe add the 24/2.8 pancake and the 50/1.8 STM down the road a little bit to add back some aperture.

Heya,

You have tons of options for what you're doing. And being open to manual focus lenses already really pops open the doors. Based on what you described, you're usually stopped down for things. But you also seem to be getting into shallow depth of field type stuff, which comes from a few things (relative distance to subject, closer generates smaller depth of field; wide aperture). Your choices however, are all over the place. You've got wide angle, telephoto, fast, slow, etc, all in the same post. Not sure what you're really going to go after. But with a budget of $1k, you should be able to actually get a ton of stuff. I'll put together some thoughts:

18-55 STM - This lens is actually quite sharp, much improved optically than the 18-55 II. Consider a swap. It's usually $80 used/refurb/whitebox. Well worth it.
10-18 STM - Ultrawide, sharp enough. Something you don't already have covered. Cheap for what it is. $300 newish often.
10-22 - Ultrawide with even more range. Fantastic lens really, handles flare nicely, and the range is just awesome on APS-C. Generally $350~400 used.
15-85 IS - Superb landscape lens for APS-C, often $350 used. Covers a great broad range and is wider than most zooms in this category.

50 STM - This is sharp wide open at F1.8. While your takumar is fantastic, this lens will do that, sharper, and have AF. Cheap! $100. This is easily going to be the "separation" lens for you, being telephoto on APS-C, and so fast, and performing very well wide open.

55-250 STM - Sharp lens, great performance, inexpensive. Lots of reach for it's cost, and lots of optical worth for it's cost. $150~200 used/refurb/whitebox often. Unbeatable value on APS-C for reach. Fantastic for general wildlife, lunar, landscape, nature, etc.

Generally speaking for someone on APS-C doing a lot of landscape and nature, it's hard to beat a setup like: 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 55-250 STM and a 50 STM thrown in for the wide aperture telephoto stuff. Inexpensive full kit too, that covers ultrawide to telehpoto, for cheap. You could get that all around $650. Optically very good. Rivals some older L lenses (17-40, 70-200 F4L non-IS, etc) in many ways. The latest STM stuff is really, really high value if you're wanting good glass for nature without the extreme costs.

Other lenses to know about:

Yongnuo 50 F1.8 - It's only $50 with AF. Worth keeping an eye out for, it's sharp wide open.
Yongnuo 35 F2 - It's only $100 with AF. Sharp wide open, wider, fantastic for everything.

Super Takumar 28mm F3.5 - $40 often. Fantastic, normal FOV lens on APS-C, sharp. Manual. If you're stopping down for landscape, I'd get this over the 24 EF-S STM for cost, unless you want the AF.

Canon 70-200 F4L non-IS - $350~400 often. If you're doing nature and stopping down, no need for anything more. Optically awesome, inexpensive for what it is these days. Though the 55-250 STM rivals it for optics for cost. So on APS-C, the 55-250 STM would be my pick for cost since it performs here and better in some ways. On full frame, you wouldn't have that option so the 70-200 F4L non-IS is still worth a mention if that was ever an option down the road.

Tamron 17-35 - Great lens, rivals the 17-40L for less. $250~300ish often.

Tamron 28-75 F2.8 - Fantastic fast mid-range zoom. Cheap! $250?

Samyang's glass, like the 14mm F2.8, 24mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4 and 135mm F2 are all absolutely fantastic pieces of kit. Modern optics, great in every way. These lenses often smash AF lenses that cost much more. They are not cheap, but they are very good if you're wanting a fast prime without getting an old vintage one. The 85 F1.4 is a super bargain as it's normally $200 or so, but easily performs as well as $500+ lenses. The 14, 24 and 135 are optically superb. The 14mm is so cheap, it's hard not to own one for a wide, fast, sharp prime. The 24 & 35 are fantastic if you want normal field of view, fast options. The 135 F2 is absolutely stunning, optically beats the 135L actually. However, it's super long on APS-C, and if you're stopping it down, you might as well have a 70-200 instead.

Tons of vintage lenses out there that are awesome - Don't overlook them all, you already have a taste with your Takumar.

***************

Things to consider:

18-35 F1.8 Sigma is a fantastic lens. It's also $650 used, heavy, and huge. While it is a wonderful lens, depending on your application, it may not be ideal within your budget for your uses. If you think about it, do you really need F1.8 at 18mm? It starts to show nice separation at 35mm at F1.8. But if you're stopping it down at all, you kind of lose the point of the lens. Think of this, if you stopped it down to F2.8 (this is just over 1 stop only), you're already looking at a 18-35 F2.8, which exists in many forms in the 17-50 F2.8's, or even things like the 17-35 Tamron, etc. From there, 1 more stop and you're at things like the normal wide to mid-telephoto zooms. If you really want wide aperture & isolation from that, I would use a simple fast telephoto like the 50 STM instead. You'll get more of that. If you're doing a lot of stopping down for landscape, I would look to other lenses for cost here. The moment you stop this lens down, I'd start considering something like the 15-85 IS instead. Just a thought! Again, use a telehpoto with wide aperture for separation if you want that perhaps. Maybe rent this lens to see how you feel about it before committing to it.

***************

Canon EF-S 10-18 STM
Canon EF-S 18-55 STM
Canon EF-S 55-250 STM
Canon EF 50 F1.8 STM

If you don't feel you'd want wider than 18mm, then you could drop the 10-18. You could also replace with a Rokinon 14mm F2.8 prime.
If you feel you would spend the majority of time in the 18-55 range, you could consider a 17-40 F4L used for $400.
If you wanted to combine all those focal ranges, you could instead just consider a 15-85 IS.

Plenty of budget left over for other toys.

I imagine you already have a good tripod and mount system? If not, I'd put some of your budget here.

Very best,

The only advantage the 24 STM has over the 18-55 II is an f/2.8 aperture. If you are shooting at f/5.6 anyway, why bother with the 24? You also lose IS with the 24. Optically, you'll never see the difference from f/5.6 to f/11.

Thanks everyone! That's some really helpful advice. I hadn't even considered getting the new STM kit lens or other STM lens (besides the 24mm). That's a lot of information to digest, so I'll spend the next few days looking over each lens mentioned and see how it fits.

I'm thinking that maybe I spend $300 or so on some STMs to improve some areas, and then spend the rest on one better quality lens. I haven't really had a chance to use a good quality telephoto lens, but I do like the idea of say a 70-200. That said, I think a 85 (or longer) f1.4 or f1.8 would be really nice to have and I would use that almost exclusively between f1.4-f2.8 for the subject separation. The thing that's tough at longer focal lengths is that there's a greater need for IS, which greatly increasing the price (e.g. 70-200 f4 IS L is twice the price of non-IS version). The STM 55-250 looks like a great lens for the price, but I would prefer a faster lens at those focal lengths. That said, again, it's crazy for the price so I'll have to consider it. Plus, maybe a get the STM 55-250, see how I like it, and if I find a need to go faster, consider getting a faster prime within that range.

Thanks for the idea of replacing the 55 Tak with the Canon 50 f1.8 STM. I do like the focal range and would definitely use it at f1.8-f2.8 for the subject separation, which it is much stronger than my 55 Tak at. So that's a good replacement and not something I had considered previously because the Tak is pretty good.

So right now, I'm sold on the idea of replacing my 55 Tak with the Canon 50 f1.8 STM, especially for the crazy price. From there, I'm leaning more towards the Canon 18-55 STM (has good quality stopped down). That would get me 18-55 and 50. Together, that's under $230, so that would still leave me with $770 or so. Again, the $1000 is just a value I picked and I would be willing to go higher if it makes a big difference.

Do you think 18-55 and 50 STMs is a good idea? Or is something like the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 too good and I should just pick that up and adjust my shooting style to that? I do love shooting at f1.8 and f2.8, but I haven't really had the chance at smaller focal lengths and am not sure how useful that is since I have to be that much closer to a subject to get the same kind of bokeh as say at 55mm at f1.8 or f2.8.

As for my other gear, my tripod is okay, I have a good monopod, and I have a good flash (Speedlite 430EX II with a good small softbox). So I think I'm okay there.

I had the 18-55 II in a previous life. Nothing wrong with it for the money. I just picked up an 18-55 STM for my 70D. It is a lot better than the version II model. Optics are better, no doubt on this one. IS seems better (wishful thinking?). Focus is faster and less noisy. The STM does 1:1 macro with 25mm tube (maybe II does, also). STM is killer for LiveView and video. Front element does not rotate when focusing or zooming. Great if you use filters.

Heya,

You don't need IS on a telephoto necessarily. 85mm on APS-C would be fine around 1/100s with good bracing, and pretty solid at 1/200s without really good technique. At F1.8~F2.8, ISO 400, in simple shade, you're going to be at 1/400s or higher anyways already. Don't worry about IS.

The 85 F1.8 is an excellent way to get a telehpoto that is fast for portrait outside. It's great wide open. It's also great stopped down a bit (F2, F2.8). Really fast AF, so it can double up for moving things really nicely too. Cheap at $250 often used. It's also very long on APS-C. Good for faces and stuff, but for full body, you'll be standing back 20 feet or more easy.

A 70-200 doesn't need IS unless you're afraid to use some ISO. Again, ISO 400 or so is plenty in shade or any form of day light while keeping that shutter around 1/200s~1/400s. IS is helpful at lower shutter speeds, but it's not something I'd stress at double the cost when you can just increase shutter speed and supplement with ISO. Doesn't take much. Different technique to shooting at higher ISO, but it's totally fine and I would not fear shooting ISO 3200 on that T3i at all. I frankly shoot higher on the same sensor and it's plenty clean. And I print.

The 18-55 STM & 50 STM makes tons of sense for what you do.

I think you'll like the 50 STM for isolation purposes (it's telephoto on APS-C). You may not need 85mm or longer. A 70-200 is really, really long on APS-C for portrait. It's nice for wildlife, but even then, that's not much reach for wildlife other than zoo, or really close range stuff (from a blind/hide) or large animals (really large). At 1 stop difference, I'd get the 55-250 STM for that to start. Save up for a long lens if you truly want to get into wildlife more (think 400mm as a starting point). Just as a suggestion at least.

The 50 F1.8 STM on APS-C will look very similar to an 85mm F2.8 on full frame. Great for portrait. Has plenty of isolation. And you're not having to stand back 30 feet like you will with a 70-200.

Then save your other budget money for later. After you shoot a while with those, you may find you want something else. And that's where the additional budget comes in.

**********

50 STM refurb with warranty from Canon (link to Canon).
18-55 STM refurb (link to Amazon).
That's $170 for both!
55-250 STM used/refurb (link to Amazon).
$150.
That's a hair over $300 for all three.
$700 left in budget for later, to get something more specific to what you really want, after you get some experience with a fast telephoto on APS-C (like that 50 STM will be for you), or even longer glass for wildlife (when you realize 250mm or less even on APS-C is still short for most wildlife unless you are dedicated to a hide/blind). This gives you tons of wiggle room later to afford a really high quality piece of fast telephoto (like an 85 F1.4, or 100 F2, or 135 F2) if you find you really like that. Or, lots of wiggle room for a big telephoto like a 100-400 F5.6L (used) or even towards something like a 150-600 flavor (not much more!).

Very best,

djh5331 wrote in post #17792826
Or is something like the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 too good and I should just pick that up and adjust my shooting style to that?

The 18-35 is an amazing lens, but you should not adjust your shooting to a lens. Rather get lenses that fit with your shooting style.

The 18-35 should be bought if you need the extra speed of f1.8 and the slight increase in IQ. The difference in blurring out backgrounds at wide focal lengths is minimal between f1.8 and f3.5. Obviously if you're close to your subject and your background is a good distance away you will still get some good out of focus areas but the closer you get the more perspective distortion you will get as well.

The 18-55stm is a nice lens and better quality then the older 18-55's. The 50stm is shaping up to be a good buy (I haven't used one personally). You seem rather interested in the 85mm f1.8 and I can say that is a very good lens as well (just know it can have some major purple fringing).

Image stabilization isn't super important at telephoto lengths as long as you can keep your shutter speed high enough. Also IS wont help at all of the subject is moving, then it's all about shutter speed. So don't get locked into the "I must have IS" thinking. It is great to have when you do need it but people lived without it for a long time.

Hey guys,

Thanks again for the advice! These three lens are really too cheap to pass up on so I'll get all three of them and will re-evaluate what I want in a few months if needed. I was able to find the 50 1.8 refurbished for $86, the 55-250 refurbished for $110, and a never-used 18-55 for $74. That's $270 for three lens...that's crazy. Even if the Canon 50 f1.8 isn't much better than my 55 Tak, and the 18-55 STM isn't much better than my current IS II version, it's still good value and is worth the attempt. From what I'm seeing, the 18-55 STM has better corner sharpness at f5.6-f8 than my version between 18-24mm, which is really all I'm looking for in that lens. The internal focusing is a huge plus as well for polarizing filters, which I do use. The 50 f1.8 has decent flare control and looks decently sharp at f1.8, so hopefully that replaces my Tak for f1.8-f3.5 types of shots. The 55-250 looks really good considering its price...much better than say the older 70-300 f4-5.6 III, which I have used and can attest that it has its share of issues. So I'm excited to see what that can do for me. From there, the advantage to using chipped lens is that I can see the aperture and the focal lens after putting them on my computer and can do a more thorough analysis of what focal length and aperture that I use versus guessing with my two Taks.

I also appreciate the advice on getting (or not getting) IS with telephoto lens. I'll keep that in mind for my next purchase.

Thanks again everyone!