Interested in adding a new lens to my arsenal... I shoot pretty much anything as a hobbyist.

Contemplating upgrading something in the range of the original Kit lens but I'm open to suggestions:

Current lineup:

Canon Rebel SL1

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Kit Lens

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Zoom

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

Heya,

The 40 STM is already in the range you've quoted.
The 50 F1.8 is also in the range you've quoted.

So really, if you stay in that range, you either replace the 18-55, or you go for something wider if you want a fixed focal length (prime) that is faster. That would be something like a EF 28mm F1.8, or Sigma 30mm F1.4 for example. Alternatively, if you don't mind the loss in speed, something like the EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM pancake. From there, if you wanted to consider zooms, it would be the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS, Tamron 17-50 (with VC or without VC), or simply a new 18-55 STM IS which is significantly nicer than the older kit 18-55's.

There's nothing better enough than the 10-22 to replace it at all (the 10-18 is a side grade, not an upgrade) in the EF-S line up.

The 75-300 is a throw-away lens, and you'd do well to replace this in every way. A 55-250 STM would be my first suggestion, followed by a Tamron 70-300 VC. There's also the 70-200 F4L non-IS used, which is very affordable and good too.

So it really comes down to what you shoot and where you want to see new perspectives or get gains.

Very best,

What he said. 55-250 STM or 70-200 f/4.

Yes something to replace the 75-300 would seem like a good idea. Any other current lens in that sort of range, from any of the major manufacturers, should be optically better than that lens. Reputedly the worst EF lens that Canon has ever made. I replaced mine with a Sigma 28-300 superzoom, and at all comparable focal lengths it was better. I'm not suggesting the Sigma is a great lens, it's OK but not stunning, just that the Canon really is not at all good. I found that it was not until I had used a relatively good telephoto zoom, the original 100-400L that I realized just how poor these cheap telephoto zooms really are.

Alan

Consider something with

• faster max aperture than what you have
  
• closer focus capability than what you have, to experiment more with 'macro'
  
• optically better than what you have
  

Wilt wrote in post #18068503
Consider something with

• faster max aperture than what you have
  
• closer focus capability than what you have, to experiment more with 'macro'
  
• optically better than what you have
  

As has been pointed out, the 75-300mm FL zoom has traditionally and repeated been a weak spot in Canon's lens lineup in spite of multiple generations of lens designs in that range.
The only one worth considering is the EF 70-300mm L IS...I have no idea why 7x-300 is otherwise such a chronically poor lens from Canon.

The 70-300L is a judgement call. It is excellent at the short end, and IQ deteriorates (poor word, still quite good) towards the longer end. At 300mm and wide open, the original 100-400L is optically superior, with better sharpness and more contrast. The 100-400L can be had for significantly less money than the 70-300L. The advantage to the 100-400 is a very small bit of IQ at the long end, lower cost (used) and 100 more mm of focal length. The advantage of the 70-300 is size and weight; it is a lot smaller/lighter than the 100-400. The difference between 300mm and 400mm is not as big as the numbers suggest. With any modern camera, you can crop a 300mm shot to a 400mm perspective with little/no loss of IQ.

Bassat wrote in post #18068507
The 70-300L is a judgement call. It is excellent at the short end, and IQ deteriorates (poor word, still quite good) towards the longer end. At 300mm and wide open, the original 100-400L is optically superior, with better sharpness and more contrast. The 100-400L can be had for significantly less money than the 70-300L. The advantage to the 100-400 is a very small bit of IQ at the long end, lower cost (used) and 100 more mm of focal length. The advantage of the 70-300 is size and weight; it is a lot smaller/lighter than the 100-400. The difference between 300mm and 400mm is not as big as the numbers suggest. With any modern camera, you can crop a 300mm shot to a 400mm perspective with little/no loss of IQ.

...yet the older 100-400mm zoom design is one of the most modest of optical performers (lowest MTF) bearing an 'L' label to be had!

Wilt wrote in post #18068516
...yet the older 100-400mm zoom design is one of the most modest of optical performers (lowest MTF) bearing an 'L' label to be had!

Ever shot a 17-40, 24-105 f/4? Neither of those are bastions of IQ. Both are incredibly popular, and very useful. I use PZ.de tables to compare my 100-400L to a 70-300L I've never shot. At (both lenses) 300mm and wide open, the 100-400L is simply better with respect to IQ. The 100-400 wide open at 400mm is only slightly below the 70-300 wide open at 300mm. If I didn't already own the 100-400 when the 70-300L came out, it would be a tough choice. Size & weight & short end IQ go to the 70-300. Cost, range and IQ at the longer end go to the 100-400L. Honestly, I believe they are close enough, that if you can live with your choice's short-comings, you'll be happy with either.

P.S. The trombone zoom of the original 100-400 will always faster to deploy than the twisty zoom of other lenses.

I agree with some of what's been posted, e.g., the low quality of the 75-300. However, as a general rule, upgrading without deciding how your current line-up is holding you back risks wasting money.

For example, if you find that the slow speed of your kit lens is holding you back, that would suggest one route, perhaps a Tamron 17-50 non-VC. (There are several other good options as well.) However, if you are finding that you can't get sharp enough pictures with your 75-300, that would suggest something completely different. I agree that even the 55-250, which is very cheap, would be better. So I think you will get more useful advice if you clarify what you most hope to gain with an upgrade.

No, no personal experience with 17-40 or 24-105. But photozone.de tests show MTF of the lenses to be...

• 17-40: 3373-3422 stopped down -1EV at different FL
  
• 24-105: 3359-3400 stopped down -1EV at different FL
  
• 100-400: 3104-3200 stopped down -1EV at different FL
  

A Sigma 17-50/2.8 would be a nice jump in performance over the 18-55. I am assuming you have the non STM version. The 55-250 STM would be a big jump in performance over the 75-300 too. Look for the 55-250 STM refurbished from Canon. You haven't mentioned budget but going refurbed would help stretch the budget.

I would get rid of two primes and get 24 2.8.
And switch to more capable camera. Hard to imagine how to use back button focusing on SL1 and without this function it is hard to get full potential from lenses.