Lens selection help

I recently upgraded form an EOS 550D to the EOS 80D. I absolutely love that camera. But on the hunt for better glass to pair it with, I'd like some advice. I've read a lot about a lot of different lenses but could do with some real world guidance.

I used the 550D with the ef-s 18-200 that came out around the same time. I've always liked that, but lately I felt IQ sharpness was down. The new 80D seems to confirm that. My example has suffered some bumps over the years and recently a pretty substantial jolt and seems to have lost some smoothness in zoom motion and some sharpness. Either that or I need to do AFMA on the 80D. Checking this sharpness by Canon and possibly fixing is probably quite expensive (given that fixing a broken flash shoe on the 550D has just cost 231 euro to fix).

Now I have a desire to own a really good lens with really good glass to get a definite step up in image quality. I'm an allround photographer with a passion for portraits and IQ to me is very important when dealing with eyes.

Also I'd like to (for now) find a combination of two lenses to cover my WA to Tele range. That is a budget and practicality thing. I'm not making a living out of photography so can't currently justify fast primes etc.

I'm seeing all sorts of nice lenses to choose from, and there is something to say for each of them, but I just can't seem to get to a decision on which would suit me best. I'm looking at second handmarket (in europe).

The list I'm contemplating and between the parenthesis what I THINK I've learned about them:
- EF 70-200 F4 L IS (affordable and supposedly superior IQ, well loved, but F4)
- EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS (slightly more expensive, F2.8, but reported heavy, possibly slightly less in IQ, also well loved)
- EF 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS (same price range as the F2.8, but another 100mm zoom capability, somewhat less in IQ, and F4 up)
- EF 28-300 F3.5-5.6 L IS (harder to find, slightly more expensive, good IQ but noticably less than the 2.8, also more distortion and F3.5 quickly moves to 5.6 when zoomed)
- EF 100-400 F4-5.6 L IS (somewhat cheaper, but only affordable in the older model)

So as those are telelenses, that leaves a gap to fill. I'd like to maintain the 18mm WA. If I go for an EF 70-xxx option, this means I have to cover spoken in efs format 18-135 to have a small overlap. I read good things about the new nano usm 18-135 regarding sharpness being a step up from the 18-200. So I could go a little more budget here and get the better glass from ef 70-xxx up.

If I'd go for the EF 28-300 I'd have a smaller gap to fill, but I don't know yet which lens would be best suited to do so.
If I'd go for the EF 100-400 I'd be left with a pretty big gap to cover. And again wanting to move up from the IQ of the efs 18-200 I don't know the alternative.

I'm curious to learn from those of you with hands on experience and I hope you will help me gain the needed insights.

Alex

I think the least expensive way to cover the most range is: EFs 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (not STM), and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM (not II).

I just bought the 18-135 USM, and am surprised how good it is. I use it on an 80D. The optics are the same as with the 18-135 STM, excellent. The focus speed and accuracy a simply amazing. I equate with my 70-200 f/4L IS USM, which is excellent at both. This gives you a 'wide-enough' lens that will cover all your general shooting needs. I got mine on E-Bay for $250. It looks new.

For the long end of things, the original Canon 100-400 is hard to beat. They are selling at fire-sale prices. I've seen asking prices of $650 here on POTN. There are alternatives; Sigma has a new 100-400 for $800, I think. Optically, it is reviewed to be better than the 100-400L, but it is slower (aperture) by 1/3 stop. TDP also reviews it to have some focus accuracy issues that may be resolvable with the Sigma dock. Tamron has just announced a new 100-400 to be released by the end of the year. I bought my 100-400L about 7 years ago, when it cost $1600. I still think the image quality, and focus speed and accuracy represent the original price tag well. I have no desire to upgrade it.

Two quick additional comments. Your 18-200 wasn't very good to start with. It isn't getting worse, your eye for detail is getting better (my take ). The 50 STM is available in the US for $89. EU can't be THAT much more. It is a perfect first prime for the 80D. You will like f/1.8.

I'll second Tom's recommendation of the EF-S 18-135 nano USM. I got mine with my 80D about a year ago. It's a great everyday, walk around lens and seems made for the 80D. The only sharper lens I have is the 24 f/2.8 STM. For longer, EF-S 55-250 STM is great value at about AU$200 (presumably much fewer $ in US).

Pippan wrote in post #18470261
I'll second Tom's recommendation of the EF-S 18-135 nano USM. I got mine with my 80D about a year ago. It's a great everyday, walk around lens and seems made for the 80D. The only sharper lens I have is the 24 f/2.8 STM. For longer, EF-S 55-250 STM is great value at about AU$200 (presumably much fewer $ in US).

You don't indicate that you are into video, but the "nano" lens coupled with a specialized accessory does have some special characteristics should you ever lean that way. See the thread at https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18469985.

Thanks, your opinion on the 18-135 was noted elsewhere on the forum and a contributing factor (along with recent reviews) to go with this as the new run around.

Yes, a 50mm F1.8 is not expensive and it along with an 85mm are considered for adding later on. Right now I want a more than decent all rounder and something a bit more impressive in the longer range.

The endorsement on the 18-135 is good to read.

The 55-250 is in a different class than I would really like, although I agree, for what ist is and costs, it is a great package!

Video on my 550D was not up to what I expected from it. Had a lot of issues with focus etc. I have found that the 80D is lightyears ahead on that front and I'm sure I will use it more often now. But I am a photographer by experience first so video will come second to that.

I do know the nano usm is fast and quiet making it excellent for the 80D's video capabilities. Are those the characteristics you mean?

Eurogranada wrote in post #18470270
The 55-250 is in a different class than I would really like, although I agree, for what ist is and costs, it is a great package!

Perhaps, but it is also in a different class to the 18-200 (see here) and may rival the 100-400L on a crop camera (see here).

Eurogranada wrote in post #18470271
I do know the nano usm is fast and quiet making it excellent for the 80D's video capabilities. Are those the characteristics you mean?

I think he means the power zoom adapter that goes with that lens.

Eurogranada wrote in post #18470270
The endorsement on the 18-135 is good to read.

The 55-250 is in a different class than I would really like, although I agree, for what ist is and costs, it is a great package!

I had the 55-250 STM... for about 2 weeks. I picked it up at one Canon's Refurb garage sales. I think I paid like $139 for it, though I don't remember exactly. Optically, pretty decent, for the money. Focus speed is dinosaur slow. Then again, I already owned the 70-200 f/4 IS. Perspective is everything, I suppose.

Pippan wrote in post #18470277
Perhaps, but it is also in a different class to the 18-200 (see here) and may rival the 100-400L on a crop camera (see here).

I use the 100-400L on a crop camera. No way the 18-200 is even close. First off, 200 is nowhere near 400. Second, the 18-200 is worse at the long end than the 18-135 IS, which was crap at 135. The 100-400 is better at 400mm than the 70-300L is at 300 (PZ.de). Both of them are hugely better than the 18-200's long end.

100% crop from 100-400L, wide open:

Bassat wrote in post #18470282
I had the 55-250 STM. Focus speed is dinosaur slow. Then again, I already owned the 70-200 f/4 IS.

I've had no trouble using the 55-250 STM to keep up with polocrosse (like lacrosse on horseback) but I've never tried a white lens. Might be time I got one.

Pippan wrote in post #18470285
I've had no trouble using the 55-250 STM to keep up with polocrosse (like lacrosse on horseback) but I've never tried a white lens. Might be time I got one.

Don't rush. My test 'subject' was a tree squirrel. Fast, darty, and at quite close range. Very taxing on the AF system. I will assume that the horses are more that 10 to 15 feet from you, and not moving as erratically as squirrels. Don't spend $1,000 to upgrade a lens that does what you need it to do. I am not the boss of tele-zooms!

Ah yes, I could have guessed that but I didn't as it's an add on, not a lens characteristic in itself. In my experience, with a smooth zoom ring, I don't really feel the need to spend the extra on that just yet.

Eurogranada wrote in post #18470287
Ah yes, I could have guessed that but I didn't as it's an add on, not a lens characteristic in itself. In my experience, with a smooth focus ring, I don't really feel the need to spend the extra on that just yet.

The attachment has nothing to do with focus. It is a power zoom control. The 80D and 18-135 USM have no problem keeping up with focus during video.