Replacing kit lens

I am looking to replace my 18-55 is kit lens. I currently have the a 10-22, the kit lens, a 100mm macro, and a 70-200. The lenses I am considering are the canon 17-55, the tamron 17-50, and the canon 28-135. I'm leaning towards the tamron or the 28-135 to save money but am not sure how much I am sacrificing by not going with the 17-55. Part of me also feels like I am upgrading for the sake of upgrading. I feel a need to upgrade because of the stigma surrounding a "kit" lens. Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

The 28-135 IS lens is great value, especially on 1.6x crop bodies. I took thousands of photos with it before getting the 28-105, and some of those have subsequently been used for book covers and full-page magazine photos.

Yeah, whichever lens I choose will be my main walkaround lens. That's why I kind of like the idea of the 28-135 for the extra reach it will give me.

If you'd be satisfied with the same range as your kit lens, the 17-55 is a very nice lens. I have both.

-js

28-135 would be my last choice by far.

I love the 17-55 as a walkaround in natural light.

Though the 17-55 is my favorite lens on my croper, the one I reach for first, I've always liked the 28-135 as well. I've had three copies over the years, two were excellent and one a bit soft but I'm thinking that now on a MF body you can get them all to be sharp.

ougrad02 wrote in post #8580686
I feel a need to upgrade because of the stigma surrounding a "kit" lens. Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

don't let the upgrade fever get to you! the 18-55IS kit lens is a sharp lens, just take a look at the photos taken with the 450D (XSi) and the 18-55IS kit lens on this Flickr group
http://www.flickr.com/​groups/eos450dkitlens

watt100 wrote in post #8585263
don't let the upgrade fever get to you! the 18-55IS kit lens is a sharp lens

Sharpness probably is not the best reason to upgrade but the two stops of light gathering ability are huge. It can be the difference between a ISO3200 and ISO800 shot.

I'd love the 17-40L

17-55 is my dream lens. I heard Tamron is making a 17-50 with stabilization, it should be a lot cheaper than the Canon one. Either way both are not within my reach...

Paul,

A stablilized version of the Tamron would be interesting. I'm curious how much of a difference the IS would make at that focal length. You should be able to handhold some very good shots with the current Tamron. Oh well, too many choices and never enough money lol.

Watt,

It's hard to avoid the upgrade fever once you start glancing at all that's available! lol

Without breaking the bank, the Tamron 17-50 is a great lens. And I don't find myself wishing for IS much at that focal length. Anything longer yes, but under 50 I'm pretty happy without it. The lens is plenty sharp, and isn't huge, super expensive, or heavy.

The Canon 17-55IS is regarded as one of the best zoom lenses in Canon's lineup. Same useful range and aperture, but with IS, and probably more importantly USM. The Tamron's focusing is quite loud, and not very fast.

28-135 is well respected, but you have to be sure you will be happy with that range and lack of low light ability.

The 18-55 is a good lens, and focusing is better than the Tamron, but it is so slow.

My vote is for the Tamron 17-50, but now that the VC version is coming out, don't spend more than $400 for it.

I really want to go with the Tamron and not break the bank. I just hear so many great things about the 17-55.

i went with the 16-35 2.8 mk II to replace my kit lens...

17-55 2.8 IS, 17-50, 17-40 are all great lenses and great equivilants