short-to-mid lens recommendation

So I'm starting to consider my next lens, with an intent to try to buy it this summer. I can't afford more than $1000, and more like $700 would be better. Obviously, that means I'm not getting an L, much as I'd like to, but I'd still like a good USM drive if possible, and I'm not interested in anything that's not stabilized -- my hands just aren't steady enough.

In an ideal world, I'd like something on the order of 18-125 or so. The Sigma 18-125 OS HSM looked pretty good, but the reviews I've seen haven't been encouraging, particularly about its AF speed. My intent is to eventually pair it with a single longer lens (Sigma 14-400 or 150-500) or, my preference, a 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x converter. I mostly don't have space or weight available to carry more than a shorter zoom, a longer zoom, and one more prime (the 50/1.8 right now -- it's fun, it's cheap, it's pretty good. What more do I want?), so I'm willing to accept slightly lower quality images in order to manage it.

Also, I'm currently using a 20D, with the intention of moving up to 7D in a year or so, unless there's something better by then. (Or even if there is... if there is, the 7 might be cheaper!)

So, does anyone have any recommendations? Should I give up on this search, and accept something like the 17-85? (That being another option... 17-85, 70-200, 2x TC would fit my range requirements, but require more lens-swapping.)

Thanks in advance!

I was always happy with the 17-85 (and my wife, not liking the weight of the 24-105, still uses it). The newer builds (Taiwan vs Japan) seem to have, in my experience, less CA, but still have some pretty wicked distortion at the wide end. If I didn't already have the 17-85 and was looking for something in that range then I'd probably go with the newer 15-85 instead (24mm @ 35mm equiv is awesome).

EDIT: http://www.amazon.com/​dp/B002NEGTTM/ $724 @ Amazon

Jason, thanks -- I'm still hoping to find a decent option for something a little longer, but the 17-84 (or 15-85) would probably work. I'm enjoying my current range (18-250), but the 18-55 is a little short at the long end.

yeah as the other guy said if you can get your hand on a 15-85 for 700 bucks then you should totally get it. It's an awesome lens and from what i have read and seen it's much sharper than 17-85

Edit: hmm if 15mm isn't wide enough for you then maybe you should take a look at one of those ultra wides like Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22

Anytime you go from wide to tele you pay a price in sharpness. Your better bet for quality is to find a set of lenses that match the range you want to cover.

gonzogolf wrote in post #9633991
Anytime you go from wide to tele you pay a price in sharpness. Your better bet for quality is to find a set of lenses that match the range you want to cover.

This is true. And, in the long run, I'd like to buy zooms in smaller increments (10-20, 17-55, and so on). That said... most of my shooting is done outdoors, in somewhat questionable environments (high wind, for instance), and carrying everything on my back. Since this is a hobby for me, rather than a profession, I'm willing to accept a reduction in quality in order to have the range I want in a minimum of lenses. Also, I work for the state government, so I can't exactly afford to buy lots of lenses; two mid-price lenses still works out cheaper than half a dozen low price lenses.

Alternatively, if you can suggest an economical way to go from, say 18-300 (or longer) in shorter increments, I'd love to hear it.

amckenzie4 wrote in post #9634044
This is true. And, in the long run, I'd like to buy zooms in smaller increments (10-20, 17-55, and so on). That said... most of my shooting is done outdoors, in somewhat questionable environments (high wind, for instance), and carrying everything on my back. Since this is a hobby for me, rather than a profession, I'm willing to accept a reduction in quality in order to have the range I want in a minimum of lenses. Also, I work for the state government, so I can't exactly afford to buy lots of lenses; two mid-price lenses still works out cheaper than half a dozen low price lenses.

Alternatively, if you can suggest an economical way to go from, say 18-300 (or longer) in shorter increments, I'd love to hear it.

I also work for State government and am a hobbiest (former pro) so I know what you mean. I'm not all that excited about buying and selling and trading up so I waited for the quality I wanted and looked for bargains on craigslist. I have the 17-40L, the 70-200F4 IS L, and the 28-135. I'm not in love with the 28-135 buts its a good lens for the money and will do until I can get the 24-70 I really want. I was able to get both L's well below market price by being patient (and having cash available on hand). I couldnt have done that if I tried to work my way up with lesser lenses.

amckenzie4 wrote in post #9633971
Jason, thanks -- I'm still hoping to find a decent option for something a little longer, but the 17-84 (or 15-85) would probably work. I'm enjoying my current range (18-250), but the 18-55 is a little short at the long end.

If you're limiting yourself to two zooms and a prime, and are trying to do it on the cheap, which do you use more, wide-to-normal or normal-to-tele? If the former, pick up the 15-85 and a 55-250 (cheap but good image quality and they hold their value pretty well). If the latter, go with something like the 18-55 IS and a 70-200 (f/4 or f/2.8, your choice).

amckenzie4 wrote in post #9633539
So I'm starting to consider my next lens, with an intent to try to buy it this summer. I can't afford more than $1000, and more like $700 would be better. Obviously, that means I'm not getting an L, much as I'd like to, but I'd still like a good USM drive if possible, and I'm not interested in anything that's not stabilized -- my hands just aren't steady enough.

In an ideal world, I'd like something on the order of 18-125 or so. The Sigma 18-125 OS HSM looked pretty good, but the reviews I've seen haven't been encouraging, particularly about its AF speed. My intent is to eventually pair it with a single longer lens (Sigma 14-400 or 150-500) or, my preference, a 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x converter. I mostly don't have space or weight available to carry more than a shorter zoom, a longer zoom, and one more prime (the 50/1.8 right now -- it's fun, it's cheap, it's pretty good. What more do I want?), so I'm willing to accept slightly lower quality images in order to manage it.

Also, I'm currently using a 20D, with the intention of moving up to 7D in a year or so, unless there's something better by then. (Or even if there is... if there is, the 7 might be cheaper!)

So, does anyone have any recommendations? Should I give up on this search, and accept something like the 17-85? (That being another option... 17-85, 70-200, 2x TC would fit my range requirements, but require more lens-swapping.)

Thanks in advance!

Lenses are like most other gear - you get what you pay for. There are a few exceptions - the Canon 70-300 IS USM would be an 'L' lens if not for the 70-200's (look at the resolution chart lines that show the 70-300 and 70-200 plotted in different colored lines on the same chart. except at the extremes, the 70-300 is right there with the 70-200's and has an extra 100mm of reach). On the wide end. the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is just a stellar lens for the money. I had one but sold it when I got a D700 and 14-24 2.8 ) . If you have a crop body, the Tokina is the way to go for wide, hands down. (I do shoot a 17-40L on the full-frame bodies, but it's best performance is in the f/5.6-f/11 range, so not suitable for low-light like the Tokina.

Those 2 lenses (11-16mm and 70-300mm) leave you with a gap in the mid-range zoom. As I recall, the Sigma 24-70 was well-liked around here. I can't speak to the newer Canon zooms in that range, but my 24-105L that came with the 5D performs well beyond my expectations based on reviews.

My advice is to take your time and build your lens collection slowly as funds allow. You will never regret spending for top-quality glass - it's a lifetime investment and worth every penny. It's always tempting to buy less expensive lenses just to have something new to shoot with or fill a (sometimes perceived) gap in your lineup.

beepclick wrote in post #9640811
Lenses are like most other gear - you get what you pay for. There are a few exceptions - the Canon 70-300 IS USM would be an 'L' lens if not for the 70-200's (look at the resolution chart lines that show the 70-300 and 70-200 plotted in different colored lines on the same chart. except at the extremes, the 70-300 is right there with the 70-200's and has an extra 100mm of reach).
My advice is to take your time and build your lens collection slowly as funds allow. You will never regret spending for top-quality glass - it's a lifetime investment and worth every penny. It's always tempting to buy less expensive lenses just to have something new to shoot with or fill a (sometimes perceived) gap in your lineup.

the Canon 70-300 is now near "L" lens status?
looking at the "resolution chart lines" at photozone.de the cheap 55-250IS kit lens beats the 70-300 at the equivalent focal length and equivalent f numbers ! (200mm)

or looking at
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=3

you just never know what is "should be L" status anymore

Thanks guys... I've got the 18-55 and 55-250 IS, and the 55-250 gets a lot more use. I'd actually like to extend the long end a bit, but I'm figuring that will wait.

At the moment, given the responses here, I'll probably go with the 15-85 to extend the short end, and figure out what to do about the longer end later. I think ideal would probably be something like 15-85, 70-200, 100-400, but that'll take a few years. (I've got too many expensive hobbies to build up lenses quickly. Oh well... they're all fun.)

I highly consider you check out the Sigma 18-125 a little more seriously. I don't know where you read that the AF is slow, but its simply not true. In fact, its MUCH faster than the 55-250 you now have (I recently got rid of the 55-250 because its too slow for skiing pictures). Here's a link to some recent pictures I took with the 18-125:

https://photography-on-the.net …828852&highligh​t=colorado

Since you can find the 18-125 used for 1/3 the price of the 15-85, I think its a no-brainer and I don't think you'll get that much more image quality out of the 15-85. I've been super happy with 18-125, and even though I'm always looking to upgrade my lens quiver, I struggle to find something that's a better option than the quality/speed/range/pr​ice combination you get with this lens. Its a GREAT all-around lens for all kinds of shooting.

smmokan wrote in post #9651696
I highly consider you check out the Sigma 18-125 a little more seriously. I don't know where you read that the AF is slow, but its simply not true. In fact, its MUCH faster than the 55-250 you now have (I recently got rid of the 55-250 because its too slow for skiing pictures). Here's a link to some recent pictures I took with the 18-125:

https://photography-on-the.net …828852&highligh​t=colorado

Since you can find the 18-125 used for 1/3 the price of the 15-85, I think its a no-brainer and I don't think you'll get that much more image quality out of the 15-85. I've been super happy with 18-125, and even though I'm always looking to upgrade my lens quiver, I struggle to find something that's a better option than the quality/speed/range/pr​ice combination you get with this lens. Its a GREAT all-around lens for all kinds of shooting.

OK, having looked further I know where my confusion came from. First, I think I read a review for the older (non-OS non-HSM) version, and didn't realize it. Oops. Second, in at least one of the other reviews, they mention it's not a ring-type AF motor, which suggested that that first review might well be right.

I was hoping for something with full-time manual focus, but you're right -- at the price, this is a hard lens to beat! Brand new for less than half the price of the 15-85 is awfully tempting. Oh -- and the pictures are great! I especially like the black and white shot of the jump...