Which is a better quality lens

If I had a few busck to spend on a lens, the "L" serises is out right now, which is the better of the two, a cannon Ef or EF-S lens. I have a 28-80 EF and a 18-55 EF-S. I use the 18-55 mostly. Which is the better of the 2. Thanks

Hulka wrote in post #3154072
If I had a few busck to spend on a lens, the "L" serises is out right now, which is the better of the two, a cannon Ef or EF-S lens. I have a 28-80 EF and a 18-55 EF-S. I use the 18-55 mostly. Which is the better of the 2. Thanks

it is easy , I know this 28-80 is about 10 years old and designated for film rebels.

and the 28-80 is not wide enough if you are into landscape or city scpapes , so better get the kit lens.

but if you can spend USd300 , get a Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50.

I currently prefer the Sigma better and found it more useful for my particular subjects but well it is all up to what you 're gonna shoot.

They both suck. But the 18-55 is less sucky.

Don't let the negative comments about the 18-55 kit lens bother you. It's an ideal starter lens for someone new to photography, as it gives you enough wide angle, and sufficient telephoto range, to cover most of your shooting needs.

To see what this lens is capable of in the hands of an experienced photographer, take a look at some of the images in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …?t=185522&highl​ight=18-55

^Definitely. By no means is the kit lens sucky. Great description by the way.

How much money and are those your choices? As for which is better EF or EF-S. That's not...neither are better or worse. Canon's 10-22 is often consider to be a lens that should be an L but it's not even EF which all L's are. So, neither is better, just EF-S don't lean toward pro lenses.

Still, kit lens is awesome when you learn and you will. So, back to money and lens.

In terms of optical quality they might both be on about the same level. But given that the 28-80mm (depending on which version you have) is at least 7 years old, the new 18-55mm will probably have the edge.

That said you have to bear in mind the 1.6X crop factor of your camera. Any lens you use will appear to be 'longer' or more 'tele' than if used on a film camera or a DSLR with a FF sensor. The 28-80mm is not that wide in this case and the 18-55mm will offer you a more usable range.

But if you are indeed looking for a standard-tele zoom lens, and can step up to the Canon 24-85mm or 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II, these are also good non-L lenses.

EORI wrote in post #3154175
Don't let the negative comments about the 18-55 kit lens bother you. It's an ideal starter lens for someone new to photography, as it gives you enough wide angle, and sufficient telephoto range, to cover most of your shooting needs.

To see what this lens is capable of in the hands of an experienced photographer, take a look at some of the images in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …?t=185522&highl​ight=18-55

Everything looks good at web resolution and/or f/8.

cdifoto wrote in post #3154157
They both suck. But the 18-55 is less sucky.

yeah , it's a great answer.

Sorry if I was too technical. Sometimes I get carried away...

cdifoto wrote in post #3154397
Sorry if I was too technical. Sometimes I get carried away...

As they always say in photography, 'less is more'. In this case very few words may still be overflowing with meaning.

That is what I currently have at this time. I would like to upgrade to a better lenses. If I have to sell all 3 to buy 1 decent one then so be. I keep hearing that the 50 Macro , nifty fifty, is a great lens and I might look at one of those. I use the 18-55 mostly. I guess I should just save and get a "L" lens in that range.

Any other input will be greatful.

The Tamron 17-50, as has already been recommended, is probably the best bang for your buck. The range, constant aperture, and image quality are all great.

And the Tamron built like a tank.

OK how is that new one they have out, that goes to like 200? Worth getting?