My first thread here, :) advice is always nice

Hello guys, as said, my first thread and I hope I can get some good advice on what lens to choose:

First off, let me introduce the candidates (feel free to suggest more as suitable):

Budget:
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF-s 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM
both around 280 - 300 pounds

Investment:
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
EF 24-105 f/4.0 L IS USM
both around 700 - 800 pounds

What I currently have:
450D with kit lens
50mm f/1.8
EF-S 55-250mm IS
580EXII :P

One thing is, I am looking to REPLACE my kit lens, and maybe selling it to get some money for the replacement lens. Two things here:
1) would you guys suggest selling the 18-55 kit lens when buying "investment" lens as replacement? Its not like a somewhat 90 pounds would matter that much when buying an 800 pounds lens.

2) I tend to think 18-55mm is limiting especially on the 55mm end, its rare that I will NEED the 18mm end unless I am in a very small room or need it for f/3.5 + cropping.

As said by others, buying "compromise" lens like the budget ones I have listed, I am only going to end up selling them again. (although maybe not in years) Would you guys say its a big mistake to buy one of the budget lenses, sell them after few years and upgrade to the two investment lenses? Should I go straight for the higher end one?

I can afford it, but being a student its an extremely big purchase. Considering all my gears worth in total about 1100 pounds, a 800 pounds lens feels like I'd be better off getting a new camera body for the lens lol.

So if you guys will, please give me some advice and suggestions. Budget vs Investment? And also, which lens is better?

I have heard that the 17-85mm has a soft wide end, how would it compare to the highly rated 28-135mm ? I hope the 28-135 is more well-built since it offers better range as well, and like I said, I rarely NEED 17mm, and 28mm is usually wide enough anyway even on my 1.6x crop 450D.

comparing the investment lenses, the 17-55 will definitely be a good lens to have with f/2.8 and IS, but the range suffers the same problem. Since I have a decent 580EXII flash and at 17-55 usually things are in reach by the 580EXII. I hope the 24-105mm L will be a good investment for all-in-one walkaround.

Thanks in advance for the help. Stickies are really helpful, but some update would definitely help

Well, I'll start off. First budget v. investment lens. In my opinion, you already have the best budget lens if its the 18-55 IS kit lens. I would keep that over the two budget lenses you're considering. In any case, I would skip those and move on to "investment" lenses.

Out of the two investment lenses you're considering its clear from reading your post that the 24-105 will meet your needs better than the 17-55. You think the 18-55 is "limiting". Well, the 17-55 will be limiting in the same way. Also, you rarely need 18mm. The 24-105 will give you more range and has good IS. It doesn't have 2.8, but I think you're flash will cover you nicely. The 24-105 works GREAT as a walk around lens. As a side note, I'd keep your kit lens. Keep it for those few times you do need wider than 24mm. Its a good little lens. I own both the investment lenses you're considering. Usually I recommend the 17-55, but considering your needs, the 24-105 will work better for you.

And welcome to the forum!

Gapton wrote in post #7872803
Hello guys, as said, my first thread and I hope I can get some good advice on what lens to choose:

First off, let me introduce the candidates (feel free to suggest more as suitable):

Budget:
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF-s 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM
both around 280 - 300 pounds

Investment:
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
EF 24-105 f/4.0 L IS USM
both around 700 - 800 pounds

What I currently have:
450D with kit lens
50mm f/1.8
EF-S 55-250mm IS
580EXII :P

One thing is, I am looking to REPLACE my kit lens, and maybe selling it to get some money for the replacement lens. Two things here:
1) would you guys suggest selling the 18-55 kit lens when buying "investment" lens as replacement? Its not like a somewhat 90 pounds would matter that much when buying an 800 pounds lens.

2) I tend to think 18-55mm is limiting especially on the 55mm end, its rare that I will NEED the 18mm end unless I am in a very small room or need it for f/3.5 + cropping.

As said by others, buying "compromise" lens like the budget ones I have listed, I am only going to end up selling them again. (although maybe not in years) Would you guys say its a big mistake to buy one of the budget lenses, sell them after few years and upgrade to the two investment lenses? Should I go straight for the higher end one?

I can afford it, but being a student its an extremely big purchase. Considering all my gears worth in total about 1100 pounds, a 800 pounds lens feels like I'd be better off getting a new camera body for the lens lol.

So if you guys will, please give me some advice and suggestions. Budget vs Investment? And also, which lens is better?

I have heard that the 17-85mm has a soft wide end, how would it compare to the highly rated 28-135mm ? I hope the 28-135 is more well-built since it offers better range as well, and like I said, I rarely NEED 17mm, and 28mm is usually wide enough anyway even on my 1.6x crop 450D.

comparing the investment lenses, the 17-55 will definitely be a good lens to have with f/2.8 and IS, but the range suffers the same problem. Since I have a decent 580EXII flash and at 17-55 usually things are in reach by the 580EXII. I hope the 24-105mm L will be a good investment for all-in-one walkaround.

Thanks in advance for the help. Stickies are really helpful, but some update would definitely help

that is why you have the 55-250 IS.

i had both 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS for a short period of time & i can say that both are very good lenses for their price. i strongly suggest both to most newbies & photogs on a budget.

im not a fan of both 17-85 & 28-135. havent tried any of those though so i cant comment much on them.

my advice is if you could afford any of your "investment" lenses, go for it. both are excellent lenses. if not, stick to your current line-up & upgrade when you could afford it. your last statement which i highlighted is a "wrong" approach, IMO. dont feel bad about buying an expensive thinking you should rather upgrade your camera body. you should always upgrade glass 1st than bodies.

Jeff81 wrote in post #7873362
Well, I'll start off. First budget v. investment lens. In my opinion, you already have the best budget lens if its the 18-55 IS kit lens. I would keep that over the two budget lenses you're considering. In any case, I would skip those and move on to "investment" lenses.

Out of the two investment lenses you're considering its clear from reading your post that the 24-105 will meet your needs better than the 17-55. You think the 18-55 is "limiting". Well, the 17-55 will be limiting in the same way. Also, you rarely need 18mm. The 24-105 will give you more range and has good IS. It doesn't have 2.8, but I think you're flash will cover you nicely. The 24-105 works GREAT as a walk around lens. As a side note, I'd keep your kit lens. Keep it for those few times you do need wider than 24mm. Its a good little lens. I own both the investment lenses you're considering. Usually I recommend the 17-55, but considering your needs, the 24-105 will work better for you.

And welcome to the forum!

+1 on this...

...& welcome to the forum Gapton!

Firstly, as mentioned, is the kit lens the 18-55 IS or the vanilla one?

If it's the 18-55 IS, you wont see any IQ increase with the propsed budget lenses.

If you dotn want to invest heavily, have a look at the other manufacturers out there. Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 are great bang for buck lenses. Sigma has a couple in the same range. The bonus with these is the constant f2.8

If money is not an issue, go for the 17-55. Arguably the best lens for crop cameras.

If I can get 17-55 on my full frame without crazy vignetting, I'd get it in a heartbeat.

The 17-55 2.8 IS is simply the best lens you can get for crop body. the 2.8 combined with IS will give you a lot of flexibility.

If you rarely need the wide end of your kit lens and 55mm is limiting for you, then a 24-105L is a good option. The 17-55, although a superior lens to the 18-55, it would put you back to square one in terms of focal length limitation.

My recommendation would be the Tamron 28-75 (excellent quality and fast) combined with a 70-200L f4IS - should total around £1200ish - much cheaper than the 17-55/24-105 which would cost c.£1600. The Tamron will give you a fantastic range that you're looking for and the 70-200 is an excellent lens and is viewed by many as one of, if not the, sharpest zoom in the Canon range.

If you want really stretch your budget and invest for a longer term then the 24-70L/70-200L 2.8IS would be the perfect combo...although you'll be looking at £2.3k! Ouch!

Gapton wrote in post #7872803
Should I go straight for the higher end one?

I can afford it, but being a student its an extremely big purchase. Considering all my gears worth in total about 1100 pounds, a 800 pounds lens feels like I'd be better off getting a new camera body for the lens lol.

don't go for 'budget' glass, since it wont be much of an upgrade of what you have atm. then again, if you want to spend 800quid on a new body instead, it won't shine without...you know where I'm going

Thanks guys its been really helpful. It suddenly springs into my mind that....

If the budget lenses are not going to be much of an improvement, then maybe I'm better of with a 1.4x converter? Making the reliable kit lens 24-77mm with IS

One thing is, I tried the 17-85mm IS USM from a friend, and the USM is quite decent. How would you rate the importance of USM in a walkaround lens? I find the USM's speed and silence very appealing, but I can hardly think of any situation where I will absolutely NEED the USM. Except maybe shooting flowers that are dancing in the wind, but then I probably shouldnt shoot flowers in windy weather to begin with.

What do you think USM is important to? Sports photography? Definitely not landscape I think....

The Canon 1.4x extender does not support your kit lens. I don't know if there are any 3rd-party units that would work or what quality is available but in any case use of an extender will reduce the maximum aperture of the 18-55 lens to f8 at the long end.

Welcome to POTN.

usm is the type motor to autofocus the lens - quicker than other designs so moving subjects will be in focus faster [Slightly]

more important is the is or image stabilization which allows you to shoot 2-4 times slower shutter speed [depending on the lens is generation] which can allow you to get good pic w/o using a flash

Welcome to the forums. All the lenses that you have the ability of taking very good pictures stopped down. The 28-135 is a good lens with alot of range. The thing is, once you start down the road of "L" lenses, you'll never want to go back. Good Luck with your choice.


Ron

Looking to your needs, I would buy the 24-105 lens.
It has the reach you want and it has IS.
I'm a student to, so I know how hard it is to save a little, but in the end, you'll make profit out of that.
I cannot buy all the stuff I want and I have to do with what I have, but I think you can learn much with not having the tools you need. You have to think in a creative way and sometimes the results will be better .

Maybe a cheap place to buy your gear:
www.tradecamerasonline​.com online store in the uk.
Kerso, he's a member on this forum with many happy buyers!

Welcome to the forum. Looks like you've done a lot of research already.

Buy the best lens you can afford if you think photography is something you want to do for many years. From your narrative, it sounds like the 17-55 is not in the range you want, so that would leave the 24-105. I have this lens, and it is excellent. It also has the benefit of working on a full frame camera if youdecide to move up later.

In the end, all the lenses will take great pictures. They all have limitations. We've all gone through this deal. At some point, you've just got to decide and never look back.